not leaning nor yet lying for though Mr. Cook asserts with such confidence that lying was used by Christ t is undoubtedly utterly untrue what ere was the usual table gesture then is nothing to the point or if it be it is most evident it was sitting as it is now for if it was in some places the fashion to lean or ly on beds at great banquets as some tell us yet I am sure the table gesture was not lying nor leaning neither any otherwise then as we do viz. on one elbow or both when we please the Scripture saies all along that he sate Mr. Cook greeking it out in the margent as he does viz. Mat. 26.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 14.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not help him in what he saies for if any or all of these words viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie to lean or lie down yet they all signifie to sit down also for they are all rendred by discumâ—o the plain english of which is to sit down and therefore also our translators do so English them and I would demand of him again as he does of A. R. p. 12. whether he thinks that our translators that have englisht them thus viz. he sate down and as they sate dovvn and he commanded the multitude to sit dovvn on the grasse knevv not hovv to render the originall in its proper signification as vvell as he Nor yet fiftly is the usuall manner of vvashing among us which you confesse is most fit to be used in baptism by povvring as vvell as dipping for povvring is and yet but in some cases onely as namely the vvashing the hands and in that very case but sometimes and seldome onely for mostly that is by dipping and this too but when the infusion is so large as totally to vvash the hands so vvashed a preparative to such a vvashing but a compleat true washing it is not of it self vvithout some subsequent act of rubbing vvhich you use not about infants faces but swilling in water is the most usual way of washing and a washing of itself some times and some times used without any after rubbing at all therefore this by Mr. Cooks own rule by right should be observed in baptism Sixthly whereas he argues from the custom of the present times to an exemption from the primitive customes and practise he might as well take upon him to say thus if any man contend for that faith way of worship way of baptism that was in the primitive and purest times and for a reformation of all things according to the word and example of the Churches the word speakâ— of it is true those Churches indeed worshipped thus were congregated thus ordered thus baptized thus viz. by dipping when they believed but sprinkling infants is the way and fashion now adaies and as for what was done of the Churches of old we have nothing to do with it and if any list to be contentions for it we have no such custom now nor the Churches of God! of which sure Mr. Cook cannot but be ashamed who hath covenanted to reforme according to the word â—itâ— a covenant keeper and a Custom-monger cannot possibly be denominated both of one Rantist Nay stay a little you 'l forget your own words I think anon did you not say your self even now that we must put difference between examples in substantiall matters and in matters meerly circumstantial we desire to keep as close as your selves can do to the primitive custom in things of weight and that there may be no variation from it without a violation of the will of Christ in any point that is positively commanded but I hope you will not make such a matter of moment of the manner of baptizing as if Chrst had injoined this way or that way of dispensation of it viz. dipping so strictly as that sprinkling may not be used nor yet sprinkling so as that dipping may not be used nay rather its a meer ceremony a prudentiall point in which the Church may use her discretion so as to dispense it either way as conveniency and charity may dispose her and no lesse is very well observed by Mr. Baxter p 135. Christ saith he hath not appointed the measure of water nor manner of washing no more then he hath appointed in the Lords supper what quantity of bread and wine each must take and as it would be but folly for any to think that men must needs fill themselves with bread and wine because it best signifies the fullnesse of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies our burial with Christ c. Christ told Peter that the washing of his feet was enough to clense all a little may signifie as well as much as a clod of earth doth in possession of much lands and a corn of pepper signifies our homage for much and much to such a purpose are those words of Mr. Cook p. 20. some of which having been quoted and spoken to before though not so satisfactorily but that they sway with me still I am almost loath to repeat them yet sith they be so among the other I can hardly decline the mentioning them once more by your leave in answer to the objection that a little water doth not so fitly and perfectly represent as dipping and plunging sith in the one the whole body is washed in the other the face or head only He saies first that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly that with as good reason one may plead thus that at the supper it is most convenient that every Communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as stomach and head will hold to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who saies he would endure such reasoning Thirdly These outward Elements of water bread and wine are for speciall use and to signify special things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not to represent nor so much as to take of the heart from the spirituall to the corporal thing not the washing away the filth of the body in baptism nor the glutting or satisfying of the natural Appetite in the Lords Supper is to be looked after but the washing and refreshing of the Soul which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking of a little bread and wine In circumcision a little skin was cut of You see what these worthy men say you need not be so hot as you are for the ceremony if so be you keep the substance Baptist. I have received as much as all this comes to long
it their duty as if the plain word of Christ in this point of baptism were such a nose of wax as might be moulded and metamorphosed into any model according to every mans mind and temper or quite canceld disanuld melted into no word of Christ at all at every mans haughty humour that is loath to debase himself so far as to submission to it as if my Lord and my Lady and Sir such a one had more dispensation from Christ then every ordinary body to shew for their non-obedience to that dispised dispensation some of them that are baptized under prayer and imposition of hands in order to their obtaining the spirit of promise some not having faith in the thing whether that baptism with the spirit Peter speaks of Act. 2.39 and Iohn baptist Mat. 3.11 doth belong to them or no though there promised to all that are and shall be repenting and believing baptized in water even as many as the Lord shall call whereupon the fourth principle of Christs doctrine will not down with them but when they come to that lesson in Christs ABC they must skip it and take forth and because it likes them not turn ore a new leaf to the doctrine of the supper and Church fellowship before they are prefecty past their primmer to all which confused pro and con congregations and mongrill kind of ministry and people that speak half in the language of Canaan and half of Ashdod I le here say no more but this viz. si eo quo caepistis pede perrexeritis c. proceeding as you begin and thriving to the hight of your principle throw the nations the body of Christendom which was once an uniform and more lately a triforme may in time become that which I judge also it must become for some small season before the end viz. a monstrous multiform and at last an omniform beast indeed But now as to the question whether these two for I must scarce speak of these severally but very succinctly and as it were together are of right and according to the mind and word of Christ to continue to the end in proof hereof viz. that they are I shall refer the Ranter and the rest if any other besides him do deny it but to two Scriptures which prove each of these respectively and remove some few more of such exceptions as are made against the present practise of both these two and the other two parts of Christs outward worship and service I have already spoke to and so put a period to this discourse The first is 1 Cor. 11.26 for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew or shew ye for the word may be read imperatively as well as indicatively the Lords death till he come in which words t is so clearly supposed that the ordinance of the supper is not according to Christs will to cease till the next appearing of Christ that it were to suppose a man to be void of sense and reason to undertake to make it more evident to him by framing any formall argument from the place The Second is Heb. 10.25 not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another while it s called to day and so much the more by how much you see the day approaching where it is also most clear and undeniable that t is the mind of Christ that the Saints should keep together in one body in assemblies and fellowships one with another and that his sheep should not live in such a stragling state and condition such single fellowship between God and themselves onely as is now pleaded for by many that fall off from following or frequenting any societies at all and forsake such truly constituted Churches as they were once added to which argues apparently that as we say of sheep when they keep not with the flock but are found squotting up and down here and there by themselves alone and aloof from their fellows that some ill disease and deadly distemper is growing upon them but that they should keep together in flocks every sheep following the footsteps of the flock which name of flock is that by which Christ often denominates his sheep as Luke 12.32 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 to shew that he expects to find them in flocks and fellowships at his coming Ranterist Till he come is no other then till his coming into men by his spirit or in such full measures and manifestations of his spirit into mens hearts that they may be able to live up with him in spirit so as no more to need such lower helps from outward administrations such carnal ordinances such visible representations of Christ to the bodily eyes such legal rites and meer bodily exercises as baptism and fellowship together in breaking of bread are These things were used indeed and ordained as milk for babes in that meer nonage and infancy of the Church when Christ was known as a child as it were but now we are to know Christ as a man grown in us risen up in us aad to have fellowship with him more immediately and intimately in spirit and not in such external and meer fleshly formes we are to live higher then on such low weak empty elements and beggarly rudiments as these which were used and imposed for a time to resemble Christ to us from without but must be left when once Christ the substance that was set forth by those shadows is come into us Christ is now in the Saints the hope of glory Col. 1.27 So Heb. 6.1.2 leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on to perfection not laying again c. you see we must mind higher matters leaving these which were as a dark glasse or shadowy dispensation through which the Church once did see Christ and knew him after the flesh but now face to face 1 Cor. 13.12 and henceforth know we him so no more 2 Cor. 5.16 when I was a child saies Paul I spake as a child and did as a child and thought as a child but when I became a man I put away childish things 1 Cor. 13.11 every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousnesse for he is a babe but strong meat belongeth to them that are full of growth who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil Heb. 5.14 that which is perfect is now come and therefore what is imperfect and in part only as ordinances are must be done away and as for gathering of congregations peoples assembling together in the Church bodies to preach pray break bread to build up one ano in the faith search the Scripture c. t was a way of God for mens edification till Christ the morning star shined to which men did well to take heed as unto a light that shined in a dark place but now the day dawnes and the day starre arises in mens hearts yea the day breaks and
it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fimbria de textu by the list and selvedg you may judge how deeply the cloth is died in blood but alas what 's all this to a sight of the cloth it self what a small shew of blood is here to that of the WWWoman which Iohn saw and he is blind that sees not now sitting upon a Scarlet coloured beast araid her self also in scarlet i. e. died red red to drunkeness with the blood of the Saints and the blood of the Martyrs of Iesus spiritually called BBBabilon and Egypt for cruelty to Gods Israel raigning in wrath and rigor in three PPParts or Tyrannical formes of governmet ore Kings people deceiving all nations to drink so deep of the wine of the wrath of the her fornications as to be drunk with wrath against the Saints and in their drunkeness at HHHer will to push and gore them with ten horns to execute cruelty on them for truths sake and try them to the tyring of themselves with cruel mockings scourgings bonds imprisonments stonings sawings burnings hangings headings and with such geer as Feat himself as if by his own pen he would prove the PPPriesthood and their people to be men of blood confesses that the Anti-baptists have inflicted upon the Anabaptists p 68.182 183. and for which they had no warrant from Christ viz. drowning racking fleaing stabbing tearing with hot pincers and to use his own phrase the severest punishments they could devise And finally in which WWWoman is found the blood not only of persecution of Martyrs and Prophets but of war also and of all them that are slain upon earth for all this verily will be seen at last to ly hid in her Scholastick skirts Rev. 18.24 As for the Pope and his Clergy fas est vel ab hoste doceri both by Featley and others t is asserted and that truly that the devil by him and his adherents hath acted such bloody persecutions against the true servants of God and maintainers of the Orthodox faith as together with such other exploits of Satan and his agents as he there names hath been the ruine of Millions of men all which is very true of them yet not onely the Italian Seminaries but our Brittish Seminaries also have been such stirrers up of strife between and within these nations about worships Governments Covenants for the same form and faith to the shedding of the blood of thousands in war and such sowers cum sanguine Martyrum semine Ecclesiae that though I know the wrath of the CCClergy hath wrought his praise and his peoples peace so far that he will restrain the remainder thereof Yet I can more bewail then either you avoid or I avert that blood which the Lord that is righteous in judging thus will give you to drink except you repent of your cruelty to consciences and to the carcasses of men for their conscience sakes and your pittilesse inexorablenesse towards others in the self same cases wherein you cryed quarter your selves for you cryed out for liberty still when you were under the Tyrannicall domination one over anothers faith the Bishops when they groaned under the Pope and the Presbyters when under the Prelates but when you crept out of the Captivating clutohes and got quit from the Clerical cruelty of each other you curb'd the poor people still and chaltered them up sub paena to your own new found postures and Impenitent purses as mercilessly almost as before and have lent them but little better liberty then the horse hath when his loadsome log is taken off his leg that he may be rid to a Jade another way for what great difference between Rome and Canterbury save that of old our Pope lived further off us and of late we were bejaded with one neerer home Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius Orbis Papam saies Pope Vrban the second of Anselmus Arch-bishop of Canterbury 1099. when he set him at his right foot in a generall Councell i. e. we must count upon him in our world as it were some distinct Pope of another world and so it fell out to be too at last a Pope is but a Pope at one place and so he is as well at another and what amendment of the matter to have one man that Lorded it and Pater Nosterd over the faith and conscience of Gods people removed and Classes or Assemblies of them stablished in his stead yet thus for ought I see it should have been if the Trojane Horse of the Scotch Presbytery had taken place here which men were mad being betwatled by subtle Sinons Synodicall pretences to hale in till some more wise amd quick of hearing then the rest heard a noise of Arms more then Arguments clang in the belly of it and so not believing it to be such a Donum divinum such a Ius divinum as was pretended but a thing that stood Iure Hominico Daemonico rather then Dominico could never since be charmd by any Sinonical or Sinodical solicitation whatsoever to admit it into English borders Blessed be God that curst creatures begin now to have short horns that the Trebble Terrible one the Trebble TTTribe is brought so low that those that would have made a man an offender for a word yea for THE WORD spoken against their word and laid a snare for such as reproved them in the gate and turned aside the just for a thing of nought and were barbarously bitterly bloodily bent against the poor among men that rejoice in the holy one of Israel are disappointed else we should have seen it seems by Featley and Gangraena that not onely Pope Boniface and Bâ—shop Bonner but the bonny Bishops of the two latter broods P and P are imbrued also not a little with the blood of Christ whom they crucify throw the sides of his Saints for Sectarizing after him from themselves witnesse their bloody Tenet of persecution by prisons fines confiscations banishments c. for cause of conscience witnesse their constant crying out to Pilate i. e. the Governours and Pilots of such States where Christ would but live quietly beside them in his poor disciples away with him away with him crucify him yea though the Governour strive with the chief Priests as Pilate did to rescue him as finding no fault in him but though they wash themselves with Nitre and take them much sope yet this iniquity into which Smectimnuus degenerated since groanes for liberty of conscience came out of his own mouth is marked before me saith the Lord yea had you been sprinkled with holy water it self yet except you repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins through his blood which so doing saves even them that shed it you are not onely by eating and drinking unworthily i. e. disorderly at the Supper which baptism must precede in Gospel reformation but also by your cruelty to his disciples whom you would have crusht if
children but onely were pricked at the heart upon some measure of conviction that the person whom they had crucified was the Lord of life which thing the very Devils believe and tremble at for in order unto the begetting of that saving faith which yet they had not he spake these words of incouragement and exhortation to them and this to the contradiction of Mr. Vahan whod ag'd in an Argument by the head and shoulders from this place at the Ashford disputation was ingenuously acknowledged by Mr. Prig. Nor Secondly doth Peter make the promise any otherwise to them and their children then he doth to all others in the world i. e. on condition of their comming in at Gods call tis saies he to you and to your children and to them that are far off i. e. all manner of persons even so many in all nations and generations as the Lord our God shall call i. e. as are prevailed with to come when God calls them which to be the sense of this place is further illustrated by that pararel place of Paul Heb. 9.15 where he saies thus viz. they that are called received the promise of eternall inheritance Nor Thirdly when the parents did believe and were baptized were any of their infants baptized with them as they must have been had that promise been to their infants as well as to themselves on that single account of being their seed for recording how many were baptized at that time he concludes them under such a term as excludes the infants from that daies work while he saies thus as many meaning no more then those for else he deceives us utterly in his Relation as gladly received the word this infants could not do were then baptized which number as they are recorded to be about 3000 might in likelihood have amounted to three times 3000 if all the infants of all those had been dipped also Fourthly nor were there any more inchurched that day among the rest but such as gladly receiving the word were then and thereupon baptized for of these onely it is said and not of infants they continued together in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers but all their infants must have bin inchurched also as well as they if equally with their parents and by vertue of the same promise the right of Church-membership had belonged to them Besides Fiftly It crosseth the current of all other Scripture to put such male-construction upon this for that the promise of old I mean the old promise of the Law which was of the earthly Canaan and but a type of this did appertain unto a fleshly holy seed I grant but that the new covenant or Gospel promise is made to any mans fleshly seed as such so that thereupon we may baptize them in token of it before they are called to profess faith in Christ is a thing which I confess I found in the common high way when I look'd not after it but since I searched narrowly for it I could never see it Sure I am the Scripture holds forth no other seed of Abraham himself to be heirs with him of the heavenly Canaan but his spiritual sead i. e. believers that do his works nor doth it own any but these to the right of membership and fellowship in his family i. e. the now visible Church for the visible Church is Abrahams family in all ages as well under the Gospel as under the Law Abrahams house i. e. the visible church as t is under the Gospel is much altered from that it was under the law yea so differently is it constituted and totally translated from its Mosaical form that it is even turned up side down and in a manner nothing remains the same it then was as the covenant is not the same with that of that of the law so neither is any thing else that appertains to it but every thing at it were divers from the other and no way answerable save as the Antitype is answerable to the Type for neither is there the the same Mediator nor the same Priest-hood nor the same Law for the Priesthood being changed there must of necessity be also a change of the Law Heb. 7.12 That being the Law of a Carnal Commandment only in the observation of which perfection was not to the conscience for it sanctified only to purifying of the flesh i. e. from those outward fleshly not morall uncleannesses and therefore with the ordinances thereof called carnall Heb. 9.9 this the power of an endless life i. e. available not to that temporal typical cleansing purifying and pardon only for the procuring of a Temporal life or well being in Canaan but to the obtaining of an eternal life by procuring remission of moral pollution Heb. 9.13 24. nor is there now the same Lawgiver under God that then was that being Moses the Servant who yet was faithful to him that appointed him in all his house the fleshly Israel for a Testimony of those things which were to be spoken after this Christ the son who was worthy of more glory than Moses and is now over his own house whose house we are that believe to the end Heb. 3.2.3.5.6 Nor yet the same Promises that being of of an earthly this of an heavenly inheritance nor yet the same holy Nation holy people holy seed to which the promises are made that being the typical promised seed Isaac and his posterity this the true promised seed i. e. Christ and his seed i. e. all the Saints that are born of God by faith in him Gal. 3.16 to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and unto thy seed which is Christ nor the same ordinances and administrations signing the inheritance those being circumcision the Passeover these baptism in water and the Supper nor lastly the same subjects for those ordinances those being by nature Iewes or at least by profession and their Male seed only as to the one Male and Female as to the other and that whether believing yea or no these nor Iewes nor Gentiles by nature only but all persons whether Iews or Gentiles Males or Females yet only as believing for verily so far are the natural posterity of believing Gentiles as such and as yet not professing to believe themselves from being heirs apparent with Abraham of Gospel promises and priviledges and from title to the Gospel ordinances that sign them and from being holy ones by birth as the Iew once was and as Mr. Blake contends for it that these are and from the repute of Abrahams seed in the sense of the Gospel that even Abrahams own natural seed as such only are not at all his seed in this sence at this day nor at all holy with that kind of birth holiness they once had for that is ended and abolished in Christ crucified nor entailed as heirs of that Canaan without faith and repentance in their own
upon denial of any sufficience in all your former proofs to make it appear is at last undertaken by you to be made sufficiently appear in this last Syllogism which if it do not make it as sufficiently appear concerning unbelievers infants considering your own matter used to prove the Minor as concerning the other then my candle is quite gone out but if it do then surely the very light that is in you is utter darkness In the next place you dispute upon us by way of Question and Interogation thus Disputation 1. How do those men and women that are baptized at years make it appear to those that baptize them that they have faith and the holy spirit If it be answered by their profession 3. Whether their profession since it is possible they may lie can make it appear infallibly If it be answered no. 3. What judgement then can they that baptize them passe upon them to be the subjects of baptism as they call them whether any other than that of charity If it be answered that of charity T is replyed then let them passe the same judgement upon those little infants of whom in general the Scripture hath given so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and the controversie between us is at an end Disproof First whereas you quere how those we baptize make it appear that they have the holy spirit before we baptize them I answer I know no necessity of making ir appear that persons have the holy spirit before their admission to baptism for though we find once that God Anticipated his promise and gave the holy spirit before baptism Act. 10. yet I know not nor yet do you any promise there is whereupon in an ordinary way we can expect it of receiving the holy spirit of promise till after faith repentance obedience turning to God baptism and asking of it Prov. 1.23 Iohn 7.38.39 Act. 2.38 chap. 5.32 chap. 8.16.19 Luke 11.13 Ephes. 1.13 Secondly as for the holy spirits appearing infallibly I answer first it may possibly appear infallibly to be in some in whom it is as Act. 10.44.45.46.47 by sundry fruits and manifestations of it which may warrant us to say God is in them of a truth Mat. 7.16.17.18.19.20 1 Cor. 12.7 1 Cor. 14.25 It may I say undoubtedly appear to be in men and women but cannot and way at all so appear to be in infants if we may believe your selves who tell us p 8. that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith and p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered and that no judgement of science can be past upon infants till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made and that unlesse it could be certainly presumd what children have it what have not there can be no conclusion made And howbeit I am not of the seekers mind that an appearance of the holy spirit in any person before baptism in water doth exempt him from it but am well assured that it strictly rather ingages him to it or else Peter could not have commanded them in name of the Lord to be baptiz'd in water upon whom the holy spirit fell Act. 10. but must rather have forbid it as frustraneous and altogether superfluous yet that the spirit should appear at all to be in men in order to their baptism much more that it should appear infallibly to be in them is a matter of no necessity that I know of sith in the word it s not required that persons be baptized with the holy spirit first in order to their baptism with water but that they be first baptized in water in order to their receiving the holy spirit Act. 2.38 for the baptism of the spirit as t is promised onely to believers so we believing obeying the Gospel and asking the holy spirit t is signified to us as one thing that shall be given among the rest in that very way of water baptism so that its enough for us as to the baptism of persons to take cognizance of it that they believe and repent which things though they cannot do without the spirit performing its common office of striving drawing moving inlightning convicting of good and evil sin and righteousness c. in all which it acts to the whole world Gen. 6. Rom. 1.20 Iohn 16.8 Act. 7.51 yet they not only may do them without but must do them before they can by promise expect the spirit in those special respects wherein he is promised to believers and calld that holy spirit of promise And now because you ask how we know they have faith whom we baptize I answer by their profession which gives though not infallibility yet by your leave for all your preferring the Eulogies given in general to all infants above any mans personal profession for himself in this case a far clearer and better grounded judgement of charity concerning them that they have faith then that you have concerning infants which at best is but charity mistaken for cruelty whilst it takes that to be in infants and that on pain of their damnation too they dying without it viz. believing see p. 8. which infants are utterly uncapable of and whilst it takes even that too without which it holds no infants are saved to be in but very few infants viz. believers infants onely and so damns all other dying infants which are far more innumerable and as capable of faith and as little barring themby actual sin from salvation and as little deserving damnation as the other so that whether we or you plead the cause of innocent infants let the world judge And whereas you suppose that because in charity onely we judge men and women to believe therefore we passe no other judgement then that of charity onely on them to be the subjects of baptism herein you grossely mistake our grounds of baptizing for thought that of charity onely is the judgement whereby we judge them to be believers yet that is not the onely judgement whereby we judge them to be the subjects of baptism but as to that we go upon a judgement of certainty and infallibility also for though it be not infallible to us that every one that professes to believe doth as truly believe as he professes yet this is infallible to us concerning him that professes viz. both that he professes and also that professing to believe with all his heart so that we in charity may judge him so to do whether he lie or no he is by the rule of the word quoad nos a warrantable undoubted and as no infant is infallible subject of baptism for the word requires us to baptize such as after our preaching the faith to them do truly professe to believe whether they believe as truly as they profest or no for that indeed is not so infallible to
respected in baptism for not onely purgation but also mortification and the dying of the old man is proposed there c. And of spiritual circumcision Paul maketh two parts saith Zanchee the first he calleth buriall with Christ the other resurrection with him and of both these he maketh baptism the sign c. Neverthelesse our above named opposers will at no hand give way that there should be any representation or resemblance made in baptism of these two things which are the prime significations of it by putting under water and plucking out again yea they seem to chide with their several Antagonists A. R. and C. B. for offering once to urge that the outward sign ought to hold analogy or proportion with the thing signified in that particular A proportion between the sign and these things signified viz. a death burial and resurrection Mr. Blake grants there is in our way of baptism by dipping but that there need be or should be so by institution this he heares not of with patience no nor Mr. Cook neither But if it please you to have patience with me so long sith those two are the maine men that beside the Doctor whose repulse is not worth a rush so mainly oppose our Argument from Rom. 6. Col. 2. I le take the paines to transcribe their several replies and then see what strength there is in all that they say to the contrary Mr. Cooks defence is as followes What you go about to gather saith he from Col. 2.12 Rom. 6.4 I know not unlesse this that as Christ was buried abode in the grave three daies and then rose again So your party baptized must be put under the water abide there some considerable time and then come up again for if you presse a similitude of Christs death in going down into the water and of his resurrection or comming up out of the water why not also of his abode three daies by abiding three daies or some considerable time under the water which will make bad work neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scriptures I would demand two Questions saith he 1. How you gather from these places a dipping of the whole man over head and under water and that a similitude of Christs death burial and rising again to be represented by dipping in water is signified here these Scriptures shew indeed that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with him in his death and resurrection by which we are dead to sin and raised again to holinesse but if you will presse hence a resurrection by our descending into abiding in and comming up out of the water take heed least you be one of those which adde to Gods word least he reprove you as a lyar and adde unto you the plagues written in his book for I know no word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implyed much lesse expressed Besides if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by descension into and ascension out of the water you must urge also burial which is principally there expressed by the biding of the whole man head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three daies burial which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning 2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures those few that were in the Ark only excepted were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion not by dipping so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping and to the preservation of Noah and those that were with him in the Ark on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptism as its Anti-type Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16 17. And then again p. 19 20.21 he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large and to prove that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things that are signified therby then it may be as well nay must be rather by washing pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water sprinkling and infusion being as if not more agreeable to the nature and instiâ—ution of baptism then dipping or immersion for as the word used i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing so the thing represented signifyed and sealed saith he in the wonted implicit phrase in baptism is a washing 1 Cor. 6.11 ye are washed c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10.22 t is a cleansing and purging 1 John 1.7 blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9.14 blood of Christ shall purge your conscience which things viz. washing clensing purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping and though it were granted saith he that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water and being dipt therein that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now then the examples of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying but it may be objected saith he that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there the face or head onely I answer first saith he the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly with as good reason one may plead thus that t is most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as his stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who would endure saith he such reasoning These outward elements of water bread and wine are for spiritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing yea the spirituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism viz. The application of Christs blood and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring sprinkling and that probably if not certainly with allusion to
Christ if you can tell where for the exemplifying of your baby Baptizing Rantizing And further had you chanced to be born and bred in such Hot Countryes where dipping is the Custome as you happened to come out in such a cold Climate where for fear of cold more then any thing else that is to warrant such a practise the custome is onely to sprinkle I appeal to your own consciences whether such a thing as rantizing would once have come into your minds upon the single search of those Scriptures Thirdly whereas you talk of dipping as the way of baptizing in those Hot Countreyes both Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook also p. 15. assert that In those Hot Countrys waters for dipping were scarce and rare and could not be had in some places in a great distance and therefore if sprinkling or pouring only must be used in some Countreyes and dipping in other some in all reason and likelyhood if any places may be exempted from dipping sprinkling should be dispensed with rather in those Hot Countreyes to save people the paines of travelling so far as they must do for dipping where the waters were at such a distance from them and dipping rather appointed to be used in these Countreyes where the Service as it is not much more tedious then it was in Iudaea at least in coldest and sharpest seasons so may it be moderated as touching the tediousness therof by being done and dispatcht through the vicinity of waters here not very far off from our own doors Fourthly even those Hot Countryes of Iudaea Rome and the Regions therabout were not within the Torrid Zone nor so hot but that if cold water would have quenched love to Christ and pretence of danger discharg'd from duty they might have been as shy as your selves of being dipped in water for even there the waters saies Mr. Blakâ— was over cold for such a service and also this Colder Countrey as you count it of England is under the Tepid Zone and not so exceeding cold in summer Seasons but that dipping may be as well digested then as in Iudaea or as it is by such as then washed themselves in way of pleasure This Hot Countrey catch therefore is an Argument that flashes fairly in the pan and makes a report with a powder for almost every one le ts fly at us out of this Engine but verily it is an empty Engine a piece discharged to keep Cold Countrey Christians from killing themselves with Christs service but charged with no great store of truth nor sense nor reason wherefore Sirs if the coldnesse of this service of total dipping do cause you to stand so coldly affected toward it as not to submit to it here in England unlesse the Climate were a little hotter yet at least let us who by dipping as weak folks as your selves in winter have experienced how tollerable it is through Christ strengthening us for Christs sake to be with Paul in cold and perills of water so you suppose t is to be dipped as well as in other hardship Let us I say who are willing to venture on the way of dipping proceed without your offence and as for us we shall in order to your good be so far offended at your neglect of it as uncessantly to call upon you and yours to repent and be so baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Iesus for the remission of sins till you can shew us as I am sure you never will his letters pattents for your Exemption Rantist But Mr. Cook forces this Argument further yet and tells you that their custome of being dipped enforces us to the same no more then the Gesture that Christ used at Supper binds us to the same you are willing to overlook that perhaps having little or nothing to say to it but I pray take all along with you as you go and be not so partial as to pick out what is easiest to be answered and let the rest alone Baptist. As for that poor piece of sustenance that Mr. Cook affords beyond all the rest toward the further improvement of this exception which from the heaâ— of those Countryes you make against the Example of dipping in the primitive times it hath no substance in it whereupon your cause can possibly live for though he saies their going into the water then and being dipped therein no more inforces us to observe the same in baptism then the Example of Christ and his Apostles gesture in the Supper which was leaning and partly lying ties us to the same but as the table Gesture of sitting now in use among us is fittest for the Supper so the usuall way of washing which is by powring as well as dipping is fittest to be observed in baptism Yet I desire Mr. Cook to consider these things First that if the priesthood had but any such clear example of their being sprinkled in the primitive times as we have of their going down into the water and being dipt there they would inforce us with more then Arguments to an observation of the very same yea how hardly have we escaped being inforced by them from dipping though they have not an inch of instance for their sprinkling Secondly there is a vast difference between an example in point of circumstance and meer gesture about a service and the very substance of the service it self variation from Christs example in the first is naught enough but in the other worse then nothing yet even such is your degeneration from dipping to sprinkling from baptism to rantism viz. not a variation from some certain circumstance in that one matter of baptism but a variation from the ordinanance it self a doing not what Christ did in another manner but a doing of another matter then Christ did dipping with the face upward and with the face downward is the same thing still though in a different gesture and to satisfie Mr. Simpson who in his letter scarce thinks it a burial in baptism if the face be not upward and the water powred on as the earth is on them we burie with their faces upward whether this way or that way is not so much material if there be a total covering and overwhelming with either earth or water it is a true burial still notwithstanding but dipping and sprinkling are two such diverse things that the first is both baptism and burial in baptism but the second neither the one nor yet the other Thirdly and yet the gesture is so faâ— to be heeded in every ordinance that if we know any one to be better then another and more assuredly to be that which Christ and his disciples used I suppose we are bound if not of necessity not to decline it to follow any other mens fashions whatsoever and I believe Mr. Cook did think it worth contending for to exchange the Bishops kneeling at supper for one more suitable to that Christ used Fourthly the gesture Christ used was the same as ours i. e. sitting
bare circumstance in the ceremony we differ in but we differ in the substance i. e. in the ceremony or rite it self which you have changed having no parts at all of the rite in your wrong practise which your own party divide the rite of baptism into Ritus in baptismo est triplex saies Tilenus the rite or ceremony in baptism is threefold immersion or plunging into the water continuance for a time under the water resurrection out of the water in resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection and ours in him Which of all these three are to be found in your aspersion unlesse you will all own Featleys fetch for good resemblance viz. the dipping burial and resurrection of the ministers hand when he sprinkles the infants face sith therefore you have broken the law of Christ the Son that Law-giver and Prophet whose voice we are to hear in all that he saith and changed the ordinances so far as to turn his baptism into rantism you will as they that despised the Law of Moses the servant be cut off from his people Acts 3. Heb. 2. Heb. 10. sith you make void his plain word under pittiful pretences viz. the coldnesse the tediousnesse the danger of dipping in these climates as if the reason for dipping were proper onely to Hot Countries no marvel if such as see from under the vail of priestly pretence that hath darkned the whole earth are hot to have a recovery to the truth specially since it is a truth not unknown to us nor yet so trivial truâ—h as these that inck is made of gum and paper made of rags nor yet such a Scripture truth as is not material to be known as that about Pauls cloak and parchments and that Abiam was the Son of Sacar as Mr. Baxter bables p. 218.219 a sign that paper is made of rags by his wasting it in such toies for these we are not so strictly held to reveal but a truth of such worth that it is to be preferred before that truthles peace he pleads for the disturbance of which he calls hell p. 2â—0 saying We are little beholding to those men that would have turned the Church into hell i. e. privation of peace rather then silence their supposed truthes To whom I say If that be hell which priests so call Then truths true friends are hell-hounds all But a word to Mr. Baxter out of Mr. Baxter p. 218. in vindication of our loathnesse to betray this truth by our silence viz. The Law commandeth us to do our duty to preserve truth from being lost so that if truth be lost while I do my duty t is no sinne of mine if it be not lost while I neglect my duty it is yet my sin God disposeth of events not we therfore what consequences may be occasioned sith they are not caused by preaching the Gospel I may not for fear of them nor shall shun to declare the whole counsel of God I know necessity and charity do dispense with circumstances in ceremonies and with ceremonies or ordinances themselves of Gods own institution sometimes But first it is with the omission onely but not with the alteration of them into other if a man converted on his death bed or on the ladder when ready to be executed as the thief was upon the crosse be willing to be baptized if it may be but cannot in charity he may and of necessity he must be dispenst with dying unbaptized in such a case but no man may dispense another thing to him i. e. Rantism in its room and stead no more then he may give other things then bread and wine in the supper to a stomach too weak to bear either of those for that is to take upon him to make another institution and Gods leave man never had so to do Secondly it must be by leave from the Lord implicit or expresse upon which onely we can ground the lawfulnesse of omission and necessity and charity but not charity mistaken are leave enough no doubt to let a lone though in no wise to alter what ever he ordaines as when it neither can be at all nor can be done conveniently nor possibly without killing men indeed whereupon we find no fault found with Israel in the wildernesse for forbearing to circumcise 40 years together it is like least it should hinder them in their warfare but sure I am they should have heard of it from the Lord if to forgo the sorenesse of that circumcision they had circumcised i. e. cut off onely the hair of their heads Let the Ranter therefore shew us Gods word for his omission and the Rantizer for his mutation of Baptism and we will fall in with either as we see it evidenced therein Rantist If you do but mind the Testimonies I cited out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter and what you hinted your self as written to you in private you cannot chuse but see word enough for our use of sprinkling though dipping were used never so in the primitive times for they tell you but me thinks you do not much mind it that the Scripture requires not totall washing that Christ appoints not the measure of water nor manner of washing more then the measure of bread and wine in the Supper he hath left it ad libitum and as they say very well the whole vertue of the Sacrament lying in signification per ablutionem it matters no more Quantum quisque abluatur then quantum quisque comedat and as it is folly to think that men must eat in the Supper as long as head and stomach will hold because it signifyes the souls refreshment so that in baâ—tism we must be washed all over because it best signifies our burial with Christ a little signifies as well as much a clod of earth a pepper corn a little skin cut off in circumcision so by a little bread and wine eat and drank and by a little water sprinkled may the refreshment of the soul be represented Baptist. That which best signifyes is best to be done and forasmuch as tâ—at best signifies that both signifies and resembles the quantity of the Element that manner of action which best resembles is best and fittest to be used undoubtedly in baptism in which Christ hath undoubtedly appointed what is best whereupon if Mr. Baxter grant or if he do not he cannot deny that overwhelming best resembles and consequently best signifyes our burial with Christ he never will give good reason whilest he breathes upon this earth why washing all over as he calls it should not be used as for that reason that is given against it here by himself at second hand and by Mr. Cook at first of whom he borrowes well nigh every bit of what he saies against a totall dipping save only his fearful fairfowl flourishes upon it viz. First that the measure of water and manner of washing the whole body is not appointed Secondly That then in the Supper there must be a eating to the
full Thirdly That a little may serve as well as much there 's little weight as far as I see in any part of it The first hath so little reason that it hath no truth in it for Christ hath appointed vertually in some measure the measure of water in that his very appointment of the manner of washing in the way of a totall overwhelming as appears before in the â—ignification of the word Baptize which signifies a dipping or overwhelming of that subject that is particularly denominated to be washed by it whether it be the whole man or but a part of him if the tip of the finger only be said truly to be baptized then that tip must be totally washed if the hands be denominated without a figure to be baptized then the hands at least are totally washed if the man be the subject properly predicated to be baptized then that man also must be totally washed but in Scripture the man is required and appointed to be baptized to the performance of which such a measure of water is consequently appointed as may be at least sufficient for that end and required it is that it be neither so little that it cannot totally wash him nor yet so much as must necessarily drowne him as an ocean would but a proportion suitable to that purpose To the second I might answer that there is not altogether the same reason for such a totall filling and swilling in the Supper as there is for a totall swilling in baptism sith the main and radical matter that is to be resembled in baptism is Christs death burial and resurrection but the radical thing that is resembled in that action of our eating and drinking in the Supper is our faith whereby we feed upon Christ and accept him each to our selves as our Redeemer without which that he is a Redeemer will do us no good for faith is the appropriating of of Christ the bread of life each to our selves who is set before us in common in the whole loaf and as it will do a man no good to have bread and wine before him which are elements most refreshing unless he take them and eat and drink so neither us to see a Saviour set before us unlesse we take of his salvation to our selves This is that which is most immediately signifyed and particularly represented in the Supper which businesse of bare taking Christ Jesus to our selves by faith is represented truly in taking never so little but a burial and resurrection not in never so little water a few crumbs of bread and sips of wine taken do repâ—esent a taking of Christ in the Supper but not so a few drops of water tiffled upon the face Christs death buriall and resurrection and fith you say the refreshment of the soul by the fullnesse is represented in our eating and drinking in the Supper and yet that eating and drinking a little bread and wine not to fulness is enough in the supper to represent that and so why not a little water not deep enough to dip and bury in applyed to us in baptism the burial and resurrection of Christ I might answer that the refreshment of the soul by Christ is represented rather in the elements then in the action of either eating or drinking in the supper by the bread which is a strengthner of mans heart and wine which is for them of a sorrowful heart and therefore there might not be altogether the need of representing our refreshing by eating and drinking much at least so much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Ba. talkes of viz. to the filling and glutting of our selves to the top as long as head and stomack will hold that action would yield but a small resemblance of a refreshment and were enough to make a sound man sick but there is a reason in all things and a difference as we say between staring and stark mad thus I say I might answer and cut off your arguing for analogy and a small portion of the element in baptism as well as in the supper between which there is not fully the same reason But verily I am of your mind that a refreshment of the soul by the fulnesse of Christ is very fit to be resembled and represented by the quantity of the elements as well as by the elements in the supper also and yet am I not of your mind that so little as you ordinarily use is so very fit as you dream it is to represent it but of the mind rather that as you are in your baptism viz. not out of your element as you should be if you were baptized in truth by submersion or putting clear under water but out in your element rather i. e. in the measure of your water which is not adaequate to the true manner of washing so you are also in the supper too poor in your provision of elements for that which is the true and full purport of that sacred service you have got together many littles to prove that so little element as you use both in baptism and supper may do as well if not better then more all which are very little to the purpose a little may signifie as well as much saies Mr. Baxter a clod of earth a pepper corn but what then we are to signifie with resemblance or else a sacrament is no sacrament saith Austin but saies Mr. Cook a little may resemble the washing and the refreshing of the soul may well be resembled by a sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking a little bread and wine in circumcision a little skinne was cut off what then First it was as much as God required to be cut off Secondly it was so much as made it circumcision Thirdly as much as truly and clearly resembled the circumcision of the heart which is signified but such is not for all Mr. Cooks conceit that little water you sprinkle nor yet that little becad and wine you distribute it is neither so much as represents clearly the things signified which are not onely the clearing of the soul by Christs dainties in the supper which should be resembled by eating and drinking it but some more chearing and refreshing of the body then that which is commonly in your communions But alas the burial and resurrection of Christ in baptism should be resembled by submersion and emersion and therefore to answer Mr. Cook in the words of Mr. Cook the outward elements of water bread and wine are for spirritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things but what I wonder if there be not as I am sure in Rantism there is not the truth of baptism the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace so far then it seemes it must be and that is enough to confute Mr. Cooks Rantism for it represents not the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to
e. we men can minister no further to you being but messengers from him to do that but he shall baptize you with the holy spirit and fire Mat. 3.11 so see how Iohn peculiarly indigitates him Iohn 11.33 as in sole right to that service the same is he that baptizeth with the holy spirit and as Iohn did baptize onely with water so with no more then water did all the disciples and Apostles after Christ crucified baptize not with the spirit for that Christ onely did in their due dispensation of the other they had no promise any where that I find of such a priviledge I find it promised to them Act. 1.9 that they should be baptized with the holy spirit not many daies thence but never that they should baptize with the holy spirit Christ keeps himself the right of powring that out upon all men as they turn to him Proverbs 22.23 I am ashamed therefore at the cloudy conceits of such as say that was not water baptism with which Christ commanded his disciples to baptize the Nations after teaching Mat. 28.18 19.20 And the rather because Secondly it s as clear as if it were written with a beam of the sun that what was done most immediately and more remotely by the disciples in obedience to that commssion when once power was come on them to go forth till when they were to stay and forbear their testimony Luke 24.47.48.49 Act. 1.8 which was no more but teaching and as to baptism the baptizing in water for Act. 2.38 Peter promised them indeed that they should receive or be baptized with the holy spirit in case they would repent and be baptized but the baptism he prest them to and upon which he promises the other cannot be that of the spirit but water unlesse wee l feign Peter to have spoken such Tautological non-sense as this to them viz. repent and be baptized with the spirit and then you shall receive the holy spirit and as the beginning of their execution of Christs commission was no other save what they promised as to their dispensation of baptism then teaching and baptizing in water and after praying for the Spirit with laying on hands so were all their proceedings suitable hereunto for he is fast asleep with his eyes open resolving to see and say nothing in favor of water baptism but to cry it down against light that shall say that those which are said to be baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus Act. 8.12.16 Act. 19.5 and to be commanded by Peter to be baptized in the name of the Lord Act. 10.48 were baptized by Philip Paul Peter or any man else with any more then meer water baptism for the baptism with the spirit is in all these places spoken of as received from God in way of laying on of hands in prayer and preaching besides the other as either preceding or succeeding it as the Lord pleased in his own season to dispense it Ranterist If it were water baptism that was meant Mat. 28. and that was practised by Peter Philip Paul and the other primitive ministers yet that water baptism was no other then the baptism of John onely and not of Christ that was ere long to cease and to vanish before the baptism of Christ i. e. that of the spirit when that should come in and not to continue as a standing dispensation to be used and practised to the end John the Baptist Mat. 3.11 opposeth his baptism to the baptism of Christ which could not have been done if the baptism with water was an inseparable companion of Christs doctrine how could John say verily I baptize you with water but he shall baptize you with the holy spirit if Christ had been commanded to baptize with water as well as Iohn if so the words of John would have run thus verily I baptize you with onely water but he shall baptize you also with the holy spirit Baptist. Here again I cannot but professe my to be ashamed at this curious conceit of yours who distinguish the baptism of water and that of the spirit into Iohns and Christs and oppose these two one to the other as if the one of these were destructive to the other as if that of Iohns were his own and none of Christs when yet that is so undeniably evident as it is that this of water as well as that of the spirit was given out by Châ—ist himself so plainly as a part of his will and testament to abide together with teaching believing and repenting to the worlds end You talk as if the baptism with water was an ordinance of Iohn a baptism of which not Christ but Iohn was under God the main Moderator pro tempore while it stood in force as if Iohn had instituted and ordained it and Christ put an end to it as if Iohn were the Author of it and Christ the finisher to cause it to cease whereas nothing is more clear then that Christ himself was both the Author and finisher of it in another sense i. e. he that first ordained and appointed it to be administred even by Iohn himself and after Iohns decease yea and after his own death and resurrection too gave order to its continuance and for the observation of it among all Nations now as thitherto it had been observed only among the Jews I say its clear that the baptism with water was Christs baptism and howbeit it be called Iohns as Iohn was the first minister and messenger from Christ to begin it for behold I send my messenger and he shall prepare my way before me saith Christ of Iohn Mal. 3.1 yet Christ himself was the chief Author of it in whose name and not in Iohns it was begun and dispensed ever even in that juncture wherein Iohn himself was living and verst about it and before Christ had so specially commanded the continuance of it in all Nations to the worlds end in his own and the fathers and the spirits name as he does Mat. 28.18.19.20 and ever after that also as we may see Act. 2.29 where Peter preaching the same doctrine that Iohn himself did viz. the baptism of repentance for remission of sins sayes repent and be baptized in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of sins so Act. 8.16 they were baptized with this water baptism in the name of the Lord Iesus so Act. 10.47 he commanded them â—o be baptized in the name of the Lord so Act. 19.3.4 where after that to certain disciples who were baptized with Iohns baptism Paul had said Iohn veryly baptized with the baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after that is on Christ Jesus it is said that when they heard this they were baptized i. e. in water in the name of the Lord Iesus We see therefore that though its called the baptism of Iohn as Iohn began it yet it is that which Christ who was no minister servant or disciple of
baptized by them for we do not read that any of the Apostles or Apostolike men did ever baptize any but such as are newly converted to the Christian Religion but I and such as I am have from our infancy imbraced the Christian Religion and no other now if our Adversaries did rightly infer that because there is neither precept nor example in Scripture for baptizing of infants therefore it is a needlesse thing in like manner I may as truâ—y conclude for asmuch as their is neither precept nor example in Scripture for baptizing such as have been bred up in the Christian Religion and never professed any other I and suâ—h as I am have no need at all to be baptized Baptist. That some are sent to baptize is proved above and sure enough if it be as we see t is Act. 2 39-10.47 48. mens duty to be baptizd or else Christ hath required a service of every man and that sub poenâ too and yet though never so willing to be baptized left them in no possible capacity to perform it for want of provision of administrators but that you and such as you are yea and that though some are sent to baptize have such a Supersedeas from being baptized as you pretend to be vouchsafed you by Christ Jesus because you have been long of it and been bred up in the Christian Religion is such a strange piece of businesse as I know not in any wise what to make of who in foro hominum ecclesiae at least take baptism to be the visible badge that so distinguishes between those that are of the Christian Religion and other people that who so shall say he is of the Christian religion and yet never was nor will be baptized must excuse me if according to the tenor of Christs Testament I own him not as yet to be a Christian. What you call the Christian Religion in which you say you were bred up I know not if you mean the doctrines of faith repentance and good manners alone as yet and abstract from baptism this whether it be a great while or but a little while since you began to put it in practise the matter is much at one for degrees as to the length or shortnesse of the time since we were converted do not vary the nature of the case this I say is so far from exempting that t is the onely thing ingaging you to baptism and howbeit you say there is neither as I am sure there is not for baptizing infants yet you cannot possibly but see that there is both president and precept for the baptizing of all believers and of all in any Nations that are discipled so that if you have been converted not lately but long ago and remained till now unbaptized you have so much the more need to hasten to it and instead of being held excused from now doing it at all because you did it not when first you should to be exâ—uscitated in the words of Ananias to Paul saying and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. But if by the Christian Religion which you say you were bred up in you mean either that Christian Religion of the Rantizer that teaches men to change the ordinances of Christ that of baptism specially as to its form and subject and to make void his command through his tradition of a new baptism to all or that Christian Religion of the Ranter that so rebells against that law of Christ that he will give way to have now no water baptism at all these two Religions as Christian as you count and call them are both but Anti-christian with me Ranterist You make such a deal of do about water baptism as so needful that there may be no Church-fellowship held without it but for ought I see yet t is a matter of no such weight but that we may serve God as acceptably to the full without it for in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love Gal. 5.9 circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandaments of God 1 Cor. 7.19 Baptist. T is true that when Paul spake this which was when there was an abolition of circumcision so far as was consistent with the Jewes ability to bear it and when it was now de jure to grow out of date then circumcision was nothing and uncircumcision nothing so that t was altogether needlesse to be circumcised but as nothing as it is now yet so something was it once when that testament it was the sign of stood that every soul of whom it was then required that was not circumcised was to be cut off from having fellowship with that Church and people and as nothing as this baptism or no baptism is with you now yet no lesse then this at least must we say of the unbaptized that every soul that shall refuse to be baptized is to have no fellowship with Christs Church and people Acts 2.41.42 Secondly as nothing as circumcision and uncircumcision baptism or no baptism are with you yet faith which worketh by love is something as Paul himself also doth seem to hint and the keeping of the commandements of God which love to the Lord Jesus he that saies he can expresse without keeping his commandements among which baptism in water is not the least and without counting those commands of his not too grievous to submit to makes either Christ a lyar or elle himself Ioh. 14.23 1 Iohn 2.4.5 1 Iohn 5.2.3 Thus farre concerning water baptism to which in the primitive times there were and in all times also wherein it is or shall be truly dispenst and sincerely submitted to there assuredly are or will be two other baptisms concomitant viz. First a baptism with sufferings Secondly a baptism with the holy spirit to support under those sufferings in order to the being baptized with the last of which baptisms there was then an ordinance or administration of Christ viz. prayer and laying on of hands which was practised toward all believers after baptism in water which as it was kept on foot from the Apostles daies and downward among the Churches of Christ in after ages and is as to the substance of the service kept on with far lesse corruption and alteration then that which yet cleaves to their baptism among all but the Presbyterian part of the national priesthood and people so that it is of right to be used in order to the self same end and in the self same manner now as then it was because the present use and practise thereof is so openly not to say obstinately denied not onely by the Ranter who rases the whole foundation and the Presbyâ—erian and Independent Rantizer who rase down that or at least do not raise it but also by several societies of persons baptized who to the great grief of such congregations as own the
seal together with all your vain conversion and worship by tradition from your fathers yet you never learn'd it from our fathers in the word wherein shew me if you can from the beginning to the end save in Rom. 4.11 where in anosense sense viz. not to strengthen a weak faith but to honor great faith circumcision was set as Gods broad seal to confirm Abraham in his fatherhood any one of the four which you call Gods seals viz. either circumcision or the passeover baptism or the supper is call'd a seal by God himself Babist The formal term of a sign is no more to be found in Scripture to be given either to baptism or the supper then the term of a seal yet you grant it to be properly called a sign and so why may it not be called a seal though it be not so called in Scripture Baptist. Though the expresse denomination of a sign be not given in Scripture to either baptism or supper yet no lesse is sounded forth in sense and signification but the other term of seal as to these things is not consonant to the rule of faith for verily as no other is exprest so no more then one seal of the Gospel Covenant is so much as implied or hinted at in holy writ and that one seal is no other then the holy spirit by which those that believe are said to be sealed Eph. 1.13 Eph. 4.30 and howbeit God preacheth the Gospel to us outwardly by words oaths signes and visible resemblances viz. baptism and the supper and this in the ministration of men who may minister to us all these and set them close to our ears and to our eyes yet when he preaches it to us inwardly so fully and firmly as by seal he preaches it himself alone and though by a baptism yet a better baptism then that of water that is the holy spirit which though the sign may be set first to profest believers that are not so indeed secondly and this very visibly and openly to the view of others thirdly by men like our selves yet first is never set to any but believers in truth secondly and that secretly and indiscernably to any but themselves that are seald thirdly by none but God himself who onely sets that baptism close to the conscience within which baptism no man under heaven can administer what we set i. e. the sign may very easily be to a blank our ministration being liable to mistake but what Christ sets i. e. the seal that makes us most sure from himself that cannot possibly be misplaced for where and whensoever the spirit of God within is sent to bear witnesse and cry Abba i. e. father there and then God is a father indeed your own selves say that where the seal is that soul is sure at that time a real heir and from that time forth say you also for ever and so say I if that soul continue for ever cleaving to the Lord not quenching resisting or so grieving that holy spirit as to cause it to depart for ever for if so ther 's another tale told you from several Scriptures 1 Chron. 28.9 Heb. 6.4.5 Heb. 10 29. But if it be so as you say that Gods seal seals up none but such as are both true heirs by faith at present and must necessarily abide so for ever then first here 's an Argument ad hominem how ever i. e. an evidence to you out of your own mouthes that your baptism is none of Gods seal sâ—th it is set by you not onely to 1000s that after it fall from him but indeed to 1000s that never knew him their father nor never will I again therefore once more for all that I may not trouble my self with them when I meet them in other places protest against these your expressions of circumcision and baptism by the name of seals Gods seales of the Gospel Covenant c. first as none of mine wheresoever you are found fathering them on me as p. 6.7.14 Secondly as none of Gods expressions though I know not how many times ore viz. p. 4.6.7.8.13.14 you aver the ordinances to be Gods seals and father that very phrase on God himself who as he useth not such a phrase when he speaks of those foolish things as the world counts them 2 Cor. 1. which he chuses as his outward witnesses shews signs and love tokens from himself to us so he useth no such tools indeed as these Instrumental signes are when he ministreth himself for these he appoints men to minister in these are the instruments of the foolish sheapherds Zach. 11.15 even the outward instruments which God hath chosen for the under sheapheards to act by he uses none of these I say as his own seal and inward witnesse for that 's no lesse then the holy spirit which whattypes shews and signes of the Gospel Covenant soever there have bin outwardly both before and since the Gospel begun hath bin is and ever shall be the onely earnest that God hath given the only witnesse that him self hath us'd the onely seal that he hath set in any age whether before the law or under the law or under the Gospel Psal. 51.11.12 Eph. 1.13.4.30 2 Cor. 5.5 Rom. 8.15.23 So having removed the rubbish of rude expression with which your last argument was clouded and not a little over loaded as you delivered it I come now to consider it nakedly as it lies substantially enough compriz'd in these expressions viz. Vnder the Law circumcision was by Gods appointment dispensed to little infants Ergo under the Gospel baptism must be to infants also or else the Gospel Covenant is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham now then it was to his carnall seed under the law This is in short the plain sense and ordinary way of urging this argument By way of Answer to which let me be so bold first as to ask you this one question viz. why you stand so stâ—fly to have baptism dispens'd so strictly after the manner of circumcision and yet stray and vary your very selves from the fashion of that administration in a manner as much as any men in the world for verily though the way of circumcision be that you stickle for yet you stragle from it and as to the very subject it self vary from it as much as in any thing else if that be rhe rule after which men must baptize as you plead why then do ye not baptize for so they circumcised First onely males and no females Secondly all male servants upon the masters single faith as well as male children on the fathers Thirdly on the eighth day onely and neither sooner nor later nor one day before it nor behind it Fourthly by the hands of parents fathers Mrs. Mothers as well as by the hands of the Priesâ—s onely Fifthly any where viz at home or abroad in Inns or other places as occasion is but onely or for the most part in your great stone houses for this is both
the liberty and the bondage of your late directory that baptism must be dispens'd by a Minister onely not in any case by a private person much lesse by a mother or any woman Secondly in the places of publique worship onely not in private places or privately Thirdly on any day not specifying â—he eighth so it be not unnecessarily delayed Fourthly to any child whether male or female for ought you expresse to the contrary if so be the parent be a believer Fifthly to no man servant so far as I find on the masters belief though a Christian may chance to hire into his house an Indian or infidel when as its most notoriously known that thus it was then viz. that not the publique Priests onely in the publique places but masters might and must circumcise all their male servants fathers or mothers their male infants on the eighth day onely and that either at home as Abraham in his house Gen. 17. or any where else as Zipporah at an Inn Exod. 4.24.25.26 O the prodigious proling that you Priests make from your own pattern how crookedly close do you keep to your own coppy there are about some seven several modifications of actions in respect of which one may be said to differ from or be like another which for memories sake are coucht altogether in this verse of interrogatories Quis quid ubi qualis quando quibus auxiliis cuâ— In all which if inquisition be made how far forth your baptism and circumcision do agree or differ though you contend or rather pretend them to be like one another in each yet we shall find a deep disparity between them in no lesse then all First if we ask as de subjecto this question quis who is the true subject of circumcision who of your baptism yea even your own so circumcision-like baptism much more that baptism which is rightly dispensed how far is the one divers from the other though this is one of the main things wherein you profess they must be alike for that as I shew'd before did belong to males onely this you dispense to females also that to the natural infants of the Jews though the parents were known to be unbelievers for Ioshua circumcised the seed of all those murmurers that were cut off for unbelief this as to no natural infants at all by right no not to the Jews infants so by your own confession not to any infants whose parents are unbelievers whereby you may see that as the law is changed so there is a plain change also in the subjects of these two ordinances circumcision and baptism not onely as we but as you your selves contend to have baptism dispensed for as onely so all the male children of the Jews both might and must be circumcised though their parents were never such wicked unbelievers but even your selves say the Jews seed are all cut off from baptism and the Gospel Church because their parents are unbelievers both all the Jews and their males might be circumcised though none of them believed while that Covenant of circumcision stood meerly as they were of the stock of believing Abraham but might not be baptized when the Gospel Covenant began in Iohns Baptism upon that account unlesse they now believed in their own persons though they were of the stock of Abraham still as much as ever nor may to this day in your own opinions Secondly if as to the nature matter and essential form or being of the Rites themselves we ask the question quid what circumcision was and what your baptism how far do they differ the one being a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh the other a wetting of the foreskin of the face onely with a few drops of water no more iike it then chalke's like cheese Thirdly if as to the place where we ask the question ubi where circumcision was dispensed and where your selves say baptism ought to be how greatly doth your manner of baptism differ from it and how much more then ours for circumcision might be dispensed any where but in the Temple where I find not they were to be brought at all till circumcised as Christ himself Luke 2.21 22. but your Rantism no where else by appointment but in your Temples herein I say our baptism squares more with it than yours who pretend so much to baptize after the manner of it for all places are to us alike where there is conveniency of water enough to baptize in and therefore we must except the Font and Bason Fourthly if as to the quality special properties uses ends and offices of these two dispensations the question be asked in quale quid what were the special properties purposes uses ends and offices of these two several administrations what things persons were specially obliged to by them what was specially signified to persons in them and such like how little do these look each like the other for circumcision tied men to the observation of a certain carnal cumbersome costly service Law Priest-hood in order to their inheriting the Earthly Canaan which all are now clean changed and confiscate but baptism as dispensed by us according to the word binds to the observation of another Law and the voice of another Lawgiver High Priest and Prophet Christ Iesus whom Moses spake of and God hath now raised up accordingly and this in order to a future enjoiment of a heavenly inheritance typed out by the other and as for your rantism it ties to neither this nor that but to a certain service and law of Ordinances and Gospel and Church posture and priesthood of mans own making which one knows not well what to make of nor what part of speech to call it but a participle for it takes part of the Law and part of the Gospel and is neither perfectly but patcht up out of both by the politick power of the Priesthood so as it may make most for the peoples painted pâ—etie and their own pay together in order to their labor for their pains Mat. 15.9 Again Circumcision pointed as a type indeed at the circumcision of the heart but as a sign so it signified a promise of outward felicity in Canaan and that Christ should come of Abraham after the flesh c. true baptism signifies the death burial and resurrection of Christ and remission of sins by his being crucified and such things as were no wayes resembled by the other your rantism just nothing Fiftly if as to the time of those two services the question be askt Quando when circumcision and when your baptism are by right to be dispensed how miserably do you your selves misse of hitting right with it here too though it be a main matter you intimate to us your imitation of circumcision in circumcision being punctually to be performed on the eighth day true baptism not till the day wherein persons appear to believe withall their heart and so not in any infancy at all but the infancy of our faith and even
all the Scripture to exclude them for first though that be Christs commission and direction to his disciples whom to baptize yet there 's no mention at all of children nor yet in Mark 16.15.16 where the same will of Christ is declared in other terms concerning the baptism of such as are converted to the faith by preaching and this D Featley himself more then confesses for he urges it with earnestness p. 62. in these words viz. there is no mention of children in either of these texts and if so that there 's no mention at all then they are not implied as both Mr. Marshal and himself to the contradiction of himself affirms they are in the word Nations for for children to be both implied and included in that word Nations and yet neither to be mentioned nor meant therein at all are inconsistent and such a bo-peep as is impossible and if they be not so much as implied and mentioned in the commission they must needs be understood to be excepted and excluded Secondly as there is no mention of children so there is such a plain limitation and restriction of baptism to such persons as infants in infancy are not capable to be viz. Disciples of Christ aliàs persons so taught and instructed by the ministration of men as to believe the Gospel that they are more then purblind who discern not infants for they are uncapable to learn by the teachings of men to be in that place excepted for it is said go ye and teach all nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Nations but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations as by the figure Synthesis which is oratto congrua sensu non voce I grant it may yet not the Nations by the lump but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persons in the Nations that are indoctrinated and instructed as infants cannot be i. e. them that you have taught and that have learnt and are become disciples by your teaching it is as plain as the light that not any more of the Nations are here bid to be baptized than those even those very individuals that are first bid to be taught or made disciples by mans ministery for the Pronoun them that is put after the participle baptized can possibly have no other substantive then those persons in those nations who ever they are that are both capable subjects of teaching and also actually instructed and discipled it is most evident that teaching of persons is here commanded before the baptizing them Babist The order of words by which teaching is here set before baptizing proves nothing for in Mark 1.4 that order is inverted and baptizing set before preaching thus viz. Iohn did baptize and preach the baptism of repentance Baptist. So saies Dr. Holmes indeed p. 7. and t is also a common saying among you all but I tell yod if you were not minded more to pervert then to preach the Gospel you could not be ignorant that that inversion Mark 1.4 is such as altars not the sense so but that t is in sense and signification the very same as we contend for out of Mat. 28.19 viz. that preaching is to go before baptizing for though it be said there Iohn did baptize and preach the baptism of repentance it must necessarily be understood thus viz. that he preached baptism to persons before he practised it to them for you cannot be so silly sure as to imagin that Iohn first baptized persons when they came to him before he opened his Mouth to tell them wherefore yet I know one that being in a streit did not stick to strein himself out by such a simple saying as that but for all that if that honest man who said thus I forbear to name him least I shame him were as true a Minister of the Gospel as he supposes himself to be and should go forth with his Gospel to a Nation as ignorant of the truth of baptisme as himself and offer but such a small matter as his rantism much more so worthy so weighty and burdensome a business to the flesh as the true baptism is viz. to overwhelm them in water without declaring to them first for what end and purpose either he would shew himself an Egregious and Arrant simpleton in once conceiving they would or they themselves but senseless Animals if they should so suddenly submit to him Moreover its apparent to any but such as are resolved to shift off truth as long as they can that the same passage of Mark 1.4 as t is recorded Mat. 3.1.5 Luke 3.3.7 shewes that Iohn first came preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins and then and thereupon people came out to him and were baptized of him in Iordan confessing their sins Out of that place therefore Mat. 28.19 which is so usually assigned by your selves as the main Scripture in which Christ commands infant baptism though upon examination it is oft asserted to be a place that neither mentions at all nor once meddles with infants and that by the self same persons that so assign it I argue thus in disproof of them who assign it as Christ precept for infants baptisme and in proof that its a plain prohibition of such a thing viz. If Christ there commissionates and commands his Disciples to baptize none but the very same persons whom he commands them also first to teach and make disciples by teaching then that place is a plain prohibition and not at all a precept to baptize infants for men cannot teach or disciple infants But Christ there commissionates and commands his disciples to baptize none but such as he also commands them first to teach and make disciples by teaching Ergo that place is a plain prohibition and not at all a precept to baptize infants The Minor which onely you can rationally require proof of is so clear that the blindest of you may see it in the text it self where the Pronoun them that is governed by the participle baptizing can possibly relate to no other substantive but to the self same persons that are immediately before commanded to be taught or made disciples and whether you will have the substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when it serves your turn so far as to furnish your selves by comparing this place with Act. 15.10 with matter of proof prate I should say for infants discipleship you will needs have it for upon this account Mr. Cotton Mr. Baxter and many more seem to proceed or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the figure Synthesis as some of you will rather have it t is much at a pass yea not a strawes worth of advantage to you take it which way you will for still it will amount to this that whether you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
some infants above others as you do who by your mouth I mean Mr. Blake declare some by nature now as of old to be Children of God and Saints and some dogs and swine some holy i. e. in your sense in Covenant as the Iew of old and some unclean i. e. in your sense out of Covenant with God and sinners of the Gentiles which distinction is now destroyed much lesse that such prerogative of seed is intended by the Apostle in that texâ— even I my self I say do look on all infants as holy in some sense as I have shewed before i. e. negative as far as meer innocency and freedom from iniquity may denominate holy not counting them to be in Adam and so impure but recounting them in Christ till by actual sin and a wicked life they take me off from that account and on some children also viz. those of Christian parents as having in some sense a prerogative of seed so far as they may be a seed of prayers more then othess and in some sense too not yours a holinesse above others i. e. as they may be sanctified to their parents as blessings as every thing else may be by their prayers whether good or evill in it self if yet what is blest to us may be properly denominated holy as every creature is said to be sanctified to the Saint 1 Tim. 4. and yet for my life dare I not baptize any at all and as for Tertullian though he mistaking Pauls meaning holds such are holy by a kind of prerogative of seed as Mr. Marshall speaks yet t is very questionable to me whether it be that so transcendent kind of birth holiness and prerogative you expound him of and howbeit Dr. Holmes and Mr. Marshall would fain fetch that father in by force of forged construction to witnesse as a God-father to their federal holinesse yet I cannot easily believe by his words that he hath respect to any more then a bare recounting and reputing these to be holy in a sense abstract from any reallity of their being holy by natural birth and in their childhood as the Doctor vainly descants on Tertullians phrase wherein he mentions them to be holy or till such time as they are holy indeed by that new birth from above and Mr. Marshal takes my part against the Doctor in this too saying they are in Tertullians sense designati sanctitatis i. e. as these words are expounded by the following witnesse the Doctor himself counted holy but not Sancti i. e. not holy till they be born of water and the spirit p. 36. much lesse can I ever believe that he counted them holy and priviledged above others so far as thereupon to assert them or so much as to allow them to be baptized for that 's an utter in consequence of your own from Pauls text 1 Cor. 7.14 and from Tertullians text to who though he take Pauls speech of such childrens holinesse a little the wrong way yet wrests them not so far out of the way to the proof of such a popish practise as you do yea there is not a little in Tertullians testimony you so talk of that tends at all to testifie the truth of infant baptism indeed had the Epithet given by Tertullian fidelium filiis been so as that instead of that phrase wherein he saies they ought to be designati sanctitatis et salutis i. e. reputatively holy and happy ones he had said they should be signati sanctitatis salutis i. e. signed in your own phrase sealed ones of holinesse and happinesse there had been some hint towards baptism but as t is there is none at all of such a matter The Dr. draws neck and heels together to make Tertullian speak to his mind but t will appear he was of another mind then he as to the baptism of any infants when all is done for saith he Babist Tertullian shews childrens capacity of grace and salvation Baptist. And what then yea what if we grant you that they are capable of salvation yea the Scripture asserts it and we do not deny it therefore you need not trouble Tertullian for this testimony but what follows upon it what then Babist What then why consequently they are capable of the seal for the deeds and their seales follow the right of the inheritance Baptist. This is your inference Mr. Dr. from which inference of yours now we talk of inferring I le infer two things by way of quaere and so let it passe viz. First if the seales in plurali marke your words therefore both at least yet both are but signs neither in true locution must both follow the right of the inheritance of which children are in capacity as well as men then to fill you with your own phrase why is not one seal of the same inheritance of the same salvation given to infants by you as well as the other i. e. the supper as well as baptism Secondly if these in plurali or if no more then baptism be to be given to children consequently upon no more then capacity oâ— salvation the capacities of infants being equal and they quoad nos all alike capable to enjoy it if God who is neither bound nor barred please to bestow salvation why are not both these or at least that one sign of baptism which you give to some infants given by you to all infants as well as some i. e. to ungodly mens children as well as to those of godly parents the Dr. strives with all his strength and straines one point more yet to strain Tertullians testimony to his turn yet will it not do in any wise Babist Tertullian in that text mentions not onely childrens being holy but he mentions also that place Iohn 3.4 in relation to children except a man be born again of water and of the spirit c. from which we may perceive that Tertullian grounds infants baptism upon Scripture Baptist. To which first supposing that by that birth of water and the spirit is meant nothing but baptism in that place of Tertullian we are yet upon I reply Secondly thus viz. appealing to the Drs own conscience and Mr. Marshals also whether he speak that very clause of Scripture in that very place of his we are now upon to that very intent as to ground infant baptism upon it or whether if it be read with a right and true Emphasis and reference it doth not of the two rather suppose it was not to be in infancy for having as Mr. Marshal understands confessed so far of infants of the faithful that they are designati sanctitatis et salutis i. e. to be held in the mean time to wit in childhood and before baptism as holy and happy reputatively only yet he saies that none of all them are sancti i. e. holy indeed for that we see is Tertullians sense of the word enter into the kingdom unlesse they be born of water and the spirit that is as I conceive till they
passes from you p. 26 27. of your paper viz. to avoid a querulous conscience misliking finding fault complaining taking offence at every thing where there is no cause streining at a gnat giving over the company of the flock of more goats then sheep for every rub alias refusing to reform seperating from the congregation alias the parish church of the Popes congendring for a ceremony alias some small thing which to synodical prudence it hath seemed good to add to the ordinances of Christ as if his wisdome had not made things full and fine enough e. g. the surplice the forced gesture of kneeling before the railes and Altar yoking of sheep and swine together in the Supper and in baptism the crosse the form of slâ—tting two or three drops of water with wet fingers on the face instead of dipping and orewhelming and this too but to an infant instead of a professed believer by which ceremonious quirks they brought in not so much alterationem as alterum and ceremonized the whole substance of what Christ required quite away to endeavour after a true temper of a son of the church humbly to submit to the judgements of others sooner then our own alias to see through the Priests eyes and say we see it not what ever we see to the contrary not to dare to contend with any much lesse Superiors alias Popes Counsels whole Classes of Clergy men for they will bite Mic. 3.5 without strong and evident and convincing reason for our assertions which if we have not for our baptism against yours never men had in any controversy since truths resurrection from under the pawes of the Pope and Priesthood to this day not to see things amisse alias go on hoodwinkt with implicit faith if we cannot but see things amisse to hide and cover them specially the nakednesse of our father and shame of our Mother alias the Pope and Clergy out of whose loines and the Catholique Christendome in whose womb almost all error is ingendred least if their spiritual fornications should be rendred too discernable reformation should prove too desirable and that too destroyable to their enjoyments not to let a light matter alias so light ahd vain a thing as the vanity of infant-baptism work dislike in us much lesse departure and divorce not to depart by seperation save in case of a great and unfufferable crime alias some worse and more fearful error then can well be about the dispensation of baptism of which there 's dispair of redresse which was the Protestanâ—s case with the Church of Rome and our case also with the Protestant nations in which though we reprove them roundly for it as well as declare against it we see little forwardnesse to forbear their infant-sprinkling which by your leave gentlemen for all your soothing and smoothing and smothering over the thing as no great one if it be one sometimes for your own ends yet to take you at your own words in this place is little lesse than an unsufferable crime and a business in which to erre is most fearfully ro erre in one of the most necessary points of religion and either betokens a totall desertion by the spirit of God or else you shew your selves but ignorant men in speaking so of it and that is the very truth of it indeed for though an error about the subject and essential form of baptism be at no hand to be set so light by as t is by you when you see men resolved to depart from your societies in case of your refusal to reform that double error which in that point remaines yet among you while you Rantize infants yet neither is it to be so mightily magnified and made such a hydeous such a fundamental such a dangerous such a damnable error unlesse persevered in willfully against light or conscience and then a smaller matter then that may prove of sad consequence to any soul is as inconsistent with all possibility of their salvation that in times of ignorance did happen to hold it or puts all such persons under an absolute impossibility of having any thing of the spirit of God in them as meerly by reason of non discovery of it do go astray by it as to go round again you who care not which extream you run out into when you suppose your own turn against us to be served by it do seem to make and magnifie it in this place Neverthelesse as I said once above as much as you sleight it other while and Mr. Baxter also who spends a pair of pages viz. 10.11 to shew how little stress God laies upon this point making it as the non-Churcâ—â—rs usually do upon whose principles how neer he borders some see better then himself though he yet own the use of ordinances as it were a low small matter a piece of ceremonâ— and letter which God will dispense with saying circumcision is nothing i. e. in suâ—o sensu not much material whether baptized or not a small part of the ministers work which Paul left to others to dispense as belonging not much to him to administer who was sent to preach aâ—d yet I believe if we say as indeed we do that there 's no such need that the dispensation it self be done by the hands of one that is specially sent to preach and in holy orders Mr. Baxter will either be against us or else against all his brethren of the Clergy who will have none to baptize but such as are sent to preach as much I say as you and Mr. Baxter sleight it and as little fundamental as you make it yet I must tell you in Mr. Baxters words and your own too that Christs commands are to be obeyed by us great and small as far as we know them and so necessary a point of Religion is this as to the outward part of Religion that howbeit Mr. Baxter p. 11. denies that outward part of baptism or external washing to be called one of the foundations Heb. 6.2 any otherwise then for its praecedency viz because its first laid in order of time not because it beareth up the building even that outward burying of believers in that baptism is both to be done necessitate praecepti by special command from him Act. 2.38.10.68 whose voice whoever will not hear i. e. obey when heard in all things whatever he saith little commands as well as greater Mat. 5.19 shall be cut off from among his people Act. 3.22.23 and therefore how farre forth necessary necessitate medii and ad salutem to life it self so far forth as we know his will in that particular let Mr. Baxter judge And also Secondly is to be done in such wise and manner as he himself hath commanded and not after mans precept and tradition there being no lesse rejection plague and cursing denounced against changing the ordinances and serving God after such manner as men require then to neglecting it altogether Isa. 24.5.6.29.13 Mat. 15.9 And also thirdly is to be done
first after once we do repent and believe and that so necessarily first necessitate both praecepti and medii in order to outward membership and fellowship in the visible Church of Christ and in order also to the true being of the visible Church in that outward right form and order that if it be not first done and done according to his own mind and not mans and first laid as a foundation among the rest of those principles Heb. 6.1 2. of Christs doctrine which altogether are called the foundation i. e. to the visible Church of Christ which is said to be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets i. e. their doctrine or that form of doctrine they delivered whereof baptism in water was a part and a principle though not the principal part Eph. 2.22 Rom. 6.2.3.17 I deny that there can be any visible Church of Christ at all truly constituted according to his own will and such a bearer up of that building it is thaâ— abstract it and there is no building fitly framed together nor people growing together visibly an holy Temple in the Lord and he that in these latter dayes will ever erect that holy City and Temple which was trodden under foot by the Gentiles advancing all into the name of the Church at the door of infant-sprinkling must preach and practise again that true baptism of repentance for remission of sins in the absence of which there was no true visible Church as to outward order and form at all in their opinion as well as mine who hold and so does the whole Clergy that baptism is the way by which persons enter and out of which there is no entring at all into the visible Church in which therefore to erre is in truth such an unsufferable crime and so fearfully to erre in one of the most necessary points of Religion as pertaining to visible Church order that except ye repent of your infant-sprinkling O ye Priests and be baptized truly according to Christs will in the name of the Lord Iesus for remission of that and all other your sins and superstitions your error is enough to justifie our separation from you nor find we how we can in Christs name and according to his will or without violation and palpable breach of that outward order which he gives no dispensation for to us abide in one body or Church fellowship with you in the supper Secondly Sirs though I told it you before yet to conclude this I now tell you again though we deny infant baptism yet we do not hold at all nor conclude thereby that the whole Church of God hath universally erred i. e. the Church of Christ in all ages and places and howbeit it is trâ—e as Dr. Featley saies p. 19 and we with him That particular Churches have erred and may erre as the Greek Church and the Latin Church the two legs upon which Mr. Marshal strives to make infant baptism stand still because it hath stood there so long and general councels which the Schooles term the representative Church are subâ—ect to error and have sometimes as Dr. Featley saies and so often say I that that I le never build my faith upon them decreed heresie and falshood for truth howbeit all christendom hath erred after the Clergy in this point and many more for 1260 years yet t is true as Dr. Featley saies that the formal Church as they speak i. all the assemblies in the world cannot be impeached with errour in this point of infant baptism forasmuch as the true Churches of the first times never knew it and many faithful witnesses that knew it to be a corruption testified against it in the darkest times and the best reformed Churches even no lesse then scores of Assemblies do deny it at this day to the shame of that one general Assemblie that would have settled it Review And not onely so but if Mr. Fishers doctrine which 〈◊〉 lately delivered as a judicious gentleman affirmd who heard him that â—ll that did believe and were dipt should be saved but all that did believe and were not dipt should be damned be true they as much as lies in them damn to the pit of hell all the Matyrs Professors Fathers believers for many hundreds of years together Which onely doctrine should make all men to abhor them and not let their soules intermeddle with their secret whose rage is so fierce whose wrath is so cruel Christ shuts out onely unbelievers from heaven whosoever believeth not shall be damned This doctrine shuts out believers if they be not dipt i. e. if they be not Anabaptists it cannot be the ceremony they are so hot for without the substance Re-Review But saving the over apprehensive powers of that judicious Gentleman who ere it was that heard me he most grossely abuses in it himself and me in reporting such a thing to you as also you abuse both him and me and the world too in reporting it as from him to the world yet you have done him honour so farre I confesse as to conceal his name or else you had done him a greater spite indeed himself in shewing such shallowness of capacity in hearing as scarcely calls for that worthy title of judicious Gentleman and me in not only mistaking but mistelling his mistake also to you who print out his mistake to all the world for such doctrine as this That all that did believe and were not dipt should be damned did never yet fall from my mouth nor did ere take place or was ever owned for truth in my mind yea howbeit I summon you or any else to shew me in the word not taken by snatches but in the whole intent and scope of it Gods promise of salvation by Christ without obedience to him both in repentance faith and baptism too to those of whom all these things are required I say it again least you mistake me as speaking of infants for they being capable of none of these of them to salvation none of these are required of whom all these are required since all those that obey not the Gospel in what part soever of it it is manifested to them shall be damned 2 Thes. 1.7 8 9 2.10 11 12. Howbeit I say I wish you to advise how safely you that know it to be your duty may neglect it and how groundedly you can assure your selves that you do believe at all in truth if you receive not the love of every title of Christs truth so as wherein it appears to you to imbrace and obey it yet I am well assured I never utterd the other viz. that all that did believe and were not dipt should be damned nor is it now nor ever was it my judgement to this hour of which for the worlds and your satisfaction sith I have been very often charged and that twice or thrice in publique places where I have preacht so to hold I shall here give this brief account I judge that all persons
to children of believing parents as to persons at years for we have Gods testimony concerning them in this matter whilest you have but mans testimony concerning himself yea Christ hath amply declared his good will to them in Scripture whose testimony is not onely Tanta-mount but to be preferred before mens from which it more plainly appears that infants have faith then the testimony of any particular person can make it appear for himself Baptist So you say indeed both before page 5. and behind p. 19. but how dare you assert then that you go not about to prove certainly but only probably that believers infants do believe for verily if it be so as you say that God himself gives testimony for them in Scripture that these little infants do believe then never say no judgement of science can be passed no discovery made of the habit of faith nor peremptory presuming what infants have faith and what not till you see them act it for Gods testimony is more credible then mans indeed hath he said it and is it not so yea verily let him be true but every man a lyar for mans own word can create but probability and charity and not so much neither unless he speak it from Gods word that believers infants do believe and infidels infants do not but if God have said so then cursed be he that will not believe it to be so for if his word be not perfectly demonstrative and scientifical and past all doubt but I confesse I find not a word of his concerning such a thing then I le never trust self confuting Clergy men any more 2. Whereas you answer that in those children where there is lesse promptness to acts of faith then in others we cannot argue ad negationem habitus because they work not equally What is this to the present question and position concerning no more inclinablenesse to holy actions in children of Christians then of infidels for those are such of whom your selves assert the one have faith the other have none but these you speak of now are adult ones such as in whom there is some promptness to acts of faith appearing differenced only secundum magis minus some inclining more some lesse to acts of faith concerning all whom sith those of them that have least promptness have at least an apparent promptnesse to acts of faith who denies but that they may have faith though they work not equally but what 's this to the proof of more or lesse inclinablenesse to holy actions among infants who are so far from having some more some lesse that even none of them have any promptnesse thereto at all 3. Whereas you fiddle it on a little further and think to coop us up by your crosse interrogatory you may well call it a crosse one indeed for its a net that catches your selves let us answer it which way soever you would have us For if we say heathens infants are inclined to acts of faith and should make that good against you as we shall hardly ere trouble our selves to do unlesse we did believe it to be truth can you give any just account of your denial of baptism to these yea who can forbid water why they may not be baptized that have and are inclined to act faith as well as the other and in whom as in those of believing parents the work is palpably at least possibly and probably the very same But if we say no infidels infants are not inclined then we must take what comes on it for you are resolved to hit us home indeed and so you do while you do that at last cast which had you done at first you had saved your selves a deal of hurt which you have done your selves by circumlocuting so long in way of proving the very Minor proposition of that last Argument which Reason urged against you viz. that Christians children are not more inclined to actions of faith then those of infidels for at last you fall flatly as your safest way to deny that Minor and assert contrarily thereto that children of Christians are more inclined to holy actions then other children which if it be true First how grosly do you contradict that you say in the lines above where you seem to grant that there may be more inclinablenesse in infidels children and promptnesse to holy actions then in Christians Secondly I wonder how you come to be experienced in it for if you Clergie men be all Christians and so you are in your own account your children excepting some that by the breeding you give them grow up to the same stamp of Christianity you print upon them do for all their native holy inclinations not seldome prove the lewdest and rudest of any mens children in a Countrey for not onely through the Priests and Prophets own practise but from their posterity too oft times prophaness goes out into all the world or else the Popes had never filled it with iniquitie as they have done The nexâ— objection of Reason is as followes Review 7. Faith comes by hearing Little children cannot hear must lesse understand Ergo they have no faith They might also conclude they have no faculty of understanding neither for that comes by hearing but infants have an hearing the spirit opens their ears he must do it in adultis or for all their hearing they will never believe He is not tyed to means though we are without the outward hearing of the Word he works faith in little children The manner of his working is miraculous as it is in the conversion of every soul enough hath been said to that before nor ought it to be objected if miraculous then not ordinary for the work of the spirit in the conversion of men is both Re-Review Had Reason had the managing representing and writing of this Argument her self she would not have set it down in so weak absurd and silly a manner as Reasonlesse hath done it in in this place Reason never held such a thing yet as is asserted in this Minor viz. that children cannot hear much lesse understand for abstract hearing from understanding and take these two in sensu diviso as you do here and children can hear but in sensu composito they cannot it cannot rationally nor truly be said they cannot so much as hear much lesse understand but they cannot hear so as to understand or they cannot hear understandingly as those must that hear in order to believing and whose faith comes by hearing a hearing t is true infants have for they are not destitute of that sense more then of seeing and the rest Auriculas Asini quis non habet the same hearing that an Asse horse or other bruit beast hath which is only the sound of words without the knowledge of the sense who hath not save he that is deaf but the hearing they have is neither such as Paul speaks of there nor yet that heating you say they have viz. an inward hearing
them all together viz. it unchristens the whole Church of God c. I say thus confessing that our doctrine unchristens whole christendome which the Pope hath called the Church of God but is indeed the whole world of Gentiles that hath got into the outer court the meer outward form and name of christianity and hath trod down the holy City and true worship for 1260 years that whole world that hath for ages and generations wondered after the beast nor is this inconsistent with the truth of Christs promises of his presence and guidance among those that are his true Church and people indeed for howbeit he hath according to the word left those to their own wayes that left and liked not his wayes yet he ever hath still doth and ever will lead those into truth that love the truth and will be led by his spirit when he will lead them yea though he tied not himself to teach them that should chuse the Pope for their Tutor yet according to his promise he hath bin more or lesse with those that observed what he commanded them in his word from the beginning and so shall be even to the end Review Lastly it doth the devils work in the shape of angels of light to make men renounce their baptism and if from Nero's hating the Christian Religion the antient Apologetist of the Church did rightly gather the goodnesse of it we may the validity of infants baptism from the devils hatred of it it hath ever been said of him he will not make a bargain with any soul till it hath renounced its first bargain which was made with Christ at baptism the Anabaptists are his Proctors and do it to his hand Re-Review Of which desire of his to have us renounce our baptism being not a little aware though immediately after I renounc't that Rantism I once had unawares to my self in the innocency and ignorance of my infancy in the room thereof received real baptism I had one messenger from Satan to buffet me and beat me off from further proceeding in and owning of that practise yet through the goodness of God and that grace of his wherein I still stand I was so far from being removed that I was much more settled strengthned and stablisht in the present truth wherein I walk and I trust shall walk in unto the end unlesse I receive more evidence to the contrary then ever I have done from any writings or any discourses of any that ever I met wiâ—h of what principle or profession soever which messenger whose name was William Everard after the flesh but the name that the father had given him was Chamberlin as he said for he lived in the secret chambers of the most high though he came to my house pretending that he was immediately sent from God with a message to me in particular viz. to renounce that practice of baptizing which himself had sometimes walkt in also but now relinquisht did to my self and some others after half a dayes most serious observation of his speeches strange extasies and uncouth deportment by many prodigious passages blasphemous pratings and as by experience we then proved them flatly false pretences to what he had not and most presumptuous yet successeless undertakings and frivolous fopperies of which I am willing at any time but not capable under a hours time to give fuller account to any that shall desire it discover himself to be one of the Archangels of darknesse which the devil now sends forth a new in the shape of angels of light and is now no lesse apparently I think to all that know him and where he is And howbeit it hath bin more then once but once especially as I have hinted to the Reader in a shrewd shake of sicknesse that befel me above a twelve moneth since to the great retarding of this work reported that I was shaken sheer out of my mind and judgement concerning this way and baptism so as to have recanted and renounced it yet I call my God to witnesse to whom also I give thanks for his mercy toward me in that particular that partly by the more then ordinary advantages I then had through my sequestration from all other occasions to seek the Lord to search and try my wayes and turn again unto him partly by the more then ordinary ingagements that were then upon me so to do and that seriously and sincerely through my dayly expectation to be clapt up in clods of earth till the great day of acccounts I have bin much more sweetly satisfied since then concerning the truth of this way then ever I was in all my life before neither did I then find any cause to repent me of coming to Christ in it as neither shall any that renouncing your Rantism do rightly receive it so they continue to walk uprightly in it to the end but this I must confesse I found good cause to repent of it that I had not honoured it so much as I might have done since I ownd it nor walked so profitably serviceably blamelesly holily and worthily in it nor so suitably to so holy and worthy a way as it is in it self not withstanding the account of basensse and foolishness that it hath in the world 1 Cor. 1.30 So that ever since that forenamed sifting I had from Satan by the mouth of that his Agent by whom he solicited me to forgo my baptism I side with you in this viz. that t is the Devils worke in the shape of an Angell of light to make men renounce their baptism and though I am somewhat otherwise opinioned about the Divels affection to infants baptism then you are for I think if he hate it t is as he hates holy water or any other of his own inventions wherby he hath juggled away the truth and imitated Christs ordinances out of doors yet I am fully of your mind that he so hates the true baptism I mean the baptizing of professed believers from whence I gather the goodnesse and validity of it against him that it is most of the business about which he is at work in the shape of an Angel of light in these daies wherein his time growes short and his old kingdome begins to fail him by means of the true baptism to erect to himself a new kingdome and in order thereunto to make men renounce that baptism as knowing that he cannot strike a downright bargain with a soul to become fully his as the high Notionists and spiritual Sensualists of these times do till it hath renounced its first bargain made with Christ in baptism not what was made with Christ at infant rantism for infants are not capable per se to bargain with Christ and how they do it per alios I do not see sith such as say they do it for them were never appointed by them so to do nor by Christ neither that I know of nor do I remember any bargain to own Christ and not be ashamed of
erroneous by the word you need not say peradventure nay you may be sure on t that wee l deny though not our own name yet that nick name Anabaptists which you are pleased improperly not to say impiously to impose upon us though we bear with your illiterateness in so doing for I trust we shall not more say then sufficiently shew that we do not Re-baptize but onely baptize those which never were baptized before and whose baptism which you say they had in infancy is null i. e. nothing and yet not nothing but a new thing rather another baptism another thing then baptism which is neither the baptism of Christ nor indeed any true baptism at all Let us both pawn our baptismes upon it ours which you call nothing but Anabaptism yours which we call nothing but Rantism if we do not make it good that your baptism is no baptism at least not that which Christ instituted then we shall ingage not onely to yield up that our plea but to renounce our Baptism also but if we do it and you never disprove it then we shall expect it answerably from you that you both yield up that your plea and renounce your Rantism also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ANTI-RANTISM OR CHRIST'NDOM VNCHRISTN'D IN An Appendix added about sprinkling wherein the shallownesse of that dispensation is shewed to be such that it can neither properly nor possibly without perverture be called Baptism HAving razed the rotten Basis of your Babism I come now to reckon with your Rantism and to examine whether our manner of baptizing which is by dipping or yours which is only by sprinkling is the baptism which was instituted by Christ according to that small hint you give me which is no other then a bare single simple denyal of your baptism to be null for no lesse then that is the next fault wherewith we charge it As for your selves as if you were unwilling to have it sifted as I verily believe and have sufficiently experienced that you are you slide so silently by this question which is as requisite to be discussed and duely understood as the other that howbeit you are not a little concerned for the securing of your baptism to back it in this particular also specially since you confesse that you must give it up if our plea against the form of it prove valid yet you afford not so much as one wea-bit of an argument whereby to disprove our form of baptizing nor yet to prove the truth of your own save only your homely reply to our plea viz. we should renounce our baptism too if we should yield them that plea which words of yours in a Sillogistical form run thus viz. If we yield them their plea we must renounce our baptism But we are resolved we will not renounce our baptism Ergo we will not yield them their plea. Thus you are resolved to hold the conclusion neverthelesse such shamefull tergiversation and utter loathness to put your selves upon tryal by the word I have ever found amongst you in this point that how justly Mr. Baxter complains of Mr. Tombs for refusing to dispute it publiquely p. 134. I know not but I am sure not more justly then I have occasion to cry out of your unworthy waywardnesse in this case for though at the Disputation at Ashford I did in my position some but not half the sum of which you set down in your Account positively declare my exception against two things in that which you call your baptism viz. First the false subject Secondly the false manner of administration together with my earnest desires to have satisfaction from you concerning the latter also as in respect of which I proclaimed it null as well as in respect of the former yet you drilled away all the time about the first without either giving out a warrant then or granting us your presence another day wherein to give your warrant for the second In like manner at the publike dispute which was at Folstone before many hundreds of people where there was one if not more of my opponents at Ashford the Opponents part being put upon me much more against my expectaâ—ion then desire I told that Câ—assis of Clergy men who were there that t was most proper to direct my dispute to their practise which sith it was the Rantizing and not the baptizing of infants I would prove that their sprinkling of infants was not lawful but I could at no hand be permitted to proceed in such a way or to come neer their copy hold in that point viz. their false form of dispensing though I promised to abide a whole week among them rather than they should not have discourse enough about the subject at last I obtained with much adoe a division of the question into two viz. 1. Whether infants were the true subject 2. Whether sprinkling were the true manner of baptizing And a solemn Engagement from them that if so be I would begin upon the first there should be a discourse after it upon the other But as I forewarned the people and that before these mens own faces that it would be at first viz. that they would evade all controversie about that if it were possible even so it fell out indeed at last for after some two hours or little more though it were well-nigh a winters day yet to night it was on their parts so uncessantly urged that the disputation might cease and the people for that time be dismissed that the divel is blind if he did not see that day that those who sided with him unseen against the truth did judge that there was discourse too much though but a little about the Subject of baptism and enough though none at all about the form But I let passe this and come to prove the point now in hand which is this that dipping or overwhelming in water and not sprinkling is the only true form or manner wherein baptism is to be dispensed and without which it is either properly no baptism or at least none of that baptism which is required in the word and may be owned as the ordinance of Christ. This is most plain and in a most plain way I desire to prove it and first from the signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is ever used in the originall as that whereby this ordinance is expressed and whence it derives that denomination of baptism the proper plain English of which is to overwhelm or cover with water to plunge over head and ears to put under the water to dipp douze or drown in the water and it is the derivative of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is tingo quod fit immergendo to dipp in that manner as they do that dy cloth and colours which is by that total submersion of things in the liquor as all men know they do that dy and not by sprinkling here and there a drop of water on them Thus I say the word baptize
real not specifical not essentially formal for take any sentence of Scripture that hath speaking of water baptism the word baptized in it and you shall find any of the other terms in sence coincident with it and consistent properly in the room of it in speech and signification as Mark. 3.5 t is said of the people they were baptized of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins it may as properly be said they were overwhelmed dipped plunged ore head put under water by Iohn in Iordan but t is scarce propriety of speech to say they were spâ—inkled of Iohn in Iordan Rantist No do we not in common loquution say the same while we say sprinkled in a font or in a Bason Baptist. I confess in common loquution we speak so as brevitatis gratiâ we do improperly many times in other cases yet is it scarce so proper as to say sprinkled with water out of a font or bason but however Mark 1.7 t is said of Christ that he was baptized of Iohn into Iordan now I am sure you may say sensibly enough he was dipped plunged of Iohn into Iordan but it cannot be said without most palpable non-sense he was sprinkled of Iohn into Iordan therefore certainly the form of Christs own baptism then which we cannot have better president for ours was dipping as ours is and not such a simple sort of sprinkling as is still in use among your selves in the doing of which you do not onely as is evident by the premisses another thing then that which was dispenst to Christ and enjoined by Christ to be dispensed but indeed as toward the fulfilling his command in that ordinance you do plainly nothing at all that you shall be accepted in for your labour for in vain you practise another thing as in obedience to him neglecting what he hath required which he never required at your hands and such is that sprinkling which by custome in the corruption of the times came superstitiously to bear the name of baptizing and then by little and little till it had wholly worn it out of the world to be practised and passe for currant instead out and this I will give you some account of too sith I have given you the hint out for in Cyprians time people being overgrown with such a superstition as because baptism was the token to them of remission of their sinnes therefore they would commonly after conversion delay their submission to that dispensation till toward their latter end as neer as they could ghesse it approaching on them that they might thereby have evidence of remission of all their sinnes at once fearing if they should be baptized before least they should sinne again and so spoil all the comfort they received by baptism so far were persons from posting as they do now a daies to dispense baptism in infancy to their infants that they at years did too much delay their own hereupon it came to passe not seldome that the procrastinators of baptism were taken with sicknesse on a sudden and confined to their beds unawares before they could be baptized in which case not knowing how to be baptized in that manner wherein t was usually dispensed i. e. by dipping in places of much water and yet unwilling withall to dye without it they sent to Cyprian who was the oracle of his time to be resolved whether in such a pressing case as this was wherein they were as unwilling to die without Baptism as uncapable to be baptized as they should be it might not as well serve the turn and be counted sufficient baptism to have a little water applied to them or sprinkled upon them in their beds to this the good man being loath to leave poor sick soules upon the wrack whom he saw somewhat affraid to die unbaptized returnes his opinion to this purpose viz. that in this case wherein without manifest hazzard of the sick persons life it could not be so well done as it should it should be done as well as it could and that they might have some application of the element to them in their beds which if they died at that time should passe for currant and be counted lawful baptism Neverthelesse saith he himself if they happen to be restored to health again let them be had to the River and there be dipped He that doubts of this may read it in Cyprians own Epistle to 〈◊〉 who wrote to him about the case So that we see he judged it fit to be done ore again to be done better to be done indeed if they lived but if they then died he allowed it to be called Baptism though it was none in favour to the weak rather then otherwise And here now comes in the first Rise of your Rantism and no small occasion I believe if it were before begun of the growth of your Babism also for when the needle was once so clearly entred how easily would the thred follow after when it had once past through the mouth of a man so reverend and respected in his generation as Cyprian was that it was baptism enough to be sprinkled onely in such a case how easily might not onely every tender person that is loath to dipp the foot in cold water but even every person also that will do no more then needs must against the will of the flesh mistake it so far as to make it serve the turn in every case and when such an easie kind of baptism as thaâ— was was grown into use that could be no more dangerous to infants then to men how willingly would all persons specially those of that gang that grew apace a little after for Cyprian himself and 66 Bishops more gave ground for it when in a certain councel they gave this ground for infant baptism viz. because so farre as lies in us no soul is to be destroyed who held baptism in such necessity as to say it saved ex opero operatio how willingly I say would they imbrace such an easie and such a necessary baptism not onely for themselves but for their infants also But to return I pray pardon this digression this sprinkling which you use is not baptism or at least not the baptism of Christ Cypriano Iudice let Cyprian judge of it for if it were he would not have required persons to be baptized after it in case conveniently they could Rantist Miscarriage in the manner of baptism doth not nullify the matter it self neither doth an error in meer circumstance annihillate the substance of the ordinance so but that its baptism and stands Christs ordinance still Baptist. True miscarriage in the meer manner of doing any thing doth not null that thing if that very thing be done indeed which we wot of though error in bare circumstance and such it seems you confesse your retained Rantism to be is too abominable to persist in but miscarriage in the matter of a thing and such grosse miscarriage as makes it another matter or thing and such
is that when not the same that 's reckoned on but another thing formally specifically essentially distinct from it is done instead of ir then that 's another matter I trow is it not And such as this is your miscarriage in the matter we mean i. e. your Rantism wherein besides your foul faultering in materia circa quam i. e. the petty party about which you busie your selves in that dispensation for that being not a believer discipled by your teaching as the subject of baptism ought to be according to Mat. 28.18.19 but an untaught non-believing infant doth clearly null it in case you did baptize from the name of the ordinance of Christ that onely being his ordinance that is ordained by him who never ordained baptism to be dispenst to other then such as are disciples so made by mens teachings Besides I say your foul faultering in the subjects you dispense to t is another thing then baptism you dispense to them Rantist What then dipping belike is so necessary and essential in baptism that baptism is no baptism if it be done in another form or if it be done by sprinkling Baptist. No not so for baptism is baptism stil let it be done in what form soever neverthelesse what is not baptism is not and such is that sprinkling which you call baptism for it is not thing you call it for if it were baptizing that you used whether it were thus or thus it mattered not because that thing that 's properly stiled baptism is still dispensed yea though your subject be so false as to barre it even then from bearing the name of the baptism of Christ yet even then might it bear the name of baptism but sith it is not that which Christ at first instituted but which men have since invented in stead thereof notwithstanding its being done of old among the Clergy yet is it no other then an old nothing Rantist 〈◊〉 practise hath born the name of baptism before you were born among wise 〈◊〉 then your selves for ages and generations together and must it now be dis 〈◊〉 and digraded from that title it hath been denominated by so long and cease to bear its own name Baptist. It s own name no sprinkling is sprinkling still and so it ever will be where it s used but it must cease for ever from bearing the name of baptism because baptism it never was if your administration hath indeed the form of baptism then baptism it is but then it can be called spirinkling no more but if it have the form of sprinkling then sprinkling it is and can be called baptism no more for these two though the materia quâ et circa quam i. e. both the Element which you use and the subject to which you use that element be never so the same yet are two such specifically and formally different actions and dispensations as do not ponere but tollere se invicem and can in no wise meet in the same subject at the same time so as that by the dispensing of either of the two it may be denominated indifferently I mean properly by either for he that is baptized cannot be said thereby to be sprinkled and likewise he that is but sprinkled cannot be said there upon onely to be baptized for these two actions of sprinkling and baptizing having two different formes they cannot possibly be properly called the same Rantist Then it seems the different form wherein we do things makes the thing so done so to differ that they may not admit of one and the same denomination and by this reason sith there are several and various formes wherein you dispence your dipping to persons for happily you dipp them sometimes forward somtimes backward sometimes sidewaies these various waies of dispensing cannot all be called by that one name of dipping Baptist. By forms I mean not the accidentall but the essential formes of things which whensoever they are two those things whose forms they are cannot be one for unius rei est unica tantum forma i. e. essentialis of one thing there can be but one essentiaell form there may be more accidentall for the essential form is that quae dat esse rei which gives every thing to be what it is and distinguishes it so exactly from every thing else that its uncapable thereby to be at that time another thing and another thing of another essential form uncapable utterly to be that now t is the very essential form wherein sprinkling and baptizing alias dipping do differ for the essential form of that action of baptizing Anglicè dipping of persons is the putting of them under water a covering them with water or plunging them over head in water but the essential form of your sprinkling is only the foisting of a litle water upon their foreheads for it is not so much as a total sprinkling you use neither In a word Baptizing properly is the application of the whole subject to the whole element of water Collectim here or there gatherd together so as to overwhelm him in it but sprinkling properly is quite another thing viz. the application of a little water or some liquid element to the subject guttatim i. e by dropps or small portions only so that these two viz. your sprinkling and true baptism are no more one thing then the hurling of a man down some Praecipice or steep place upon spikes that let out his heart blood and the pricking of him till he bleed only with a pin which in general are both a shedding of blood as our two parrallels are both a wetting with water but in special not the killing of a man as neither are the other both baptizing so that there may be many ways and meanes of doing a thing and the thing be but one still if it have essentially but one form but where there be many essential forms there are ever as many several things as those are A man may ride many waies viz. East West c. many manner of waies viz. backward forward apace or slowly c. and yet all this is riding still while the man moves to and fro on horse back because the very formality of that action of riding consists in being carried by another but while he moves upon his own Legges up and down you cannot at that time denominate him riding In like manner a man may be baptized Anglice dipped or put under the water many manner of waies viz. forward backward sideway toward the right hand or left quickly slowly and yet all this while he is baptized if put under because the essential form of baptism viz. dipping in water is to be found in all these waies but if he have two or three drops of water only flerted upon his face he is no more truly baptized then if you fillip him with a wet finger for here is Differentia essentialis the very formallity of baptism is absent If accidentalls onely and meer accessaries be wanting unto baptism
as things can be for omnia corpora sunt substantia yea all things are one for omnia sunt entia but in special so that the one is in specie the same with the other but this cannot be said of dipping and sprinkling for though they are both wettings with water yet are they not both baptizings for baptizing is not the genus in respect to them i. e. the generall of which dipping and sprinkling are the special dividing members but baptizing it self or dipping for these two are adequate each to other is the member opposite to sprinkling and and specifically different from it under the general word wetting with water so that still these are not the same so as that sprinkling can possibly be called baptizing Secondly if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie to wash any other way then by dipping yet that 's not the direct immediate primary signification of it for that is to dip or plung as you see in the Lexicon but at the best it is but indirectly collaterally by the by improperly and remotely that it so signifies and I ask whether when we try any matter by the signification of the word as t is in the original we shall go to the direct original prime and proper or to the the occasional remote indirect and improper signification to be tried by your practise it seems is built onely upon the indirect improper remote acceptations of the word and therefore is at best onely an uncouth indirect improper and farre fetcht practise Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing but it is a real total washing onely such a washing as is by dipping plunging and swilling the subject in water and that signification is yet many miles off from sprinkling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lavo abluo i. e. to rinse to wash away to clense which things are done onely or at least most effectually immergendo by putting things in water and swilling them therein So that still such a washing as baptism is sprinkling is not and so you are never the nearer for all this Yea Fourthly neither do baptizing and sprinkling meet one another so much as in that third word washing so that they may be both properly predicated by it though in that more general word wetting they do for howbeit baptism is truly called a washing Heb. 10.22 and your bodies washed in pure water yet ne in aliquo sensu can sprinkling be truely so called unlese it be in insano sensu alias non-sensaliter for in sano sensu it cannot yea I appeal to all men to recollect to their remembrance whether they ever saw any thing truly washt in the way of sprinkling especially whether ever they saw any one wash things so well as they must do who are said Lauare abluere to rinse to clense which are the senses in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash in such a sleight way of wetting them as is made by such a sprinkling onely as you use Rantist The Pharises Mat. 7.4 held the washing of hands cups pots brazen vessels beds and tables and their washings are called baptisms and 〈◊〉 can you conceive they did any more then sprinkle water up on them Baptist. Yea surely Sirs why not they swilled and rinsed and clensed and totally wetted them with water or else I am sure they could never be said properly to baptize but by the spirit whoever uses that word when he speaks of sprinkling they would certainly be said to Rantize them Besides shew me any that use to wash whether it be hands face dishes spoones trenchers pots cups clothes brazen vessels or beds either when they are by any ishue defiled and I le venter to vent this verdict on such that they are but sluts and slovens if they do but sprinkle them Rantist There may he washings though and dippings too but what needs such a totall dipping as you use what command can you have in all the Word for such a madâ—â— manner of administration that surely is more then needs a man may love his house well enough and yet not ride on top on 't and so many persons like the way of dipping and washing in the dispensation we now talk of yea and practise it too and yet judge it needlesse to run persons into rivers and ponds and there plunge them quite over head and ears Baptist. To make good this doctrine of totall dipping against such as dippe onely secundum partem as well as those that in part also do but sprinkle I argue as followes Secondly from the practise of the primitive times wherein it is most evident they were totally baptized or dipped and that they were so appears plainly First by the Scripture formes of speech and expressions used about that matter which import and betoken no lesse viz. 1. if there were no other evidence the very denomination it self of baptizedâ—hat â—hat is given shewes it which in propriety of speech and according to the prime and native signification of the word is as much as totally dipped or wholly overwhelmed and covered with water put under water which they could not possibly in common sense and reason be said properly to be if they were but a little wet about the eye-browes only as those are to whom you dispense handling them as if you were affraid too much to wet them surely it would not have been said baptized much lesse baptized in Iordan least of all baptized into Iordan as t was said of people had they not been immersi submersi for so baptized is i. e. put into put wholly under the water by Iohn Rantist But if you stand so much on the signification of the word why do you not drown persons when you baptize them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to drown as well as douzâ— or dip Baptist. This interposition is so weak and silly that some may suppose I frame such a simple businesse as this my self on purpose to render the Rantists the more ridiculous but I professe as ridiculous as it is it was once put to me by a Countrey Clergy man before a great Auditory of people and was as well laught at by them To which I answer if a little more yet much what to the same tune as I then did viz. besides the signication of the word which justifies our practise of putting under water we have president not only for that but also for the bringing persons up alive again not only for burying them in baptism but for the raising them again therein before their bodies aâ—e dead neither have we any president that they of old did use to drown them and thereupon we let it alone yea Sirs we leave that Diabolicall dispensation of Drowning the disciples of Christ to the Churches of whom Dr. Featley boasts who at the Rates whereby you reckon us to be Anabaptists are An-Anabaptists whilest they ordered as he saies p. 68. That such as prophaned their first baptism by a second dipping should
rue it by a third immersion as namely at Zeurick where after many disputations between Zwinglius and the Anabaptists the Senate made an act that if any presumed to rebaptize those that were baptised before they should be drowned and at Vienna where many Anabaptists so you call Christs true disciples were so tyed together in chaines that one drew the other after him into the river where they were all suffocated This president we leave to those Ministers and their Churches that list to prosecute according to it as Dr. Featley and not he only whose patience was Praelatical but even Presbyteriall Mr. Baxter also seem to do whilest they incense the Magistrate against us what in them lies meerly for baptizing believers totally according to Christs will as if we were even therefore only the veriest vipers undeâ— heaven and charge us downrightly for so Mr. Baxter doth p. 134. as wilful murderers which in conscience can call for no lesse then cutting off by the civil sword which rash charge of us the Lord never charge him with if it be his will to condemnation but only to conviction that he may see and confesse with confusion of face to his consolation that he hath wronged a people precious to God and more privy to his will in many things then himself But if he or any still list to be contentious for such a baptizing of disciples as that was viz. a drowning of them in the deep waters of affliction and overwhelming of them in the proud billowes of persecution the baptism wherewith Christ himself was and every disciple of his must be baptized let that be the custome of them and their Churches to baptize the Saints so if they will But I assure you we have no such custome nor the Churches of God Rantist Now you talk of dipping and drowning and baptizing by afflictions you put me in mind of one thing which seems to me to make against you in this for the very sufferings of the Saints with Christ as you hint above are stiled a baptism and therefore sure the word baptism may be used to expresse a smaller matter then that totall dipping and drowning which it signifies somtimes for the Saints though they have many sorrowes yet are they not totally drowned nor sunk under them for Christ both bears them up and brings them out if he should contend for ever their spirits would faile before him and those souls that he hath made and yet these are said to be baptized and also they are said to be baptized with the spirit when yet it s but powred upon them Baptist. Totally drowned no who doubâ—s of that neither do we totally drown them we dip but bear them up and bring them out and save them from dying as else they would do under the water if they should ly there after a while and this we do in token and resemblance of that salvation which Christ shews to his Saints both under and after some small sufferings for him Neverthelesse the Saints sufferings are not so smal but that they are oft times totally drenched therby and overwhelmed as he that is baptized in water with tribulation temptation scorn ignominy and covered therewith as with a Cloud as we see the Saints complaints in this case Psal. 55.5 horror hath overwhelmed me Psal. 61.2 my heart is overwhelmed Psal. 77.5 I am troubled my spirit is overwhelmd Psal. 102 1. intituled a prayer of the afflicted when he is overwhelmed or covered is the title of the Psalm and this is with the waters of affliction Psal. 124.4 so 142 3.-143.4.-so see Psa. 69.2.16 where there is complaints of sinking as it were over head and ears in deep miâ—e and in deep waters where the flouds overflow and prayer for deliverance from those swallowings up by them in token among other things of which continual dying in the world as well as to it and universal passing under the waters of affliction and overwhelming therewith here in this life we do baptize i. e. sink persons over head and ears as well as raise them again alive in token of their resurrection from all troubles at the last daie therefore o how much of that precious signification and representation that is in true baptism is lost in your sprinkling and dribling dipping the face only which some use In respect also of which plungings and overwhelmings with sufferings their sufferings are Metaphorically stiled a baptism Mat. 20.22 which Metaphor is very familiar in Scripture which compares the calamities and miseries the Saints suffer in this mortal life gurgitibus aquarum quibus veluti morguntur to overflowing streames of water wherein they are almost drownd and therefore said to be baptized As for the baptism with the spirit he that shall say it is not such a powring out as seasons the whole man soul and body and every faculty of one and member of the other which if it be it may well be called a baptism where in part at least all parts are purged but of spiritualizing of some parts of the man onely suppose his face and head not his heart hands and feet also but leaving other parts of him carnal and unsanctified is not yet so well seasoned as he should be with understanding in the Grace of the Gospel All this therefore speaks plainly to our purpose and so it is evident still that the primitive Saints were totally dipped by the bare denomination of baptized which in that particular is spoken of them Secondly it appears yet much more plainly by the subject so denominated in Scripture and said to be baptized which is their whole persons for t is said they were baptized i. e. men and women and not their faces or their hands or their feet onely for if any member onely had been baptized it could not be said properly but onely figuratively and improperly and we are to take things in the most proper sense they will well bear that men and women were baptized or that their bodies were washed with water as in baptism they are said to be Heb. 10.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when a denomination is made of any whole subject to be so or so that is not wholly and totally so that denomination is commonly made saltem ex majori from the Major part of the subjects being so at least and then too it is but by the figure Synechdoche whereby we must understand that by that whole some part onely is meant but a denomination of a subject Ex minori parte onely from some small part thereof being so is a thing seldome or never used and scarce cleared alwayes from absurdity when it is by Synechdoche it self for he that should denominate his horse white and commonly call and distinguish him from all his other horses by the name of his white horse onely from a starre he hath in his forehead when all the rest of his body is black would be counted as bruitish as the horse himself specially if he should conceive
here in hand and the examples of the baptism of Christ Jesus and the Eunuch from which we shew how all men if at all ought of right to be baptized for though your Doctor disciples you not denying in the mean while but that baptizing in Rivers is lawful and mark that I pray for it sets our baptizing in rivers out of the reach of all your exceptions who snarle at it though I say he disciples you blindly into a belief that there is another baptism lawful besides that which Christ the Eunuch had and that dipping in rivers is not so necessary to baptism but that they may be accounted baptized who never were dipped after such a manner yet I tell you through whom he being dead yet speaketh that if by Rivers he means as we mean viz. any places where there is so much water as will well serve to dipp persons and so he must mean for else it might be but a pond for ought he knew where the Eunuch was dipped for it is called but a certain water in the way and if by that other lawful baptizing then that which is received in Rivers and places of much water he mean no other then rantizing at Fonts or as you have now contracted the businesse at Basons where there is water enough to sprinkle an 100. but not half water enough to baptize one you will find that at last to be so far off from being the same water baptism wherewith Christ and the Eunuch were baptized that it doth not come so neer it as it would do if it were as the Doctor calls it another baptism sith it is not so much as any baptism at all for another baptism such as Paedo-baptism would be if men did use it would be some kind of kin to the baptism of Christ they both meeting at least in the name of baptism yet so little that Christ will never own it for his but no baptism and such Paedo-rantism is is not so much as nomine tenus in the bare name of baptism any kin to Christ but that you falsly father it on him as his So that in truth our talk with you about another kind of baptizing then that of Christ and the Eunuch will be but impertinent unlesse you practised another neverthelesse for discourse sake and in resolution to the question as the Doctor states it in reference no question to his own practise viz. whether no other baptizing then that which Christ and the Eunuch had is lawful which is as much as to say whether another water baptism may not serve the turn as well or whether Christ hath not more water baptismes then one I answer no there is i. e. ought to be but one baptism Eph. 4. but one water baptisme one kind of baptisme of that one kind that must be the meaning for else there 's more i. e. more kinds of baptisme then one Hebr. 6.2 i. e. of Water Spirit Sufferings Supposing therefore your Baby-rantism to be that other baptism where note that himself confesses yours for that sure he means to be another baptizing then that Iohn and Philip dispensed supposing it I say to be that other baptism he pleads the lawfulnesse of yet sith Christ ownes but one even that alienation were enough to discard it as unlawful and none of Christs as well as its being none at all for new baptism and no baptism will speed both alike with him at last or if he mean onely that another manner of baptizing in water is lawful then he hath no enemy of us in that point save that we still shall differ about the subject for let any administrator take profest believers onely and baptize them i. e. overwhelm them in water and let him do it where he will yea how he will for me viz. backwards or forwards sidelong or headlong so he do it and they be not naked Rantist But still me thinks the main things the Dr. drives at remain unresolved for he tells you first that if it could be made appear that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water and were totally dipt yet thereby it appears not that all others must be baptized in such a manner Secondly that it cannot be made appear that either of them were dipt or plunged but onely washt in the River Baptist. No did I not shew you sufficiently above in what cases particular examples do prove what the general primitive practise was and may be argued from as from a general rule of what ever ought to be viz. when that or those particular practises are enjoined to all as well as to some in one and the same word of righteousnesse but specially when propounded as paterns and written as rules for our instruction and such are both these baptismes of Christ and the Eunuch which had never been recorded but for our learning and for examples sake unto us in which respect though he needed no baptism as we do to be a token to baptism for howbeit it was partly and perhaps primarily to fulfill all the righteousnesse of his own law as well as of Moses Law in his own person as he testifies it became him to do in Mat. 3. for he exacts and expects no more obedience to himself and the father either active or passive from us then he acted and yielded to the father first himself yet was he baptized partly also to the same end in order to which he did all things else that he either did or endured which was imitable and remaining for us to do after him as baptism is viz. that he might leave us who are so often charged to follow him an example that we should follow his steps Mat. 16.24 1 Pet. 2.21 Rantist This is true the matter of his baptism is imitable by us and we are to be baptized as well as he nor do I yet see reason as the Ranter seems to himself to do why Christ himself should be ingaged to baptism or the Eunuch either and our selves exempted from it but whether it be so needfull to be done just in that manner as you would make it to be I see no ground yet to believe that Baptist. Can you be baptized in a better manner think you then that wherein Iohn baptized Christ and Philip the Eunuch me thinks you should not derogate so much from the wisdome of those Primitive Administrators as to imagine such a thing and if you cannot are you not half wild in contending for a worse Or Secondly would you be baptized in not so low base contemptible ridiculous tedious a way to the flesh as they but in a more honourable more moderate more easie more tollerable more world winning more self pleasing more flesh favoring a manner or what is it you would have me thinks either that soure service of going down into a River or pond and being dipt or overwhelmed in water there which served our Lord Iesus Christ and that honourable Eunuch might serve you or else that easie sweet
service of sprinkling which you content your selves with might have served them one of the two for as they were required to be baptized no more then you so surely in no more unwelcome a way of baptism then your selves and they would not have so farre supererrogated as to have been baptized at all if it would have fulfilled righteousnesse in that point to have been sprinkled onely on the forehead Nay that would not for saies Christ when he came to Iohn and Iohn at first refused to baptize him Thus it becometh us to fulfill righteousnesse Thus i. e. not onely in this matter but in this manner but if you will needs perform this service more easily then Christ and the Eunuch did perform it onely as in sprinkling you do not and let be done in what manner or accidental form you please and if you like not to do it openly in Rivers or such like places we stand not on those nicities though many thousands of Primitive Saints as well as modern were and are so baptized let it be done in a Cistern so it be totally and truly done yea make one big enough for the disciple and the dispenser to go down in both together so that the one may conveniently be overwhelmed in water by the other and then let it be done in a bason if you please As for the other thing the Dr. saies viz. that there is no proof at all of the dipping or plunging Christ and the Eunuch but onely of their washing in the River I wonder the Dr. did not look into his Lexicon before he asserted such an absurdity as this if he had he might have found cujus contrarium that there is proof enough that they were dipped or plunged in the alledged texts but no proof at all that they were washed in any other way for the very thing that is related of them both is that they were dipt plunged or washed by dipping t is said of Christ plainly Mat. 3.15 that he came to Iohn to this very end that he might be baptized by him and verse 16. being baptized he ascended presently from the water and of Philip and the Eunuch Act. 8.38 they descended down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him and ver 39. when they were come up or ascended out of â—he water Now I appeal to all rational and unprejudiced men in the world that are skilled so farre in the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to have once seen the genuine sense and signification of it in any Lexicon which is to dip plunge put under water overwhelm with water primarily and secondarily to wash or clense by dipping or dousing whether there be not in those Scriptures plain proof of their dipping and plunging or washing by dipping and not the least hint or evidence of any other washing at all The Dr. himself grants that they went into the River I marvel to what purpose if not to be dipt there he confesses also that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized which in plain English is dipt or overwhelmed in the River mark his words in the river also that such baptism of men especially in the hotter clâ—mates both hath been is and may be lawfully used and yet for all that denies either of them to have been dipt or plunged in the River or that any one may now lawfully be served so I marvell much what they did in the river before they came out of it o quoth he they were washt in the river and yet not so as by dipping neither good Sirs let us examine this a little for I cannot for my life ken what washing the Dr. means besides this of dipping or how any other washing was performed First to be sure it was not by sprinkling which yet is all in all among you and that for these reasons First because it s most certain that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no such signification as to sprinkle neither is it rendred any where Aspergo in any Lexicon or any translator of the testament whatsoever Secondly because sprinkling is no kind of washing at all neither is there any thing in the world save as I said before by sluts and slovens so much as undertaken to be washt onely by that act of sprinkling much lesse by such a sparing sprinkling as yours is who sprinkle not the 20th part pro toto indeed a thing may in time be so totally wetted by a continued sprinkling as it may be put therby into some kind of capacity to be clensed by rubbing it while the water is on it and that is farre from your practise too but not half so well as when it is swilled in water and in a long while a garment may be all covered colored and as it were died by sprinkling as Christ is said in the continued war he wages at the last partly by the sprinkling of peoples blood upon him and partly by his riding up and down in the wine press where there are as there are usually in wars garments rould in blood and blood up to the horse bridles to have his raiment all stained and his vesture as it were died and dipt in blood but all this is hyperbolicall locution and not to be wrested to such purpose as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake do who because there is not enough neer hand fetch a proof for sprinkling fourty miles off which yet proves nothing when it comes for they know Allegories do rather illustrate then evince but this is not such a deep dying as is by dipping Thirdly it had been a most vain thing for them to have gone down into the River meerly to be sprinkled if that were the onely businesse they might well have been dispenst with from descending into the water but sith they were not it shews that such a thing as sprinkling might excuse them and if not them I know not why it should excuse the best of us though men do much in the service of God in vain when they do things that man doth but God never did require at their hands yet we cannot think Christ did any thing in vain yet so we must think if we think he went into a river to receive no more then sprinkling and so we must think of the Eunuch also of whom we have little reason so to think for great folks and nobles such as he was love to do as little as may be in contradiction to the flesh and no more then needs must be in this point of baptism if at all they stoop to it for he need not have hindred himself so long in his journey nor diseased himself so much in his body as to have descended out of his chariot and after into the water but might much rather have sent Philip or his servant to have fetcht so much water in the hollow of his hand as would have served very well to have sprinkled him if no more then so had been
required Fourthly it had been stark non-sense for Mark to have said of Christ as he doth Mark. 1.9 he was baptized of Iohn in Iordan if he were not dipt or if by baptized we must understand sprinkled for he was sprinkled into the River is as absurd and unelegant English as to say he was dipt into the rain Secondly it was not by powring water upon them that Christ and the Eunuch were washed this is the baptism Mr. Baxter pretends to as that and that only which ever he saw dispensed in all his life as it were disclaiming the way of sprinkling which yet is your onely wonted way I believe he saw good cause to be ashamed of owning that any longer for baptism as many a one besides him is who with him puts it off thus that their baptism is not by the way of sprinkling but powring of water upon the infans for my part saith he p. 134. I may say as Mr. Blake that I never saw a child sprinkled but all that I have seen baptized had water powred on them and so were washed And Mr. Blake saies p. 4. of his answer to Mr. Blackwood that he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled O the egregious shifts and shuffling evasions of these men who perceiving the perverse practise of sprinkling infants summoned and sub paena'd to come to a trial by the word of God do disguise it out of its old name that it hath born with content and without controul for ages and generations and doth still among many of their own party till now they begin to see it more strictly then ever enquired after and likely to come into trouble for its transgression from Christs command and shroud it under another name whereby to secure it so that now they know not nor ever saw or heard of any such manner of thing done in all the world No Sirs what never that is strange what parts of Christendome have you lived or do you live in I profess for my part I have lived a Sprinkler of infants my self about some seven or eight years not only in several parishes but in several parts of our English Christendome far distant yet so far as I remember I did never see till I came acquainted with the people whom you nick name Anabaptists any thing done by any in that particular that might well bear any other name then that of sprinkling yea I know where a dispensation of baptism as t was called was done so slenderly once to the child of a noted Clergy man that the father himself was so far in doubt whether there was so much as sprinkling or any water at all dropt from the fingers of the Dispenser that he doubted a while after whether he do still or no I know not whether it were not his duty to have it done over again a little better the Gentleman I speak of if ever he read this will surely remember both what and what Child of his I mean Mean while what more then sprinkling was ever done by my self or any other in that place or any other wherever I have been I cannot call to mind neither do I know that ever till of late that men see advantage lost by it in this controversy the name of sprinkling was denyed to what was done in all places of England save such where the manner was and very newly is upon sight of the falsenesse of the way of sprinkling to dippe a little more then the tippe of their Noses Besides though the Rubrick did prescribe dipping as the onely right form wherin baptism is to be dispensed and in case of weakness declared it sufficient to pour water upon a child yet what kind of powring was universally used by them who never used dipping is evident by the Rubrick if we will give it leave to expound it self for in the Catechism thereof which is not unknown to Mr Blake and Mr. Baxter both to have been taught or commanded to be taught all children at any years in all parishes of England this question viz. what is the visible sign or form in baptism is thus resolved viz. water wherein the person baptized is dipped or SPRINKLED with it in the name c. So that howbeit the Bishops were pleased to use the word pouring water as you do yet a great piece of pouring it was I promise you that their Priests practised to infants and it is a chance whether Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have not in the infancy of their administration which I suppose was in the bishops reign done the like though now happily they make a little better measure or at least seen the like at some time or other but me thinks they cannot chuse but have heard of the like in one place of the world or other a poor piece of pouring I say when their hands onely being put into water were after held up perpendiculariter over the infants face that it might be wetted a little with what fell guitatim from their fingers ends And this hath been the most usual way that I have seen in respect of which I may say the Priest that administred all commonly by book and wiâ—hin book did act beside book and without book in that service for howbeit he was in joined to dip the child in the water as the most expedient way at least and not so much as to dispence by powring water unlesse in case of weaknesse onely yet he made bold having an inch given him to take an ell i. e. upon leave granted him to forbear dipping in time of weaknesse only to forbear dipping altogether and being authorized by the same Ghostly fathers the Bishops to make powring suffice instead of dipping at such time onely wherein dipping might not be safely used to make sprinkling serve instead of pouring also and in this manner I am perswaded the world was gulled by the Clergy in Cyprians daies and after who having the verdict of so grave a Father as Cyprian was that application of water in the bed might stand for baptism in time of sicknesse in case the sicknesse proved unto death for if they recovered even in his judgement they ought to be had to the River and dipt for ease sake to the flesh and such like self ends made some slender slabber to stand for baptism altogether And that sprinkling only hath been the general way of England its evident enough to any save such as seeing see not and have ears and hear not yea as shy as Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter are of that name sprinkling as blind and deaf as they would make themselves in this case as though they never saw nor heard of any sprinkled yet there are Divines famous in their account who own it some of which seem to speak as if they never heard of such a thing as powring of water in the dispensation of baptism but only of dipping and sprinkling as the only forms that ever they had the hap to hear of witnesse besides
several other Catachistical composures that I have seen that specialy of Mr. Ball a man not only vindicated by Mr. Marshall but much magnified by Mr. Baxter by the titles of Rutherfords second excellent Mr. Ball judicious Mr. Ball no Dull Divine to be easily misled p. 131.132 which Mr. Ball in his Catachise p. 24. speaking of the outward sign element action speaks much what as it is in the Rubrick viz. water wherewith the person baptized is washed by dipping or sprinkling in the name c. as if he had never seen water poured on a child but all that ever he saw had been either dipped or sprinkled Nay more then all this witnesse also the very man that manages this very cause together with them viz. Mr. Cook whom I dare say Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have read and made no little use of for he hath furnished them both with sundry of their Arguments against dipping this man in opposition to A. R. which A. R. speaking of sprinkling excludes it by this disjunction viz. that the use of water must be either by infusion or dipping answers thus not only to the clean contradicting of Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter and to the proving of them but so so in their denyals that ever they saw or heard of any sprinkled but also to the excluding of infusion or pouring which yet in other places he pleads for which Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter say is the only way yea all the way that they have seen save dipping which yet one of them never saw at all and to the evincing of sprinkling to be one of the ordinary waies of baptizing for page 11. whereas A. R. saies the use of water must be either by infusing or dipping but not by infusing nor sprinkling for he counts them much what one therefore by dipping Mr. Cook tells him as if he had never seen or heard of such a thing as pouring which is all that Mr. Baxter saies he saw in his daies that the ordinary use of the water is one of these two waies viz. either by dipping or sprinkling yet Mr. Blake that hath read Mr. Cook never heard of any sprinkled So Calvin Tylenus Buchan and all call it either Aspersim or Immersion yet again some Divines seem to speak as if they never saw nor heard of such a thing as dipping unlesse among the Heretical Anabaptists which yet is the onely true and primitive form of Baptism but onely of pouring on of water or sprinkling witnesse the whole Synod of Divines who in their directory direct the world further out of the way of the word in point of baptism then the Bishops in their Rubrick did for they in their Liturgy appointed dipping to be done as the most expedient form and powring on water onely in case of necessity but the other in theirs directly exclude dipping as a thing no where appearing to be needful and order that either of the other shall serve without it for these are their words p. 45. of the Directory viz. He is to baptize the child with water which for the manner of doing it is not only lawful but sufficient and most expedient to be by powring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child whether any thing that ever hath been done by any in obedience to this directory in that second way of sprinkling which Mr. Baxter denies that he ever saw done and Mr. Blake that he ever heard of as done to any did ever reach Mr. Baxters eye or Mr. Blakes eare I leave them seriously to examine but this I am sure of that the baptism of Christ and the Eunuch was dispensed neither by sprinkling as I have shewed above nor yet by bare pouring on of water which they so plead for and this I shall now make appear as plainly as the other For First in vain did they descend into the River to have nothing but water poured on them with no greater spout or stream then what runs down contiguously from the hallow of ones hand but Christ did nothing surely in vain and Philip and the Eunuch might well have spared their paines in wetting themselves so much as they must needs do by going down both into the water and as sufficiently discharged such a service by standing only on the shore Secondly if by powring you mean the powring of a farre greater quantity of water then what can he held in the hand as namely out of some scoop or vessel used to such a purpose upon the face or head as that might have been done full as well by the water side if they had not gon down into the water so it must have been as tedious by running down into their necks and bosomes and so necessarily have occasioned the trouble of the shifting of themselves as very dipping it self can be or do Thirdly t was not by washing them in any other way excepting still that of dipping suppose by applying water to them with their hands or otherwise and then rubbing it on their bodies for if so then this washing must be of their whole bodies or of some part or parts of them onely if some part or parts onely then of those parts which we commonly keep uncovered as the face and hands or else let it be assigned what other parts but it was not the face or hands onely that were thus washt for this again were a very vain thing to go down into the water for as it s said of Philip and the Eunuch that they both did frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora t is meer foolishnesse to fetch a beetle and wedges to cleave a stick no bigger then ones finger little wisdome to run so much as ore shoes meerly to wash ones face or hands which may be done as well at the waters side as in it if their whole bodies were thus washt then it must be done either with their clothes on and that is impossible for though the whole body may be baptized i. e. washt by dipping or swilling it under the water as conveniently and more comely with clothes on then otherwise yet they surely have little else to do and find themselves more work then becomes wise men that go about to wash persons by rubbing water upon them through their garments besides while you can totally wash one in that form of washing I le wash by dipping at least no less then a score or else exutis vestimentis i. e. stark naked that were more immodest then naked dipping Fourthly nor was it done by dipping some part of their bodies onely into water but the whole for to dip a person but in part besides that it is not properly to dipp that person but onely to dip some part of him is to the dispenser and the disciple too tanta mount in difficulty if not surmounting a total dipping yea to dip the whole body of a man at years for we speak not now of infants that may at ease be dandled
any way in ones armes is easie enough to the dispenser when the disciple is once gon down with him into the water and yields himself to be laid along in it by his hands but conceive what part of a man you will except the hands which you will not for shame say is the onely member to be baptized and I le say hic labor hoc opus est t is a matter of no smal difficulty to dip meerly that for if you will dip a mans head and shoulders onely in the River you must poise and posture him Archipodialiter with his heeles upwards if his feet and legs onely you must first at least lift him up wholly and carry him in clearly from the ground which kind of dipping men in Rivers as t is more toilsome surely then that totall dipping which Iohn and Philip used so let him take it who is minded to make himself more moil then needs for our parts we have a way wherein to do it with more ease and to do it more sufficiently too then by the halves As for the other of the Dr. quibbles viz. First for the rest of them are elsewhere removed That the Israelites were baptized in a cloud not dipt into it Resp. nor sprinkled neither but onely metaphorically baptized Secondly that Zebedees children were baptized with blood the baptism wherwith Christ was baptized and yet neither he nor they dipt into blood Resp. Both he and they were baptized with sufferings shame and contempt and affliction and all misery in the world for truths sake i. e. penè yea penitus submersi sunk ore head and ears in deep waters of the proud going over their souls and overwhelmed with the waves of the wickeds wrath prevailing against them for a time and that 's the bloody baptism he speaks of not litterally the sprinkling of their own blood upon them when they were slain for Iohn suffered otherwise but his blood was not shed at all Thirdly that the fathers speak of the baptism of tears but no dipping in that baptism Resp. we mind not what your fathers spake hyperbolically but what our fathers spake in truth and plain sobernesse in this case It was therefore a totall dipping certainly which was then used and by which Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the water and not any other kind of washing there as the Dr. dreames which is also evinced yet a little further by this forasmuch as though the Eunuch was gone down with Philip into the water yet he was not said to be baptized till Philip had dipt him therein for if the wetting or washing or dipping of some parts of the body onely might passe for sufficient baptism then as soon as Philip had conducted the Eunuch into the River he might have led him out again as a person sufficiently baptized for he was washt already and dipt so far as to the Ancles but the businesse was not done though the Eunuch was in the River till he had baptized him thereinto Rantist Give me leave though to put in one thing by the way and that is this t is a question to me for all your confidence whether Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water at all or no the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupon you ground it doth not alwayes signifie into but sometimes unto and why may it not in this place be thus read viz. they went down both of them unto the water both Philip and the Eunuch Baptist. No it cannot for they came unto the water before and so it s expressely spoken in the text ver 36. where its said and as they went on their way they came unto a certain water t is probable some foord or brook that they were to pass through and the Eunuch said see here is water what hindereth me to be baptized if they were come unto the water already as the word saies they were they could not be said properly except they had gone from it first to come unto the water again after they were come unto it therefore the next motion was into it without question yea the very Dr. himself with whom we now deal confesses no lesse then this that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptism of men hath been used if then they were used to be baptized in the water they went down first certainly into it not unto it onely for then they could not be well said to be baptized in it As therefore to that other quirk whereby the Dr. seeks to evade all baptizing in water and pleads for a baptism with water onely viz. that the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly is put after the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not in but with and is so translated and this is one of Mr. Cooks Crotchets too p. 12. of his book the Drs own grant quite cashieres it while he saies that Iohn and Philip baptized Christ and the Eunuch in the river for though I deny not but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be and sometimes is truly enough translated with especially in Rev. 19.21 the place quoted by Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook who both strive to enervate A. Rs argumentation from that praeposition which is used Mat. 3.7 Mark 1.8 where Iohn saies I indeed baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in water saith A. R. with water saith the Dr. and Mr. Cook yet if it be granted as it is by the Dâ— to be in the River then it cannot be denied but that it is in water however and so the Dr. thwarts himself in that Neither is there such inconsistency in my conceit between baptizing in water and with water as that either this or that should be held exclusively of the other for they rather necessarily stand both together yet so as that the advantage stands still by it on our hand for whoever baptizes at all yea he that baptizeth in water baptizeth with water also and likewise he that will baptize wiâ—h water must necessarily baptize in water too i. e. obruere overwhelm or plunge persons over head and ears therein or else if we go to the truest signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reality he baptizeth not at all Let it be rendred therefore baptize in water or with water which you will it s all of a price to us sith the one of these includes the other And whereas the Dr. and Mr. Cook both make such a matter of the words that follow viz. He shall baptize you with the holy spirit and fire the Dr. pleading that the Apostles were baptized with fire not dipt in to it and Mr. Cook that one may as well say Christ baptized in the holy spirit and in fire or put the party into the holy spirit and fire as that John baptized in water the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being there also I answer we may as well say so indeed for t is a truth as well
purses in the name of a prophet she hid it in three measures of flour in all which places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englished in or by Resp. As if because this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath other significations besides into but specially the signification in in other places where very common sense and reason shew that it cannot there bear be Englished into but only in therefore it cannot by any meanes bear to be Englished into in this place where it s as good sense save that it shewes sprinkling to be nonsense yea and more suitable to a genuine and candid construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and undoubtedly to the spirits meaning in the place to English it into then to English it in for though he was rantized Anglice sprinkled into Iordan be ridiculous yet he was baptized Anglice dipped into Iordan is as proper to the full as he was baptized in Jordan yet they blush not to say for so saies Mr. Cook and there lies the very force of his reason viz. that because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in though he knowes iâ— signifies into also therefore it were absurd to render it into here at all Mr. Blake also makes this his sole ground whereupon to say that the Scripture is against our Englishing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by into because elsewhere viz. in the places they alledge where the sense will not bear it to be read into its rendred all along in or by I cannot but believe that those two gentlemen are Judicious enough to discern their own halting and meer shuffling in this case for if I should argue upon them as to but one of those places where they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Englished in on this wise viz the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very frequently and most properly signifies into as namely Luke 5.3 he entered into one of the ships Rom. 11.24 thou art grafted into a good olive tree Ephes. 4.9 He descended into the lower parts of the Earth Mat. 6.6 Enter into thy Closet Mat. 6.13 lead us not into temptation Acts 8.38 they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch therefore it is absurd for you to render it in in Mat. 4.13 and the Scripture is against that interpretation if I say I should urge so upon them and so they argue to us ward they would quickly spye out my nakednesse in that consequence but O how abominable blind are they at home Neverthelesse I tell you plainly that though right is right and to be stood for to a tittle and that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 1.9 were rightly rendred it should be rather into then in yet the service the word in will do us in that place is little lesse then what the word into will do so that we need not stand contending for the sense of into having enough from your own professed sence of in without the other wherefore waving out right in that at present we wâ—ll freely fall in with you as the sense is in yea we grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and that in many more places then those alledged by your selves as namely to add to your store Act. 2.27 thou wilt not leave my soul in hell Luke 11.7 my children are in bed with me But is it so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and is so rendred in that place and many more then I am sure that here it doth not signify out of for he that is in a City put a Nazareth or Capernaum is at that time when said to be in it not out of it nor only by it but in it money that is truly denominated to be in a purse is at that time truly in it and neither out of it nor beside it leaven hid in three pecks of Meal whilest hid is in it overwhelmed covered with it and not on the outside with a few dusts of meal sprinkled on it only He that is in hell i. e. the grave in bed while he is truly said to be in it he is in it and not at it only and so he that is truly denominated to be baptized in water or in Iordan in the River Jordan is not out of it not at it not by the side of it not neer it only as you fancy them to have bin that were baptized of John in Jordan He I say who is said truly and the spirit lies not to be baptized in Jordan must needs be whilest he was in the Act of this baptizing not out of Jordan nor just by it only but truely in it and that 's more then he needs to be in order to baptism if he can be baptized as well standing by it only in that fiddling way of sprinkling Whereas therefore you contend against baptizing i. e. dipping into Jordan into Rivers and plead for a baptizing in water onely by the Example of Christs baptism which you yield in Jordan but not into it I marvel what wide difference you see in these two that you should grant it to be in and yet be affraid to grant it to be into Jordan you cry out not into not into by any meanes for that is no way consistent indeed with your dry washing but by all meanes let it be in only viz. in water in the River in Jordan let it be in water then as much as you will for me so it be in water that you are baptized and not out of it and not well nigh without it as most of yâ—ur christened Creatures are whilest little or none in comparison of such a measure of water as must necessarily be in order to a true baptizing of them doth once come neer them Fourthly it appears plainly that the way of baptizing in the primitive times was by totall dipping not sprinkling in that they chose to do it in places where there was much water or many waters which they need not have done if sprinkling might then have past for baptizing Iohn baptized in the River Iordan and was baptizing Iohn 3.23 in Enon neer to Salem and the reason is rendred thus viz. because there was much water there and there they came and were baptized and as the reason why they went to be baptized there was because there was much water or many waters for the word is Plurall so surely the reason why they went to such a place was that they might be baptized i. e. dipped in water as they could not conveniently be elsewhere at least not every were for where might they not easily have bin sprinkled and upon this account no doubt as Iohn chose to preach about those River sides viz. Iordan and Enon that their converts might conveniently be baptized Paul and Silas being at Philippi and abiding in that City certain daies to preach the Gospel on the Sabbath the most likely time of vacuity from other occasions for people to assemble to hear in went
out of the City by a Rivers side and there sate down and spake to as many as resorted thither to hear viz. certain women for men for the most part were more shy of the Gospel as now they are that they might conveniently dispense baptism to them as should imbrace the Gospel as a certain woman named Lidya and her houshold did and thereupon out of hand were all baptized Act. 16.12 c. Rantist Their baptizing where there was much water for this reason that they might do the work so effectually to every person as by dipping is a frivolous conjecture as if there could be no reason why Iohn should chose a place where many waters were but that he might dipp the whole man in the water the cause rather seems to be this because waters in those hot Countryes were rare and in some places could not be had in a great distance and because there came multitudes to be baptized for the dispatching of which they might well seek places of many waters where John and his disciples might at once be imployed one water of depth sufficient would have served for the use of dipping for dipping sake he might have sought for a deep but needed not to seek many waters Baptist. So saies Mr. Cook indeed to A. R. p. 15.16 and Mr. Blake to Mr. Blackwood who jumps as just with Mr. Cook as one that never saw nor heard of any sprinkled can likely do with another who maintaines sprinkling to be the onely way of baptizing but both weary themselves to little purpose The question is not whether Iohn had no reason but that which we alleadge of baptizing where there was much water but whether that which we alleadge viz. that he might dipt the whole man be not one reason as for that you bring viz. because there came multitudes to be baptized and that Iohn and his disciples might at once be imployed in baptizing that can be no reason at all of their running into rivers to baptize nor of their dispensing in Iordan In Enon and in places of much water or in many waters and therefore for ought I see yet ours is the onely one for verily were it not for the sake of totall dipping they need not for the multitudes sake that came to be baptized nor yet for the multitudes sake who did baptize I mean Iohn and his disciples who no doubt were all at once imployed in that work have sought for a place of much water or many waters for as one bason of water may well serve to sprinkle a whole parish of many persons or if not it s easily replenisht so many persons imployed at once in sprinkling might easily put their hands into one or if not might they not easily have it in many basons what a poor shift is this Rivers Iordan Enon many waters and why because many were baptizing and many to be baptized one water of depth quoth Mr. Blake would have served for the use of dipping for dippings sake they he might have sought for a deep but needed not seek many waters but would not one water of no great depth as a bason yea of no depth at all as a cock or conduit have served for the use of sprinkling 1000s for sprinkling sake even of multitudes they need have sought for neither deep waters nor for many waters neither or if they must needs have had as many waters as they had dispensers they might quickly have made many waters out of one by filling out of one well one cock one bucket many basons Mr. Blake rejoices in Mr. Blackwoods rendring the word plurally viz. many waters which the translators render in the singular viz. much water supposing he hath such a prize in our yielding to read it so as takes off the whole force of our reason but I hope he understands himself better then to believe that by many waters is meant several waters waters in several sourses or channels divisim Sigillatim seor sim sumptae divided and a part one from another for by many waters is meant a confluence of much water together many waters meeting in one flowing running contiguously and contained jointly in one sourse river channel otherwise in one River Enon it could not be said there were many waters for t was but one floud as Iordan was so that by Enon or many waters he must needs understand much water a sufficiency a competency of water for the occasion in hand enough to baptize i. e. to dip and overwhelm in and not several waters for several persons at once to sprinkle in for this might be done easily without much water and if not without several waters yet at least in several basons of water onely but the other could not many shallowes were sufficient for many to Rantize and be Rantized in but they sought some one deep one Iordan one Enon of depth sufficient those being onely the most fit to baptize i. e. to dip in Fiftly it appears plain that the Saints in the primitive time were totally dipped or overwhelmed in water by that denomination that is given to them after baptism Rom. 6.3.4 where the Romans are said to be baptized into the death of Christ and buried with him in baptism into death also Col. 2.12 when the Collosians are said to be buried with Christ in baptism and therein also raised with him through the faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead Now we all know that he that is buried is totally put under that element wherein he is buried whatever it be whether water or earth and all over covered with it not sprinkled with a little onely Non quaelibet aquae guttula nec quaelibet terrae globula t is not a little parcel of water sprinkled on a man can denominate him baptized as t is not a little clod of earth crumbled on a man can denominate him to be buried for baptism is a burial an ordinance and visible sign wherein every believer is to be visibly buried and every one that 's truly buried is totally covered subjected to that element that buries him and for a time at least translated by it out of sight Rantist Buried yea but mistically and spiritually invisibly and inwardly onely in respect of the thing signified in baptism and effected in them viz. death to sinne by vertue of Christs death in which respect also they are said to be raised i. e. to newness of life by the power of Christs resurrection but this is not meant nor spoken with reference to the visible sign it self as if there were to be a burying of the body under water and bringing that up again It s the inward grace and not the outward sign it self in respect of which baptism is called a burial and a resurrection the things signified being our dying to sin and rising to righteousnesse even as Christ did die and rose again Baptist. I am glad to hear you grant so much truth as you do at the
present and I hope you will see the whole out in the end for all will not own so much some perceiving no doubt what a foundation it laies for us to build firmly upon all that in this point we contend for do rather choose to deny this truth that baptism signifies or at least that it resembles a death and resurrection then by owning it be forc't to own the true way of baptism indeed Your Dr. Featley little better then denies both at first p. 70. saying thus As for the representation of the death and resurrection that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptism but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration and clensing us from our sinnes but I can little lesse then admire that he above all men who quotes the Rubrick with little lesse authority then he doth the bible and hath no question little lesse then an 100 times in his daies taught little children the catachism contained therein should quite forget to learn it himself for there it s set down plainly that the inward and spritual grace signified by the outward sign of baptism is death unto sinne and a new birth unto Righteousnesse and besides he knew that in true regeneration there is a death and resurrection Rantist However in the manner of baptism as it is administred in the Church of England there is a resemblance of a death and resurrection for though the child be not alwayes dipt in water as the rubrick prescribeth save onely in case of necessitie which would be dangerous in cold weather especiall if the child be weak and sickly yet the minister dippeth his hand in the water and plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant and these are the very words of Dr. Featly next following the words you quoted and therefore whether he be right in those or no I am sure he is in these for there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in our baptism Baptist. Whether the Dâ—s mind misgave him or no after he had asserted that a death and resurrection is not the thing signified and that which is to be resembled in baptism I know not but me thinks he speaks as if he feared whether that would hold water or no and therefore least it should be found to leak in the very next words which you now speak in as one supposing it the safest way to grant thaâ— there ought to be a resemblance of a death and resurrection in right baptism he rather goes another way to work viz. to patch up a proof of it that there is a resemblace of a death and resurrection in that administration of it that is used in England but t is in such a way me thinks as may well make all the seers ashamed and Divines confounded specially you that so dote on that Doctor as to give up your selves to be so blindly discipled by him as you do and would have others to do so also that ever such a piece of doctrine should be delivered and yet behold you justifie and side with it by Englands Doctors in Divinity It seems then you dare nor quite gainsay but that a representation of a death and resurrection is fit to be made in the manner of baptizing and that the Church of England hath prescribed that it shall be done in such a manner as may be tanta mount thereto viz. by dipping unlesse of necessity through the infants sicknesse it be done otherwise yet notwithstanding that prescription of the Church which of you priests did ever do any other then sprinkle the healthiest infants but because the subject of your baptism in England being an infant is too tender at all times to be dipt or buried in water where not that your false subject of necessity ingages you to forgo the true way of baptizing which your selves prescribe unlesse necessity forbid it because I say the child cannot conveniently be buried with Christ in baptism into death in his own person therefore ecce signum this visible death burial and resurrection with Christ must be all transacted for him per alium i. e. by the ministers hand that is dipped into water and brought out again as it were instead of the child And this is even very suitable to all the rest for all the rest of your service in the point of baptism is done by representatives as little as it represents what is mainly to be represented by it and one part would mock the other if this should not be done so too t is true all is done in the childs name and in the childs stead but nothing done that of right ought to be done either by or to the child himself The infant indeed is askt dost thou believe in God dost thou forsake the divel wilt thou be baptized c but others must answer and promise and professe assent to and vow all these for him others mouthes must speak his mind and there 's the profession again he is spoken to by the minister saying to him I baptize thee i e. dip or bury thee with Christ in baptism into death for so t is in a little plainer English and true sense and intent of the service but alas it s nothing but the ministers hand that is dipt buried raised again with the drips that hang upon which the infant is onely rantized and there is the resemblance of the death burial and resurrection but I trust Sirs you will understand at last that when Paul saies to the Romans and Colossians that they were buried and raised in baptism he doth not mean that the dispensers hands but that their bodies were put under water and brought out again in respect of which they were said to be buried into death and are raised again i. e. not spiritually onely and really in respect of the soules dying to sinne and living to righteousnesse but outwardly visibly bodily in water also and this significatively and representatively of the other and this is my third argument for total dipping Rantist Significatively I grant if you will but not representatively I know no necessity that in every sign there is to be a resemblance of the thing signified thereby Baptist. If that be granted you will not easily withstand the other yet that is granted by the most and must be granted by all whether they will or no as for Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake themselves they neither of them seem to me to deny but that such a thing as a death and resurrection are signified in baptism yea Mr. Cook affirms it yea who questions saith he p. 19. but our justification and sanctification or remission of sins together with mortification and vivification are signified by baptism and he saies right for none can and I think none doth deny it but Dr. Featley of all Divines that I know of yea Calvin and Zanchee both assert it in their several expositions upon these very places Rom. 6.4 Coloss. 2.12 This participation in death saith Calvin is principally to be
the administration of baptism Isa. 44.3 Joel 2.28 I will powre out my spirit upon all flesh Ezech. 36.26 I le sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean this clean water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Christ represented in the water of baptism so in the new testament Act. 2. Heb. 10.22 1 Pet. 1.2 Heb. 9.13 and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12.24 Now saith he let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken of and withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to judge whether sprinkling be not as if not more agreeable to the nature of this sacrament as dipping or immersion In this manner Mr. Cook delivers his conceptions in his to A. R. we will onely see what his parallel saith who argues as Mr. Cook doth epitomizing as it were the labors of Mr. Cook unto his own turn against C. B. wee l first fully receive his charge also and then fully return what in right reason remaines to be returned to both If by baptism saith he we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death and also made partakes of his resurrection will it follow therefore that there must be some ceremony in the application of the water to resemble it if you may take this liberty of argument give me leave saith he to attempt the like and with as good reason to conclude that baptism must be no other then sprinkling that there may be proportion between it and that sprinkling of blood and water that did foreshadow it or baptism must be onely by powring of water there being a lively representation between that and pouring out of the holy spirit or that baptism must be by washing with water only there being a lively proportion between that and washing away of sins by Christs blood you see saith he what you will gain from these disputes from Analogy and proportion To this purpose Mr. Blake p. 6. as if he had stopt all our mouthes by this at once for ever yet I hope he shall see that he hath left us room enough yet to breath in and by which to breath out some reply Now to give the more plain quick cleer and condigâ— check to these two palpable controulers not to say contramplers of the present precious and apparent Truth reducing Mr. Blakes sharp and snap-short Syllogisticalls unto that long circumferaneous collation of Mr. Cook out of which for ouhgt I find he fetch it and in the answering of which Mr. Blake is answered as well as he I most earnestly intreat both those two and all other opposites to that one and onely true way of baptizing we plead for viz. of total dipping seriously to advise what is granted and dâ—nyed what is asserted and argued and by what weak Mediums and on what crazy grounds those things are that are in contradiction to us denyed asserted or argued by them or either of them They are indeed Copartners so that both seem to side with what either saith which yet I marvel at the more because Mr. Blake who quotes but contradicts not Mr. Cook in it at all â—o far as I find occasion to guesâ—e by some passages in the first and fourth pages of his Reply to Mr. Blackwood is against sprinkling so far at least as to judge the way of dipping Mr. Blackwood pleads for which himself professes he hath been an eye witnesse of and known to be the constant practise of many Ministers for many yeares together when yet he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled to be more suitable to the word then sprinkling but Mr. Cook is so earnest for the way of sprinkling as the most excellent and pertinent way that if we may judge his meaning by his words he thinks dipping doth set forth the things signified but by the halves in comparison of it why else doth he say sprinkling is as if not more agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament as dipping Mr. Blake grants not a necessity but an expediency at least in dipping more then sprinkling yet is silent towards them sides exceedingly against us with them that are both against us and himself too for sprinkling as more evpedient then dipping what reason he hath so to do is worth his earnest examination he grants that in baptism we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death and made partakers of his resurrection he grants and Mr. Cook cannot deny it that de facto there is a proportion and similitude of Christs death burial and resurrection by which we are dead to sin and rise to righteousnesse held in the way of dipping and in that respect I am perswaded judges dipping in his conscience more expedient then that of sprinkling yet will no more then Mr. Cook himself allow but denyes us the liberty to argue that by duty necessity or institution there ought to be de jure any ceremony to resemble it what little reason he hath so to do will appear easily and without further proof to himself who grants so far if he consider that t is duty and necessary for us necessitate praecepti by command commission and institution from Christ to do that ever that is most commodious and expedient and whether it be not most expedient and more then expedient too to resemble the death and resurrection of Christ and ours with him in baptism and whether dipping be not more expedient then sprinkling or any other way and more pertinent to represent all those things which are signifyed and are to be resembled in the ordinance of baptism will fall under our examination by and by when we come to consider what the things are that are specially signified in baptism and how requisite it is that they be also represented in it In the mean time let it be considered what is granted and denyed by Mr. Cook of whom I may truly say so little do I ken what the man means by it that he both grants us full as much as we desire and yet denies us too no lesse then every thing we would have denying indeed to the contradiction of himself the very self same things that yet he grants the truth is I know not what to call it but confusion nor find I a way how to reconcile some parts of it to the rest so full of variance it is within it self one while he grants asserts and argues the same in general that we do viz. that the spiritual grace or thing signified in baptism is and ought to be represented or resembled in that outward sign and that respect is to be had that the outward element of water which is to signifie the spiritual thing be used as to the quantity of it though not further yet so far as may be sufficient to
its end which end saith he mark his phrase in this passage p. 20 is to represent which is as much as to say to resemble or lively to set out to our eyes that spiritual grace or thing signifyed and that it be not so little as not clearly to represent it yea and which is more and as much as we say our selves he grants and asserts it for undoubted truth that the spiritual grace or thing signified by baptism is among other things a death and resurrection for who questions saith he p. 19. but our justification and sanctification or remission of sins together with mortification and vivification which is as much as to say those two parts of our sanctiâ—ication viz. our spiritual death and resurrection are sealed and signifyed by baptism i. e. are the spiritual grace of it Also p. 17. these Scriptures viz. Rom. 6. Coll. 2. shew indeed saith he that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death and resurrection by which vve are dead to sin and raised again to holinesse And in all this he sides so sourdly with us and jumps so just into our opinion that if we did hire him to speak our mind for us to the world we could scarce desire him to propound it more plainly than he doth bating only his stiling baptism by the name of a seal instead of which I wish he would call it only a sign yea he gives us all that in this case we contend for from those Scriptures viz. that the spiritual grace or thing signified in baptism is to be therein also represented and that our death and resurrection by vertue of Christs is that thing that is signified there or that spiritual grace the signifying of which other things not excluded is the chief end of our baptism Otherwhiles again he gain saies this grant speaking of it suppositively onely as page 17. If saith he it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse As if he were never the man that had granted as you see he doth or ever would grant or give way to such a thing and not only so but as if he were loath and half angry that any man should speak the truth but himself or the same truth with himself he charms A. R. and little lesse then charges him as a lyar and in him consequently us all for saying no other then what if you put his sayings together he saies himself which is this viz. That our mortification and vivification by vertue of Christs death and resurrection is the spiritual grace or thing signifyed and that respect or care must be had in the administration of it that the quantity of water be sufficient clearly to represent the spiritual grace but how that can be without enough to be buried in water and raised again what ere he thinks I know not but if you vvill saith he presse hence a necessity of Resemblance of Christs death buriall and resurrecti by our descending into abiding in and comming up out of the water take heed least you be of those that adde to Gods word least he reprove you as a lyar and adde unto you the plagues written in his book for I know not any Word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implyed much lesse expressed Thus whereas he saies elsewhere as I have shewed above that the end of baptism was to represent the spiritual grace as well as signify it and that the spiritual grace or thing signified and to be cleerly represented is mortification and vivification or communion with Christs death and resurrection which things t is strange he should say against the word of God for he protests it to be against the word when we say it and if there be any word expressing or implying a representation which himself so much talks on I am sure there is none like those two which we produce viz. Rom. 6. Col. 2. which most lively shew it as I shall shew anon and undeniably declare yet here in the passage last cited he that talks of this representation and resemblance of Christs death and resurrection and ours with him as needful to be made in baptism is a lyar with him and an adder to the word which warrants no where to presse a resemblance of the thing signified in the dispensation of the outward sign no not so much as in those Scriptures Rom 6. Col. 2. So this representation in baptism is with him it seems a matter that must be and yet must not be and yet must be And yet for all this which is the wonder of me and will be of many more but specially of every wise man that hath his wits about him and would have bin of Mr Woodcock too who without taking notice of any weaknesse in it extoll'd the Book in the beginning of it and put it forth to Sir Iohn Burgoines patronage had he well weighed these passages of it Mr. Cook wheeles about once again and will needes have a representation and resemblance of the thing signified by baptism in the manner of administration of it and argues stiffely for it to but the representation must be of what he pleases among the things signified and not of the main thing signifyed in baptism it must be of sanctification as t is called a washing a cleansing a purging a pouring of the spirit on us a sprinkling of the blood of Christ on us and so be done by sprinkling water but not as it stands divided into its two parts mortification and vivification a death and resurrection or else if there must be a resemblance of this death and resurrection in baptism then by an As for example fetcht from the old world that was drowned dead buried by an infusion of water not an immersion and from the Ark which was rained upon only and not overwhelmed this death and resurrection must needs and may better be resembled by an infusion and sprinkling then by total immersion or dipping in water for if we urge to have the death and resurrection resembled by dipping i. e. a descension into the water and ascention out of the water which we all know was the way of Christs and the Eunuchs baptism we must urge also burial which is principally expressed Rom. 6. Col. 2. to be resembled too by biding of the whole man under the water for some time answerable to Christs three daies biding in the bowels of the Earth which cannot be without danger quoth he yea certainty of drowning and if sprinkling should not so fitly resemble as dipping and plunging yet the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body to all which I answer Resp. 1. which thing of his called sprinkling of water on the face for all he saies it may as well or better sith so many were of old killed and buried by sprinkling or
raining on them in the daies of Noah serve to resemble our death and burial then dipping does yet in truth resembles a death burial and resurrection little more then a knock o' th' pate Secondly which drowning of the old world as it would make not a jot for such a purpose as he pleads for had it been by such a way as he dreames it was by viz. sprinkling raining on them by infuâ—ion and not immersion yet in very deed and so hee l see when he is awake and his eyes are open was by immersion immediately and not infusion for it might have rained long enough upon the earth before the men that had houses to shelter themselves in from that would have bin killed and buried under water if the waters had not prevailed by a flood so high over the earth as to overwhelm the men under it and plunge them ore head and ears and if he call that sprinkling and infusion let him sprinkle or infuse water in such abundance till the water sprinkled or infused become of such depth about the parties he is about to sprinkle as to swell ore their heads and to swill them wholly under it and I shall own such infusion for right baptism yet none of Christs ordinance neither unlesse dispenst to a right subject i. e. babes or beginners in the faith Thirdly which elegant allusion of his to the ark as that on which water was onely powred or sprinkled whence he seemes to argue thus viz. that it rained onely on the Ark or water was onely powred or sprinkled upon the Ark which Ark was a type of baptism Ergo baptism must be dispenst by sprinkling is as simple a delusion as ever was devised for if he intend that for an argument to prove that baptism is to be done by sprinkling and if not what does it there it does rather conclude that baptism must be sprinkled as the Ark was for reduce his matter into the form of a syllogism and see how sillily it concludes viz. thus The Ark was a Type of baptism But the Ark was only sprinkled with the rain not dipt Ergo baptism its antitype is to be dispenst by sprinkling He concludes more â—hen he can possibly squeeze out from those premises and another thing then what is asserted of the Ark in his minor whereas in right form it should run thus The Ark typified baptism But the Ark was rained on baptized or wetted by infusion onely Ergo baptism must be rained on baptized or wetted by infusion onely But then what simple stuff were this what a logical lump of artificial non-sense Besides if it would follow that because the Ark which was a type of baptism was sprinkled therefore the way of baptism is sprinkling it would more truly follow that because the Ark was half dipt and half sprinkled one part of it being under the water another sprinkled with rain aboue the water therefore the way of baptism is to dip one half of the person and to sprinkle the other half but alas the Ark was a type of baptism as t was the way and outward meanes of salvation but not in this respect as it was rained on nullum simile currit Quatuor Fourthly which washings purgings sprinklings of Christs blood and clean water typified of old and foreshadowed by the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hysop wherewith Moses and the high priests after him sprinkled the old Israel so that they were typically and ceremonially counted holy and clean thereupon in a fleshly sense onely are all expressions spoken not with such allusion to baptism as Mr. Cook imagines nor are so neer a kin to it as he laies claim to for if they are all to be resembled and respected by us in our baptism as things some way or other signified to us therein yet are they not at all the main or principall things or such as are immediately or primarily but onely remotely and secondarily signified to us therein and so not necessarily to be either all or at all so much resembled as something else But the death burial and resurrection of Christ which is the rise and root the originall and meritorious cause of all the rest being that which though you would shut it out altogether from its interest and right of being represented in baptism of all the rest is mainly and most immediately signified and primarily to be eyed and respected and all the rest but consequently and through that therefore its necessary that this should be resembled most lively that it may take the deeper impression upon us Yea these matters of Christs death burial and resurrection are such cardinall things to be considered as quibus non mediantibus without the mediation of which we cannot conceive clearly nor lay claim to any of the other as ours For as in the supper remotely heaven it self and all spirituall excellencies are signified to us to be ours yet all the things signified cannot be represented to the eye but onely such as are the more immediate significations of it and are the rise and proper cause of all the rest viz. Christ crucified and our feeding on him by faith the seare and are to be lively set forth unto us and resembled before our eyes in bread and wine broken and powred out and received and applied to us but not all the fruits of his deaâ—h and our faith even so it is likewise in baptism and indeed the main signification in both is Christs person crucified dead buried and raised and that is to be resembled in both and other things viz. the benefits of his death as remission of sins and purging c. to be consequentially gathered from that neither can nor are nor need all those to be resembled But as for Mr. Cook he pleads stifly to have all these resembled viz. washing purging powring sprinkling of the spirit and blood of Christ but excludes the main thing altogether viz. Christs death and resurrection which are the very rise and ground of all those And yet if he will needs have all those to be resembled are they not as much and much more resembled by dipping and plunging a person in water then by powring and sprinkling a little water upon him and is not swilling under water a more effectuall way of washing and clensing then sprinkling which though it be a Diminutive way of wetting yet in truth is no way of washing at all If therefore he will have washing and such a washing as well deserves the name of clensing to be resembled in baptism can he have even that done in a better way then by dipping or dousing for verily plunging is a washing and a more eminent way of washing and purifying and so more lively resembling ablutionem peccatorum the purging away our sinnes by the blood of Christ then aspersion or bare infusion either of which without some after rubbing is a way of washing and clensing seldome used by men or women unlesse it be
among flatternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them and I am sure there 's no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling which is any ingredient to your dispensation for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed not on but off and so as that is no washing so if it were I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of baptism Besides both sprinkling and powring are vertualy implied in plunging and burying in water but these are not at all supposed in the other every lesser wetting being contained and included in the greater not so the greater in the lesse Fiftly which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. daies under water answerable to Christs 3 daies buriall if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death burial and resurrection is so fond that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile currit quatuor no similitude answers in all things besides t is the truth and substance of the thing not the circumstance or quantity of time of abode which is to be respected here for a burial is as true a burial when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element wherein he is buried as if he abode 3. daies and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water as if one continued under altogether and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive then if one lay till he were altogether dead Sixthly and lastly which assertion of his uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body is so much the more savouring of either ignorance or forgetfulnesse in him or both by how much one of the very Scriptures that are quoted by himself as speaking in reference to baptism doth require it for its said Heb. 10.22 let us draw neer with a true heart c. and having our bodies washed with pure water which clause if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is requires not a sprinkling but a washing and that 's more then your sprinkling is and this too not of the face only which is the only part you sprinkle but of our bodies which word whether we shall take properly to signifie the whole body indeed or run to figurative acceptations when we need not and take the body by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part to signifie so small a part as the face only I need not wish a wise man to determine for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies Rantist But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must before I believe or receive it that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all that 's the thing I wait to see proved for let Mr. Cook make what suppositions and grants he will of a resemblance yet I see no reason at all to urge a necessity of such a thing nor will I speak so much as ex hypothesi if there must be for none need be â—or ought I know What I hope there are an hundred signes of things which have not any analogy at all with those things they signifie Baptist. Having thus blown away the strange mist whereby Mr. Cook endeavoured to thicken the air so that men might not discern clearly the true intent of those Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. nor the truth at all in this point of total dipping I come now in answer to his and your and Mr. Blakes flat denial of any word or warrant for any representation and also to his demand p. 27. to shew how we gather from reason and your own authors and those very Sciptures you oppose the diping of the whole man over the head and under the water and that a similitude of Christs death burial and rising again to be represented by dipping into the water is signified there But first I must tell you I observe you know not greatly what to say among you against our urgings of a resemblance of Christs death and burial and resurrection from these Scriptures for some of you stand it out as much as you well can that there is not to be any representation of a death and resurrection as Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook both do the Dr. keeping at such a distance from it that to fence it farr enough from him he denies any such thing to be so much as signified Mr. Cook yielding that that very thing among others is signified and that the spiritual grace or thing signified is to be represented too only you must excuse him as to that piece of the spiritual grace all the rest but that he will give way to have resembled but fearing least it can hardly be so cleerly evaded but that t wil needs be proved against them that a death burial and resurrection must be represented they fall a proving it that there may be and is a death burial and resurrection reselmbled in their way of sprinkling and infusion as much if not more then in our way of dipping but either of them shift for themselves in severall wayes the Drs way wherein he proves there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in the manner of baptism as it is administred in the Church of England is this though the child be not dipped in water himself saith he yet the minister dippeth his hand in water und plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant where note that the Doctor doth conceive that though sprinkling may serve to represent a death and resurrection as well as our dipping yet it is upon this absurd account viz. in that there is a certain dipping accompanies their sprinkling whereby that resemblance is made viz. the divping the hand of the Administrator but Mr. Cook though he be not so gross as to imagine with the Dr. that the burying of the ministers hand wiâ—l serve instead of burying the persons body which is if any burial be at all to be buried in baptism yet he is as grosse in his conception another way while he goes about to prove sprinkling or infusion it self to resemble a death burial and resurrection as sufficiently as dipping and this too by such a coined Chymaera such a crude and immature imagination as is ridiculous viz. of the old worlds being drowned and buried by no more then sprinkling and the fall of rain for verily neither was the rain a resemblance of a death burial and resurrection or any thing like thereto nor yet was it the rain but the overflowing of waters by reason of the rain that drowned them and though that orewhelming was a lively emblem of death and burial as baptism is to be yet there was nothing that resembled a
resurrection as in baptisme there must be sith they never rose from under it any more This crooked come off therefore of Mr. Cooks is â—arre more ridiculous then rational and yet I know more men of his mind in this particular I mean so far as to agree to it with lesse ado then he doth that a death burial and resurrection is to be resembled in baptism and yet to think that the sprinkling or casting water upon the party doth sufficiently make that resemblance but I testify to him that this his way is his folly and theirs also that approve his sayings and I advise both him and them that adhere to him to be heartily ashamed of two opinions of his so equally odd and absurd that I can scarce tell well which of the two are more absurd then the other The one is his supposition that the spiritual grace to be represented and resembled in the manner of administration of that ordinance of baptism is sprinkling besprinkling with the blood of Christ whence in order thereto he as unworthily argues that baptism must be dispensed by sprinkling which indeed nullifies it from being baptism if he consider the inconsistency that is proved to be between them The other is the thing in hand viz. his supposition that sprinkling may well not only signify but resemble a death burial and resurrection as well as dipping and is as well required for so he hints p. 19. to be used in this Sacrament as the other If those who own these things and whose own they are will not be ashamed of them for my part I am for to think that the wisdome of the spirit that in condescension to our dull capacities did leave visible signs to be not only true remembrances but also lively resemblances of spiritual things should order things so unsuitably to sense as to require and appoint matters utterly unlike one another and between which there is no Analogy at all to answer one the other by way of resemblance viz. such a thing as rantism to resemble a death burial and resurrection which are to be and are truly resembled all in true baptism i. e. in dipping or appoint such an ordinance as baptism which in plain English is dipping to resemble rantism only or sprinkling with Christs blood is no lesse the absurdity in the abstract But as for you your self you are it seems of Mr. Blakes mind i. e. resolved to own no necessity at all of any resemblance of any thing nor of any ceremony to be in the sign of baptism representing the things signifyed in it I shall therefore shew that as in true baptism i. e. dipping there is de facto and that Mr Blake confesses so there ought to be de jure a proportion and resemblance of the death and resurrection of Christ and of ours with him in that ordinance whereas therefore you say that all signes do not represent the thing signified thereby t is true who questions that but t will not therefore follow but that there are some signs that both do and may and by institution must not only signify but also resemble at least the main things that are signified of which sort baptism is without question one We must here thefore distinguish concerning signes among which some are natural which by nature signify the things whereof they are signs as smoak signifies that there is fire as we say there is no smoak but its a sigâ— there is some fire a red and louring morning a sign of a foul day Others Praeter-natural and institutive which by institution signify the things whereof they are signes and this either by humane appointment as the Ivy-bush is a sign among men thaâ— wine is to be sold where it hangs or divine as the Rainbow is a sign by divine appointment to signify that the world shall never be wholly drowned again by water and these signes by divine institution are either such as are simpliciter signantia meerly and simply significative of the things they signifie without any Analogy or likenesse to them at all as the Rainbow which signifies but resembles not the worlds deliverance from drowning and the dew and drought that were by turnes on Gideons fleece which were signes to him of it but not resemblances of his victory and the shadowes going back upon the dial of Ahaz which was a sign to Hezekiah but not a resemblance of his recovery and such like Or else such as are signâ—ntia et similantia simis ' having in them the signification and similitude of the things signified together and of this sort are all those signs which you commonly but not properly call seals also viz. the sacraments whether those of the old or those of the New Testament viz. Circumcision and the Passeover baptism and the Supper from the manner of the administration of the two first of which you use to argue to the manner of the administration of the two last which so far but no further then serves your turnes you say came in the room of the other for though by way of Analagy with Circumcision as comming in the room thereof you would have baptisme dispensed to infants yet neither Anallogically to males onely nor on the 8th day onely nor to male servants also nor yet by way of analogy with the passover which admitted of every circumcisied soul will you admit baptized infants to the supper which came by institution more truly and immediately in the room of the Passeover even when it was moriturum if not plane mortuum for it was no more to be meddled with for ever whereas circumcision was in use de jure after baptism was begun But I pray Sirs be not pickers and chusers thus at your own pleasure but if you will have an analogy to be held let it be in such things wherein it should be held between the old testament sacraments and the new An argument however ad hominem i. e. sufficient to confute you out of your own mouthes who plead so for analogy between those two administrations of the old testament and these two of the new arises naturally from your own opinions for if a proportion must needs be kept between circumcision and baptism in point of administration otherwise why not in the manner of the administration of these signes as they stand in reference to the things thereby signified so as that the one of these signes viz. baptism may stand in some proportion to its signatum as well as the other i. e. circumcision The Pascal lamb without blemish a bone of which was not to be broken did not onely signifie but lively resemble also Agnum immaculatum exhibendum that lamb Christ Iesus which was once to be offered without spot to God and not a bone of him to be broken also the supper that came after it doth not onely signifie but resemble also Agnum exhibitum Christ crucified that immaculate lamb now offered whose body was broken and blood shed by bread broken and
say however in this point and hold it fast too if by the word you find it to be good I come therefore to consider that which first occasioned all this discourse and to see if such a matter as a death burial and resurection of Christ be not here expressed or at least implyed neither of which yet is granted by Mr. Cook or Mr. Blake as things to which true baptism is to bear some resemblance and here let me tell you though you and the rest are engaged to make the best of your rantism now you see it questioned and have begun in the face of the world to defend it will sooth men up and tell them there is none but the Anabaptists gather that there must be a representation of death burial and resurrection from those places and such like yet we are not alone in our assertions even from those places that these are to be resembled for some that wrote impartially upon the places Rom. 6. Col. 2. even of your own way before the matter came so much in question have shewed their sense therof to be the same with ours as concerning the representation of all these witnesse one Mr. Thomas Wilson who in an exposition of his upon Rom. 6. declares from the 3 and 4 verses thereof in this manner That baptism is a pledge of our sanctification in all the parts of it thus the death of sin saith he is effectually represented by the water cast on us at our baptism though by his favor who was I perceive of Mr. Cooks conceit that infusion might serve turn not half so effectually as by the water overwhelming us the burial of sin by our being under the water and by our comming out of the water our arising out of our sins to a better life through the power of the holy spirit applying Christs death and burial for the beating down of our corrupt nature and his Resurrection for our quickening to godlinesse of living Thus he Neither is he alone in this sense upon these places but most if not all modern writers that do purposely or but occasionally touch upon these places as Calvin Vrsin Paraeus Tilenus Zanky c. do fully agree with him in this particular viz. that the lively resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection and of ours with him that is to be held forth in the administration of Baptism is among other things signified in those Scriptures and do with him expound the words baptized in his death buried with him in baptism into death wherein yee are also risen with him c. not of the things signified only viz. our Mortification of sin and rising to holinesse in a way of likeness to Christs death and resurrection but also of the oâ—tward right and form of administration of the sign it self to be done in a way of likenesse to them both so that we by that as by an image or lively resemblance may not only be kept in a lively remembrance of the matter of them but may bear the manner of those matters also in our minds Thus Calvin l. 4. c. 15. s. 5. Alterum fructum affert baptismus qui nostram in Christo Mortificationem ostendit c. id est another fruit of baptism is this it sets forth our death to sin in Christ and our new life in him fitly as the Gosspel saith Rom. 6.3 we are baptized into his death and buried with him in baptism into death that we might walk in a new life By which words he doth exhort us to an imitation of him as if he should say we are admonished by baptism that by a resemblance of Christs death we should dy to our lusts and by the example of his resurrection we should rise to righteousness c. Also l. 4. c. 16. s. 16. speaking against such as say no more then truth though Baptismum esse sepulturam in quam nulli nisi jam mortui tradendi sunt id est That Baptism is a form or way of burial with which none but such as are i. e. appear to be already dead to sin or to have repented from their dead works are to be buried And that he might vindicate infants who yet in infancy cannot dy to sin or repent from dead works tells us but believe him who will in that Nos jam ante Mortuos per baptismum sepeliri id est That persons are to be buried in baptism before they be dead before they repent or appear to have died to sin and to prove that he cotes this very place Rom 6.4 which the scripture saith he Deserte reclamet nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri ut emoriamur ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemur i. e. very elegantly proclaims the contrary namely that we are buried in baptism into death on this very condition that we may die to sin and may even by that outward visible burial we have in baptism be minded of the duty of mortification Which Exposition is the truth yet not the whole truth nor yet so much as serves the turn Mr. Calvin brings it for t is true we are baptized into death or buried in baptism in token that we must and on this condition that we shall dy to sin yet not only so but also in token and on condition that we are dead in a measure or have repented already nor doth it follow because we are buried in baptism that we may and in token that we must die more and more to sin that therefore we are to be buried in baptism before we die to sin for we are to repent before baptism and after it also But however the truth that is in it is enough to serve our turn at present i. e. to prove his Judgement and ours to jump together as to the true intent and meaning of those phrases in the text viz. buried with him in baptism into death which both hee and we take to expresse the outward rite of baptism and that that outward rite be performed answerably to the name here given it in manner and form of a burial which cannot be without submersion and this too in token and as a resemblance of our death to sin and burial with Christ the signatum or thing signifyed and resembled which whether it go before or come with or after the sign is not material And though Mr. Calvin and we are twain and cannot agree whether we are to be baptized i. e. buried in baptism before we are dead to sin or after yet herein we meet in one with all other Expositors on this place so far as I find Mr Cook and Mr. Blake only excepted viz. that whether Mortui or Morituri we ought to be buried in baptism according to this place not spiritually only for that is the inward thing signifyed into which i. e. in token and resemblance of which we are outwardly buried but visibly and representatively also in the ceremony Much what to the same purpose speaks Calvin again about three
or four pages after ' where coting both the places we are now in hand with viz. Romans 6.4 Col. 2.12 He Expounds the words buried with Christ in baptism of the verity of the outward rite it self representing and betokening the spiritual death to sinne that ought to follow it Paraeus also upon Vrsin p. 375. speaking how baptism is a token not only of remission of sin but regeneration also which he makes so synonimous with our death and burial with Christ that he cotes these these two places Rom. 6.4 Col. 2.12 to prove regeneration to be signifyed in it for we are said saith he to dy and to be buryed with Christ in baptism gives this as one reason why we are said to be regenerated that is in his sence dead and buried with Christ in baptism because of the likenesse that is between baptism and those things so that he also takes the phrase buried with Christ in that place to sound forth Sepelitionem externam internae simulacrum that external act of being buried in water by baptism that is the lively embleme of the internal Zanchy also upon Col. 2.12 writes thus viz. Regenerationis duae sunt partes c. of Regeneration there are two parts Mortification and vivification that is called burial with Christ this resurrection with Christ the sacrament of both these is baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again it may be said truly but sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him yet really only of such as have true faith Now I appeal to all men whether he do not here expound Paul in the words buried with him in baptism and therein risen with him as speaking of the outward rite of baptism whereby the spiritual death and resurrection is resembled yea and so lively resembled that even such as have no more then the bare outward sign of water in baptism without the thing signifyed may be said though Sacramentally i. e and analogically and in respect of neer resemblance yet truly to be buried and raised with Christ this cannot be said of them that are but rantized onely for if in respect of any Mortification and vivification they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ yet that outward rite and ceremony cannot of it self denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likenesse of such things in it but he that hath the true outward rite of baptism i. e. dipping dispensed to him may be truly said to be buried and raised with Christ though he have no more for he hath the same visible overwhelming and burying in water and raising again in baptism which in the bare ordinance of baptism Christ himself had Bucan also that famous professor of Theology though he were so far benighted by being no doubt accustomed to sprinkling that he saw not the difference that is between it and dipping so far but that he supposed one might serve as well as the other yet cotes this sixt of the Rom. 3. and 4. to prove the Analogy that is between the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism in his 24 question in page 668. quae est analogia convenientia signi et rei signatae in Baptismo optima c. saith he What is that Analogy and Agreement which is between the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism Most apt forasmuch as in the same Manner as the water washes the body and clenses it from bodily impurities so the blood of Christ by its merits washes away our sins and spiritual impurities and his spirit sanctifyes us Moreover that immersion into water or aspersion doth most clearly denote Rantismon the sprinkling of the blood of Christ in order to remission of Sins and imputation of righteousnesse but the abode Quantumvis Momentanea quantula cunque saith Tilenus though never so small so that both these confute Mr Cooks fancy of a necessity of 3 daies abode under water if we will have Christs burial represented lively denotes the death burial of our corruption by vertue of the death burial of Christ that is the mortification of the old man but the rising out of the water doth most analâ—gically as it were object unto our eyes the resurrection of the new man or our vivification and newnesse of life and also our resurrection at the last day See how this man saving that he shuffles in aspersion and immersion as nothing differing doth own immersion into water abode under it rising out of it as the most admirable way of analogy to signifie and resemble what ever was to be resembled in baptism again in his 53 question p. 692. he quotes Rom. 6.4 saying with allusion to that Scripture that Predicatione sacramentali we are said in baptism to die to be buried to be raised with Christ and that baptism confirmes our faith in these things because it doth pingere mortem c. plainly paint out the death burial and resurrection of Christ and therein is documentum c. a certain lesson of our renovation and resurrection Now the reason of all such sacramentall locution whereby the things signified are said to be done in the outward sign is saith Paraeus analogia signi et rei signatae tale enim quiddam est res significata in suo genere quale quiddam est signum in suo genere c. The likenesse that is between the outward sign and the thing signified for such as the thing signified is in its kind just such a thing the sign is in its kind for as the water washes away the filth of the flesh so Christs blood our sinnes and in such a manner as the sign is outwardly dispensed so inwardly the thing signified as the minister acts without so God within c. As therefore God within by the power of Christs death and resurrection mortifies buries to sin and raises us to righteousnesse so must not the administrator without semblably bury the person in water in baptism unto death and raise him again unto life or in token of his resurrection to a new life if not where is then the analogie and if no analogie why are we said sacramentally in baptism to be buried and raised sith the cause of all such sacramental locution is because the sacraments are as Austin saies pictures of the things signified in them or is aspersion an action as answerable to a burial and resurrection and painting it out as lively as submersion and emersion do hic murus ahaeneus esto This I know as sorry a shift as it is must be your most inmost shelter when all is done for it can never be with any colour of reason nor is it by any reasonable men that I know save Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake denied but that baptism must exinstituto according to the word yea that word Rom. 6 Col. 2. bear analogy to and the
image of the thing signified yea and that very thing of all the rest which are represented therein viz. a death burial and resurrection by being under water and brought out of it again though by all that sprinkle t is most heedlessely thought and therefore as senselessely taught that rantism i. e. aspersion sets forth those to the life as much as baptism i. e. immersion or overwhelming Among the rest that write of baptism with any allusion to those Scriptures we are yet in hand with what learned Tilenus saith is worth your animadversion I confesse the man though in his judgement he seem clear for our manner of baptizing by immersion submersion and emersion as that which was the onely primitive action and institution yet is so far benighted by the mist and black vail of implicit faith which hath covered all Christendom as to suppose that aspersion may now serve the turn and that for sundry reasons some of which are apparently false and never a one of them worth a straw which I le repeat and answer as I go for saith he Ritus in baptismo est triplex immersio in aquam mora sub aquâ et emersio ex aquâ quam vis autem immersio usitatior olim fuerit presertim in Judea c. The outward ceremony to be used in baptism is threefold dipping into the water abode under the water and rising out of the water but howbeit this immersion was the usual way in former times especially in Judea and other warmer Countries rather then aspersion where note that he grants and who does not but Mr. Cook Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake that having once denied it do strenuously resist it that the primitive way in Iudea and those Regions was totall dipping yet saith he the circumstance pertaines not to the substance of baptism which is false for I have proved that to be no baptism that is but sprinkling Secondly and sith the analogy of the Sacrament may be held out no lesse in aspersion then immersion which is as false and fond a fantasm as the other for sprinkling hath no more likenesse in it to a death a burial and a resurrection which though Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake deny it yet Tilenus himself abundantly pleads as I shall shew and that ex instituto from these Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. ought to be represented in baptism then it hath likenesse to immersion submersion and emersion and that 's not so much as is between an apple and a nut Thirdly and sith in legall purifications sufficiebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinklings did suffice which if they did it was be cause these sprinklings with blood of the sacrafices which were as well on the mercy seat as on the people in token of onenesse or atonement between God and them were instituted directly and solely to point out the spiritual sprinkling of Christs blood on the mercy seat in heaven and on us here on earth in token of atonement which is not the thing onely mainly originally or immediately signified neither so as that it onely is to be remembred and resembled in baptism but the truth of the death burial and resurrection of Christ as the root whence all the other flows and therefore that reason though true yet is nothing to the purpose Fourthly sith immersion quoth he may indanger the health specially of such tender infants as are wont to be baptized now a daies which shewes that of old such were not baptized and that Christ never instituted this ordinance for infants who cannot bear the dispensation of it to them as it should be by right without danger of death but must of necessity and in charity and in humane prudence taking upon it to correct the divine wisdome of Christ and modle his ordinances more to their own ease have another thing i. e. Rantism universally dispensed to them instead of it Fiftly sith both these rites viz. sprinkling and dipping are expressed by the name of baptism Mat. 3.26 Luke 11.38 Mark the 7.4 then which nothing is more contrary to truth for though t is true that dipping is stiled baptism in Mat. 3.16 the place he brings to prove that where note again that Christ himself was baptized by submersion yet that 's not true that Rantism is any where called by the name of baptism yea in the very places he uses to prove that viz. Luke 11. Mark 7. t is most evident that t was more then sprinkling yea and no lesse then a dipping that is there called baptism for t was washing of hands which if ever any body living saw any but slovens wash when foul by no more then sprinkling two or three drops of water on them they have seen more then ever I saw to my remembrance since ever I were born and christned For these forenamed reasons saith Tilenus we suppose the Church by the law of charity and necessity may use which of these rites she pleases By all which it appears that though speculatively he saw submersion to be the way by institution unlesse out of necessity and charity the Church forbid it yet practically he was as you are for aspersion and this makes the more against you in this matter in that a man that retained sprinkling as you do sith t is the fashion in these colder climates should yet be constrained to confesse so much institution as he does for that way of truth I mean submersion which we contend for for seriously take away the wretched reasons which flattered him in to speak favorably of sprinkling he was as to the true way of total dipping caetera orthodoxus as orthodox as we desire him to be I le bestow the paines of rehearsing what he writes so far as concerns our purpose in very elogan◠Latine p. 884.886.889.890 of his disputations in as plain English as I am able Baptism saith he is the first sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which with a most pat and exact Analogy between the sign and the thing signifyed those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in water the outward rite of baptism is three fold immersion into the water abiding under the water and resurrection out of the water the form of baptism to wit internal and essential is no other then that Analogicall proportion which the signes keep with the things signifyed thereby for as the properties of the water in washing away the defilements of the body do in a most suitable similitude set forth the efficacy of Christs blood in blotting out of sins so dipping into the water doth in a most lively similitude set forth the mortification of the old man and rising out of the water the vivification of the New although that Levitical rite of sprinkling of blood Exod. 24.8 did more grossely resemble the blood of Christ yet that was not so exact a similitude as is in the water of our baptism That same plunging into the water holds forth to us that horrible gulfe of
of divine Justice in which Christ for our sins sake which he took upon him was for a while in a manner swallowed up Abode under the water how little a while soever yet saies Mr. Cook it must be three daies answerable to Christ three daies burial or else it answers it not as a true resemblance of it at all denotes his descent into hell even the very deepest degree of lifelessenesse while lying in the sealed and guarded sepulchre he was accounted as one truly dead rising out of water holds out to us a lively simitude of that conquest which this dead man got over death which he vanquished in his own den as it were that is the grave in like manner therefore it is meet that we being baptized into his death and buried with him should rise also with him and so go on in a new life Rom. 6.3.4 Col. 2.12 that these things are signifyed unto us in baptism the very outward rites themselves do teach for immersion shadowes out to us the pravity of our nature dying in us in which our old man dies and is buried with Christ the progresse of which benefit putting forth its power in us by a little abode under the water points out even as rising out of the water sets forth a new life corruption being done away hence it is that baptism is called the washing of Regeneration and that whereby we are saved Titus 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 namely because what is done outwardly by the body in the sign the same is truly performed and confirmed to believers in the soul and even therefore both the names and properties of the sign and the thing signified are very often interchangeably attributed to each other by a Sacramentally metonimy Thus saith Tilenus in the forecited pages and some of this he repeats ore again page 1078. whereby you may guesse that in this his thoughts were well digested Form a Baptismi est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies he sive Relatio c. The Form of baptism is that Analogicall relation of the external and earthly which are the signes with the heavenly things or things signifyed this relation and most lively similitude that is between them is the cause why both the names and the properties of the signes and things signifyed are frequently given to one another by a familiar metonimy of the holy Scriptures wherein baptism is called the washing of regeneration and is said to save us saith he and in this respect also say I we are said to be buryed and raised in baptism in those places because of that lively resemblance of and likenesse to a burial and resurrection that ought by institution to be in the dispensation of baptism and that is in that institution if practised as ordained by Christ. Now who would think by all this but that this man had been baptized indeed i. e. dipped into buried under and brought out of the water in his baptism in remembrance and resemblance of Christs death resurrection and his own with him for how does he speak and that out of these Scriptures we are upon that we ought thus to be baptized and these things are exactly exemplified to us saith he as if he had the lively Effigies of all that was done to him in his baptism dwelling indelably in his mind as if he had been truly buried and raised visibly in baptism indeed and yet behold I believe I may be so bold as to guesse by what he saies in favour of infants sprinkling and by one thing or other that he was not baptized all this while but meerly a Rantist and none of us in practice though so much for the way of dipping in his discourses Rantist But quorsum haec what mean you by all this quotation of Authors Baptist. Because Damnati lingua vocem habet vim non habet the words and constructions of a condemned man that is prejudged to be a heretick before he is heard are like to sway but little among his Accusers and therefore I rather chose to convince Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake who deny these Scriptures either to expresse or imply a representation of death burial and resurrection to be held forth in baptism by immersion submersion emersion by the judgments of their own approved orthodox Authors then by my own judging within my self that those words of Paul Act. the 17.28 viz. as certain of your own poets have said was ad hominem an argument of more weight then an Argument of ten times more weight then it self and that if the joint harmony of Modern Divines holding forth from Rom. 6. Col. 2. a necessity of resemblance of burial and resurrection to be made in baptism by immersion submersion emersion be not considered the never so well grounded Testimony of my single silly self must needs be sleighted Neverthelesse whether you will hear or whether you will forbear I shall leave a word or two upon record whereby either to inlighten you that there is a resemblance of a burial and resurrection necessarily to be held forth in baptism and that no lesse is necessarily implyed at least in these two places Romans 6. and Coloss. 2. or else to leave you without excuse in your disownings of it For First this will appear plainly if it be considered that by the word baptized in the texts is undoubtedly meant the outward rite ceremony sign and form of the administration of baptism Secondly if it be considered that the phrase buried with him and risen with him i. e. Christ doth expressely relate immediately and specially if not onely in those texts to that outward sign it self as that in which taâ—en distinctly from the mistery and inward grace we are said to be buried and risen not onely in signification but in lively representation of the inward and spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ and not to the spiritual internal death and resurrection it self as that which is to be understood by those phrases at all muchlesse onely or altogether or abstractively and apart from any outward and bodily burial and resurrection in baptism as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake seeme too impishly to imagine Thirdly this appears yet further insomuch as there are other phrases in that 6 of the Rom. that do intimate and expresse that spirituall death and resurrection that is signified by the analogical and representative burial of the body in water and raising it again in baptism viz. dead to sin alive to God newnesse of life c. Here is mention made of the things signified And as for that that is spoken of under this expression buried in baptism t is delievered as a medium whereby as a motive whereupon as a reason wherefore as an image and representative wherein we are both to read and remember and also to practise and perform that other for do but mark how shall we saith he that are dead to sinne i. e. should be so live any longer therein know you not that as many of you as were baptized
into Christ i. e. into or in token of an interest in him of a onenesse and fellowship with him by faith are baptized into his death i. e. in token of such a communion with the power of his death as kills â—in and crucifies the old man So that henceforth we should not serve sin therefore or hence it is saith he that in baptism i. e. the outward ordinance we are buried with him i. e. outwardly visibly bodily in water into death i. e. in token and resemblance of our dying to sin by vertue of his death that we should be ever practically mindful of this that like as Christ rose again after he was dead so we should rise to a new life for if we have bin planted together in the likenesse of his death i. e. signally in outward baptism spiritually and really in the inward work and washing performed by the spirit upon the soul we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection i. e. we should be de jure and shall de facto as we believe Fourthly this burial and resurrection that is immediately expressed by the words buried with him in baptism wherein you are also risen with him is made a motive argument and incitement to the spiritual death and resurrection for therefore are we perswaded to die to sin and live righteously because in baptism we are buried in water and raised again in token that we ought so to do and on this condâ—on are we baptized and buried and raised therein and so interessed into all the other benefits of Christs death remission of sins and salvation viz. that we should die to sin and live holily and to this end also that we may be minded thereby to do so Nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri in baptismo Scriptura reclamet ut emoriamur ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemer Saith Calvin l. 4. c. 16. S. 16. Now if this death and burial that we are buried with in baptism be to this end to teach us and shew us that and how we must die to sin then the buriall in baptism there spoken of is not the death to sin it self for the motive and things we are moved to are two and so are the sign and thing signified now Fifthly t is not only such as is made a motive to the other therefore is not the other but such a death and resurrection as is performed accomplisht transacted in baptism i. e. in the very time and juncture of our baptizing therefore cannot be meant of our spiritual death and resurection immediatly but of that burial and resurrection which the outward man in a figure or resemblance passes through both at in the administration of the ordinance for the spiritual death and resurection is that which though it be signified and resembled in baptism yet it is seldom if ever transacted in a person in that juncture of time wherein he is baptizing but for the most part before or after yea ever either before or after and never in the very nick and act of baptism no neither of your baptism nor of ours for you who professe to baptize infants have a subject of whom you hope that he will die to sin when he lives to years but you look not on him as one that is mortuus but moriturus and that not in baptism but long after it unlesse you suppose baptism confers the inward grace viz. death to sin ex opere operato still but we baptizâ—ng believers baptize such as repent from dead works and in fieri though not infacto esse are dead to sin before we baptize them as well as oblige them to die more to sin after it yet you say your subjects for all that are buried in baptism too and so say we of ours therefore the burial in baptism there meant is no other then that of the sign for the thing signified viz. the death to sin is not done in baptism whether it be before or after it and one of the two it is for Calvin saies truly that we hold baptismum esse sepulturam in quam nulli nisi jam mortui already dead i. e dying to sin are to be buried but of himself and others that are baptized in infancy he saies quoting Rom. the 6.4 nos jam ante mortuos per baptismum sepeliri i. e. before we are dead to sin we are buried by baptism l. 4. c. 16. S. 16. the burial therefore is not the signatum but the signum i. e. their putting under water in baptism which sacramentally is called a burial even therefore because of the analogy and likenesse it bears to such a thing even to Christs burial and ours with him which are the things analogized and lively resembled thereby i. e. by immersion for by aspersion they are not And so I have proved by three arguments hitherto that Christs ordinance of baptism is a totall dipping viz. First by the prime signification of the word baptize which is to overwhelm or wash by swilling or dipping but never to sprinkle as Rantize never to dipp or wash Secondly by the practise of the primitive times which was totally to dip as I have made appear many wayes Thirdly by the name of a burial and resurrection that 's there given to the outward sign by a sacramental Metonimy i. e. in this respect as in its dispensation it must bear analogy and likenesse as spirinkling does not to the death burial and resurrection of Christ and ours in him which are the things immediatly signified in baptism and therefore mainly and as lively as may be to exemplified thereby If there be yet any more to say against dipping and for sprinkling let us hear it and as I find it true upon triall or false and feigned so accordingly I shall eitâ—er answer it or yield for I know that he who is not as desirous to hear all that can be said against what he holds as what is to be said for it can never be so solidly settled in it as he should be for nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum est Nothing more sure to a man then that which he sees as well on what ground some doubt and disown it as one what himself owns and imbraces it and though I professe my self to be beyond all doubt that Rantism is no ordinance of Christ but a meer figment of men meaning to serve Christ by the halves nor infant baptism neither howbeit I have disputed for them both and thought I did God service in it too yet he that knoweth my heart knoweth that I have so unsatiable a thirst after the knowledge of truth that if I could think those things to be the truth of God as I once did upon the same totten and reasonlesse principles you now think so on I should re-entertain them with rejoicing in my flesh which would find much ease and honour by it and in the spirit much more which would have that ease and honour with
clear of it self that men famous even of your own way that have not thrust their fingers too far into the fire of this controversie concerning the primitive form of baptizing as these men have done and therefore will on in what they have once asserted and get thorow by hook or crook rather then recede with that shame I should say honour which is the right of every recantant when he sees he hath misreckoned do not onely confesse but also teach us the very same that we stand for Witnesse Tilenus who tells us that Immersio usitatior olim fuerit praesertim in Iudea et aliis regionibus c. p. 886. dipping yea totall dipping for in the very line before he defines the right of baptism to be tripple Immersio in aquam mora sub aqua emersio ex aqua plunging into the water abode under it resurrection out of it was rather used heretofore specially in Judea and other warmer countries then sprinkling Yea Dr. Featley that is as it were the fronteer or fileleader in doing all the disgrace he could to dipping did yet find occasion to acknowledge little lesse p. 69. notwithstanding saith he I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the River and that such baptism of men i. e. in rivers specially in the hotter climates hath been is and may lawfully be used though I confesse he gives this a pull in again and very cleanly contradicts himself in the very next words saying that there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging but onely of washing in the River O grosse First as if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie onely to wash in some other way and not at all to wash by dipping Secondly as if ever any things or persons that are washed in Rivers are washed ordinarily otherwise then by dipping or plunging Thirdly as if he could properly be said to be washed in a river that was never in it but was onely scrubd a little by the side of it Or Fourthly as if wise persons would go into a river for no more then a little fourbishing their faces Rantist You talk of in the river and into the River but you heed not what Mr. Baxter saies in the present section that you are desired to speak to he tells you the word into is not to be taken as if either John and Christ or Philip and the Eunuch were at all in the water or descended into it but unto it onely it being below in the bottoms and the countrey being montanous in which respect they might well be said to go down into it Mr. Cook also and Mr. Blake do both very elegantly answer your observation in that particular Mr. C. thus to A. R. viz. your collection from Philips going down into the water with the Eunuch therefore they used dipping is as vain must they not go down to the water where it was if they would use it would the water have come up to them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping of the same stamp is your inference from Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 from Christs ascending from the water for as Christ was pleased to be baptized with water so he was pleased to go where the water was viz. in the channel where there was a descent and from which there was an ascent so that he must go down to and come up from the water Nay rather your conceit is here confuted for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water then it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water but it is onely implyed that Christ went down to the water and came up again from it Mr. Blake thus to Mr. Blackwood viz. for your criticism of the ascending and descending if you compare Acts 24.1.25.1 also with your places quoted you will see it nothing for your purpose those phrases are used when men go to a place or from a place when they neither ascend upwards neither descend downwards Bishop Usher will furnish you with ten severall Scriptures where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Apostles is used for no descent from a higher place to a lower but onely a removing from place to place though in this place we may believe there was some ascent and descent waters being lower places and when they went to the place of waters the channell in which the waters had their current they may be fitly said to go into the water howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose but a General concurrence of all examples We have examples giving full evidence of a different practise and nothing can be concluded from those examples Baptist. O the wondrous wayes of wretchednesse if not of wilful wilinesse that the wits of these men work in whereby to wave of the way of God from taking place among them how do they strive to keep it off as it were at staves end not yielding it an inch lest it should get an ell one brings one kind of furniture wherewith to fight it another another yet altogether are but a bullrush a flag that shewes like sword and Rapier but will scarce hold a push if put to it to the purpose Mr. Blake he fetches furniture from Bishop Vsher that saies there are ten Scriptures in the acts where the words ascend and descend expresse no more then removing from one place to another of which if those he alledges be two of the ten or supernumerary it matters not for if there were 10000 it would do him no right and truth no wrong in this place where it is believed by every of the three both himself and his two Colleagues that here was going up and down from higher places to lower therefore he may set that cypher some where else or send it home again to the book whence he had it and where perhaps it was of use for here it stands void and serves for nothing And as for their joint sneaping the words they went down into the water and came out of the water into such a short sense as may serve your own curtaild and cloudy conceptions of the matter and exclude our construction that is most clear and congruous perverting and mincing it thus viz. that they went down to the water i. e. the channel where the water was to which there was a descent and ascended from the water or if it be allowed to be read as t is most properly rendred by the Translators into the water yet the meaning of that word into must be no other then unto I admire how men of such professed piety can convince their consciences to content with such home-spun coverings such greivous glosses pittiful put ofs as they do in this case I profess they might almost as good say that the heard of Swine that Mat. 8.32 are said to run down into the Sea did but run down to the Sea and no
further as to limit these Scriptures that relate the baptism of Christ and of the Eunuch so as to force them to no further signification then this to and unto and from the water as if they went not into it at all Rantist Nay not so neither by your leave for the words that follow which relate that the Swine were choaked in the waters shew plain enough that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though we will not allow it the sense of into Mark 1 9. must needs be Englished into here and that the English word into though we allow it to signifie no more then to or unto Acts the 8. verse 38. yet signifyes that the Swine were really not at onely but in the waters for how else could they be choaked there Baptist. How why man t is as possible a creature may be choaked with water powring down his throat yea and a little more possible then t is for any Creature to be said truly not Synechdochically to be baptized by sprinkling or powring water only upon his face and yet t is sure enough that this choaking of the Swine was otherwise then so and no other then by an overwhelming in water forasmuch as it is said they ran down INTO the Lake and were choaked Luke 8.33 choaked IN the Waters Matth. 8.32 IN the Sea Mark 5.13 and yet t is as sure to me who dare not suppose the spirit to speak nonsence as they do in my mind who say that this baptizing Act. 8.38 39. Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.9 10. was though with water also as their choaking was and therefore Dr. Featley will get nothing by pleading for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify with yet not as truly in the water also i. e. by an overwhelming therewith forasmuch as t is said Act. 8 38 39. they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized Anglice dippt or overwhelmed or if you will have washed washed him by dipping for as dipping and swilling is a true washing so by washing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englished by it is meant neither infusing nor sprinkling but that washing onely that is by the way of dipping and I testify to their faces that would fain make a baptizm of rantism that t is more easy to choak then to baptize a man without overwhelming But Mr. Cook foreseeing no doubt what absurdity must needs be committed in granting the words to be read as they be translated viz. they went down into the water and ascended out of the water and yet denying that they were at all in the water and being sensible also surely how it might be noted as a piece of paultry and partiallity to allow the sense of into to the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 8.38 and yet so deeply to disown and deny that sence of into to the same preposition in Mark 1.9 as he does he is more wary then either Mr. Blake or Mr Baxter in that particular and will not by any meanes read it as the other do viz. they went down into the water nor yet as t is in the text they came up out of the water but runs it over more smoothly in a phrase sutable to his own purpose viz. they went down to the water and came up from the water but I hope he'el condescend freely to be corrected for the same fault and with the same rod of reproof with which himself hath corrected others or else his partiallity will so appear as to deny him to have any of that wisdome which is from above Iames 3 the last wherefore as he checks A. R. most sharply for offering to alter and vary from the wisdome of interpreters so as to English the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by in which they thought good to English with p. 12 in these words viz. I would demand of you whether you think that our Translators and most or all others who have englished it with knew not how to render the original in its proper signification as well as your self So I must take the boldnesse sith our Translators and most or all others but himself do read Act. 8.38 thus they went down both into the water and ascâ—nded out of the water to demand of him in his own words to A. R. whether he think that our Translators and most or all others who english those passages by into the water knew not how to render the originall in its proper signification as well as himself As for the other two viz. Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter they foreseeing no doubâ— it would be no safe handsome acceptable nor advantagious way to take upon them as they saw Mr. Cook did to correct the Translators and mend their constructions they are more wary then Mr. Cook in that particular and so thus incidit in Scillam qui vult c. to decline the Rock of insolence they drop into the gulf of nonsence owning the original to be rightly rendred and reading them according to that rendition viz. into the water and up out of the water yet denying those phrases they descended into the water and came up out of the water to sound out any more then Mr. Cook saies the Greek words do viz. to and from the water But I must intreat those two Parallels in that opinion to consider what imparalleld improprietie it is to expresse no more then going to the water side and comming from it again by these phrases viz. going down into the water and comming out of the water for they imply necessarily a being in the water and not only at it he descended into hell is more then being at the brinks of hell he descended into the lower parts of the Earth is more then bare being on the superficies of the Earth and so he descended into the water is necessarily more then being at the side the situation of the water below in the bottoms will not salve the absurdity of such expression concerning being at the water only and returning for he descended to it and ascended from it is enough for that but to expresse that only by into it and out of it is superfluous and superlative simplicity whatsoever element or place in any element we are said to go down into and come up out of we wâ—re once in or else we are fowlly belied had it been said of Philip and the Eunuch they went down both to the water or into the bottoms they descended into the vallies where the water was as Mr. Cook prates by a Periphrasis and when they came up out of the valley or bottom from the water then it had shewed somwhat like the sense these men like best and long to have it in but into the water and out of the water expresse not only a bare being in the bottomes where the water was but in the water also for whatsoever place or element is put after the prepositions into and out of is a place or element that the
exemplifying such a thing as the housholds he makes use of are but also clear examples to the contrary as the non-baptizing of those very infants that were brought to Christ and the non-baptizing of those very infants with their parents Act. the 2. to whose parents and their children to on the same termes of repentance when at years the promise is there made both which Scriptures he wrests into his turne yea verily and had he but one true single example of any one infant baptized in all that word we should lay down to him and never open our mouthes more against infant baptism yet if these two examples do prove for us it seemes they shall not be heeded whilst against them unlesse there be a general concurrence of all examples Wherefore secondly I tell him of a truth that though me thinks the single example of the Lord Iesus might content him and of the Eunuch for can he shew a better example then these yet there 's as general a concurrence of all examples in this particular as there is of the example of any one thing that is exemplified in the Scriptures all Ierusalem all Iudea and the Region about Iordan were baptized i. e. dipt of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins Christ dipt of Iohn into Iordan the Eunuch going into the water and there baptized baptizing in Aenon because much water and indeed the very word baptize makes them all examples of our practise while it signifies obruo submergo Secondly saies he we have examples giving full evidence of a different practise and nothing can be concluded for you from these examples of yours Mr. Bls. examples it seems for his different practise must conclude for him but our examples though never so clear must conclude nothing for us ipse dixit Mr. Bl. hath forbidden them so to do and therefore we must sign ne plus ultra here and urge our examples no more wherefore I le cease Onely secondly I hope he will give me leave to ask him what different practise it is he meanes of which he hath examples giving full evidence against ours and if it be either baptism of infants or Rantism of infants or powring water on infants or washing infants any other way or dispensig Christs ordinance of baptism to men or women in any other way then in the way of dipping or washing by dipping which baptizo signifies I le promise him faithfully that upon his giving us any one example that gives full evidence of it or any other kind of full evidence of it besides that of example any of which he is far from giving in any thing that was ever pen'd by him yet I shall yield and become his disciple and follow him as far as I find him following Christ in that or any thing else and that for ever till then he must excuse me if in love to his soul I seriously beseech him to search and try his wayes and turn in truth to that truth of the Lord Iesus he yet tramples on Rantist There is example given you enough against your way by Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook too of baptizing otherwise then by dipping in the Iailor whom they all instance in either expressely or implicitly First Mr. Baxter saies in that section of his which you have not yet fully spoke to that the Iailor was baptized in the night in his house and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey where water was so scarce and to this agree some words of Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook concurrent in matter though different in form we read saith Mr. Cook p. 16. of multitudes baptized even 3000 in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers and of whole families without mention of going to the waters or fetching store of waters it is like the waters they had within doors at midnight sufficed Acts 2.41 Acts 16.15.33 and saith Mr. Blake p. 10. sometimes baptism was administred where water for dipping was not to be had and though the Eunuch comming to a river saith here is water what hindred that I should be dipped yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in Judas's house in streight street in Damascus nor the Iailor in his prison in Philippi you say that baptism was ordinarily in rivers where there were many waters but sure there were neither many waters nor rivers in these mens dwellings and as sure they went not out in the night unto any such places yet were they baptized Baptist. Are these your Examples of baptizing otherwaies then by dipping certainly unlesse these three men were every one of them either shamefully slighthy in their searches or willingly ignorant or smitten with blindnesse and given up in some measure at least for their not imbracing this plain easie truth of dipping in the love thereof to deep dotage and stronge delusion they could never believe much lesse print such palpable untruths absolute absurdities and cleer self confutations as are unavoidably to be seen by him that reads with understanding these parcells they have published to the eye of all men See first how Mr. Cook contradicts himself in that clause we read of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers To say nothing of the invalidity of this piece to his purpose nor needlessenesse of the Scriptures mentioning the particular place where every one was baptized for what if that be not specified every where where baptism is talked on least the volume should swell is it not as much as to say they were dipped in that it is said they were baptized i. e. submersi obruti abluti immergendo for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mainly I suppose I may safely say only such washing as is by dousing dipping or swilling specially since in places enough it is said they were baptized in Rivers and places of much water but to say nothing I say of that mark how this clause of Mr. Cook clashes with another of his within a matter of ten lines upwards from it for there giving other reasons then that of dipping why Iohn chose to baptize in Rivers and running waters among others he gives this as a speciall one viz. Because of the multitudes that were baptized especially saith he seeing there came such huge multitudes to him to be baptized and yet here were great multitudes baptized even no lesse then 3000 and yet sith there is no mention of the place where which by Mr. Cooks own reason if it be a reason must be a place of running waters and streams that many might be imploied at once in baptizing along the river for the more speedy dispatch with so great multitudes therefore these belike went not out to the rivers though yet there 's no more mentioned that they did not then that they did There were thousands of converts Act. the 4. the 4. of the matter of whose baptism there is no more mentioned then of the manner of it and yet there is
ground enough to believe they were all baptized as well as the rest yea Mr. Blake believes it and in the same way as the rest whose baptism with the manner of it is expressed for why should others be baptized in rivers because they were multitudes and yet these multitudes be exempted from that and be dispached with so small a matter as sprinkling therefore the not mentioning t was done is an argument as good as nothing and whereas he saies there is no mentioning of fetching in great store of waters t is true that we never read at all of water fetcht to the persons but of persons going to the water we do though he saies we do not for even Lydia her self and her family which is no other then his own instance were gone out to a river side to hear Paul preach where being converted they were baptized that being the wonted place of preaching and praying no doubt in order to the conveniency of baptizing before ever the Apostles were so much as invited to her house Secondly of this stamp also is Mr. Blakes conceit concerning the baptism of Paul who because the particular place or sourse of water wherein he was baptized is not expressed imagins that he must needs be baptized within doors and no where else and so consequently not by dipping but some other way whereas there is neither necessity nor probability of his being so but rather evidence if not from the very place yet at least from what Mr. Blake saies that it was otherwise For First it seemes to me that Paul was not to be baptized within but to go some where or other to the dispatching of that businesse wherefore else should Ananias rub him up to it as he doth in such wise as this and now why tariest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins c. Which as it Argues it was a service Paul was tardy to and I know no mans flesh forward to it further then by faith it is overpowred specially in such a weak case as Paul it seemes was in at that present so it was as who should say why art thou so undisposed to thy duty in that particular make hast and linger not longer about it but come away and be baptized now had aspersion or infusion been only the work Paul could not have bin so backward as to need such sharp exsuscitation when once convinced for there 's no such great unpleasantness to the flesh as to engender any aversenesse unto that but that Paul was more tardy then he should have been and why he should be so I know not if among the other impediments at least he was not sensible of some tediousnesse in the service was uttered in a publique exercise once from that very text Acts. 22.16 by a friend of yours and mine now deceased at his sprinkling one of mine own children in which Sermon the doctrine was this and a good doctrine it was and very truly grounded upon the Example of Pauls dulnesse in that Scripture and further cleered by Lots loitering in Sodom viz. That by reason partly of the remainder of corruption in the best presenting evill when they should do Good and partly the great grand enemy of our salvation Satan opposing himself to all good the best that have even renounced their vile life have an indisposition to holy duties and have need of excitation and stirring up Again had he not either been to be baptized within by dipping or been to receive within an aspersion or infusion upon his face only he need not to have bin bid to arise or stand up in order to either of these so much as from the present posture he was in for if he were then sitting face rantism might have been done as well and if he were lying down which in his then case is the more likely of the two much better then in a standing posture in which t is not so easie to dispence a pouring upon the face least pouring so little as you do it prove rather a Rantism then a baptism or pouring so much as the baptizer should do on the disciple if he will needs do it by pouring i. e. till he hath buried him in baptism or wholly covered him with water in resemblance of the spiritual he make way for his bodily buriall in the earth also Whereas therefore Mr. Blakâ— saies thus viz. that though the Eunuch coming to the River might saie here 's waâ—er what hinders why I should not be dipped yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in Iudas his house in straight street in Damascus or the Iaylor at his Prison in Phillippi I say it is very likely it was so indeed that they had not any Ponds or Rivers in their houses to dip in but will it follow therefore that they were baptized in the house without dipping no such matter by Mr. Bls. favour but rather that sith there was not water enough for their dipping within doors as there was for the Eunuchs dipping without therefore they went out to some water or other that they might be baptized i. e. dipped conveniently as the Eunuch was and that may possibly not be farre for many a one that hath not brooks nor ponds in their houses yet have them oft not far from their doors and that Iudas had not so who can tell but whether he had or no the matter is not great sith he lived not far from much water however whilest he was living in Damascus for were not Abana and Parphar Rivers of Damascus though not for Namans disease yet for dipping full as good as Iordan it self and all other waters of Israel Thirdly See how miserably Mr. Baxter is mistaken he would make men believe if they would be such Idiots as to take his single word for it against the expresse word of God that in the Countrey of the Iaylor water was so scarce that he could not be dipped over head whereas oh that Mr. Baxter would see how the Lord hath left him to discover his too hasty galloping over the Sripture it is related that a River â—an just by the same City of Phillippi where he dwelt even that by the side of which Paul preached and prayer was wont to be made where also Lidy 1 and her houshold were converted and baptized and all this no further off then in the very same chapter where the Iaylors baptism is spoken of viz. Acts 16.13 14 15. I perceive this scarcity of water is made a mighty Argument among you against dipping some saying that water for dipping was not to be had in the houses of the disciples that were baptized therefore they received no more then some aspersion or infusion within some speaking as though water for dipping were not to be had in whole Cities and Countreys where the disciples dwelt thus doth not onely Mr. Baxter who denies a sufficiencie of water for dipping over head to be in that Country where the Jaylor dwelt but
it that baptism was not only by dipping then I hope we shall have your answer to them too and the rather because they are of some weight and therefore you are the more willing to slip by them First saith he if the way of baptism were only dipping then the Baptizer must put the baptized over head in the water and after a space receive them up again otherwise he could not say in your sense I baptize thee but we read of no such thing any where in Scripture we find Christ and the Eunuch going to the water and coming thence but neither John nor Philip putting them into the water or taking them from thence p. 8. Baptist. I strange that Mr. Blake should grant as he doth above p. 6. that Philip and the Eunuch are fitly said to go into the water and yet say so shortly after we find no more then their going to the water and from it again how fitly can they be said to go into the water and out of it that go but to and from it I have shewed already but t is more strange to me that he should so far forget himself as to say we read of no such thing in Scripture as of Iohn and Phillips putting Christ and the Eunuch into the water or taking them from thence for we read plainly that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan and in Iordan and we read that Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and Philip baptized him and that Christ came up out of the water and that Philip and the Eunuch came up out of the water if all this be not partly an expression partly an implication of the same thing that Mr. Blake saies we no where read of then I shall never trust my spectacles more for what shall we think was done to Christ by Iohn when it is said he was baptized by him into Iordan if he was not dipped overwhelmed put under the water was he sprinkled into Iordan and what shall we think Philip did to the Eunuch when it is said he baptized him after they were both gone down into the water if he did not put him under it did he no more then sprinkle or pour a few drops of water on him either of those might have been done as easily and more if they had never gone into the water yea if they had never went so much as to the water at all and when it is said of Christ and the Eunuch that they came up out of the water is it not necessarily implyed and therefore what need it be expressed that Iohn and Philip who put them under the water did take them up again after a space and not hold them alwaies under it for if they had how they could have come up out of it I know not Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture then he did Mr. Cook from whom he borrowed this Argument and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden or else Mr. Simpson stole it for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his which he desired should be communicated he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water and took them up again but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you Rantist Now you talk of dipping under water and taking up thence again I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water and to lift him up again above the water sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water and stand there up to the middle and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under by the administrator but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself and divinity doth not admit of se-se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others is there any command for them to go into the water Baptist. I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden and you have laid your heads together you jump so right in one mind in this matter for in this manner and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above divinity admits not say you of se-se-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call se-se-baptism I know not but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under the Scripture admits of such a se-se-baptism as this and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism yet we have president so plain as is equivalent witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water and yet saving your ignorance which permits not the baptized to be agents Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ and that is sufficient that betakes himself not onely to the water but also so farre into it that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back and then dash him in against his will and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed besides doth the condemned mans being agent and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head as to ly down and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself what dribling Divinity is this Rantist Mr. Blake saies further that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments and lay them aside for that businesse but we find no such thing mentioned we find saith he one iâ— the new testament stoned and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of unclothing for that end nor yet of
the putting on of garments after baptism when yet sometimes there had been all reason for the mention of it as in the case of Paul of whom after he was baptized it is said he received meat and was strengthned but not that apparell was put on him nor dry and warm clothes applied to him which we should sure have heard of if he had bin dipt over head in water Baptist. If by putting off of clothes Mr. Blake mean as it appears he doth by his talk of naked dipping in the same place such a putting them off as is in order to putting on others fit for such a purpose in their stead I know not onely no necessity but no modesty also in such a divestment nor yet does Mr. Tombes I dare say though in his expressions viz. that in former dayes it was thought no immodesty and that there is no necessity that persons be dipt naked Mr. Baxter is so abominably uningenuous as to wrest his words into such base and sinister senses and to abuse him to the world as if he had meant it was no immodesty in old time to be dipt naked and as if he held it lawfull to be dipt naked though not necessary when ingenuity of judgement and such love as he pretends to Mr. Tombes would have construed his meaning to be this viz. that it was counted no immodesty in former times though it be now by Mr. Baxter to be dipt in that way wherein we are dipt which is not naked as Mr. Baxter bruits it and that it is not necessary to be dipt naked as Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook think it is if persons be baptized by a totall dipping and as for the Scriptures mentioning of the putting off and on of their clothes in their addresses to and dresses after baptism there was not onely no necessity but at all no expediency in the mention of such a matter yea both reason and nature it self suggesting how needful that was to be done it would have been very vain and superfluous to have talked on it as for the double mention that is made viz. by Luke Acts 7.58 of the witnesses that stoned Stephen laying aside their garments at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul who is said Acts 8.1 to be consenting to his death and also by Paul himself Act. the 22.20 confessing to God his persecutions and how when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed he was standing by and consenting to his death and kept the raiment of them that shew him Mr. Blake cannot be so silly as to think that that clause concerning those mens clothes was put in as a piece remarkable or worth recording of it self or in any other respect in the world save for this end onely as it was an expression of the malice that Saul who was afterward converted and called Paul did at that time bear against the truth for surely had there not been that good reason wherefore the laying aside of their clothes had not been worth our notice nor should it ever have been mentioned simply for it self sake but now there was no such weighty end as this nor any end or purpose at all in order to which it was needfull to mention the circumstance of their clothing and unclothing about the administration of baptism it is enough that we have recorded of the thing in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that and how and why it was done but it would have been frustraneous and even every way endlesse to have minded us of such impertinent appertenances to baptism as the dressing and undressing of the disciples if any one tell me a story that such and such infants were sprinkled at such places is not that relation sufficient and compleat unlesse he tell me how the infants were drest in their blankets and what a fiâ—ling was made by the midwife and the minister about the unpinning and turning up of their face clothes is not the story of Naamans washing himself seven times in Iordan full enough to our use because there is no mention of his putting off and on Christ washt his disciples feet and wiped them it may well be supposed they put off their shoes first and put them on again yet there is no mention of that Mr. Blake thinks that among all the multitudes that were baptized there must have been some words about their unclothings and clothings and specially that there was reason that we should have heard that Paul had dry and warm clothes put on him after his baptism as well as mention of meat given him if he had been baptized by immersion because he had been weak but what crude conceits are all these it was related that he was weak through fasting three daies and that was but proper and answering to the other to tell how after he eat his meat and gathered strength but the other must have come in for ought I see without either sense or reason and sith he stranges that among so many baptized no mention should be made of their preparations viz. the seponing and resuming their garments I wonder what mention he finds of the accommodations that those multitudes had that were circumcised in Abrahams family in one day and in the City of the Shechemits and those thousands in the wildernesse after the long cessation both before and after circumcision and yet that was such a tedious bloody sore and painfull piece of service as required no question ten times more attendance with clothes and other accomplishments till it was whole then this of baptism even in that so troublesome way to you wherein we dispense it Rantist But pray give me leave a little Now we talk of their Cloaths I remember that no sooner was Christ come out of the water but immediately the spirit drove him into the wilderness the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip and the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing Act. 8. whence I argue thus viz. if they put off their Cloathes they did not stay to put them on but went away naked if they had them on then being as you say dipped over head and ears they must have worn them wet but the first had been unseemly the later prejudiciall to their health Baptist. Well argued Mr. Simpson again as sure as can be you have got his Arguments by root of heart for these also are Mr. Simpsons very words in that letter of his above mentioned Rantist Whose Argument this is it matters not I suppose it is past your answer and here is reason enough in it to disprove Christ and the Eunuchs total dipping as a meer groundlesse and reasonlesse conjecture and crotchet of your own coming or if you have any thing to say to it I pray let us have it out of hand Baptist. Reason say you it were well if there were so much as common sense in it for my part I suppose it a senselesse fancy but I am sure there is
so little truth in the ground of it that its stark rotten at the very root it is a dispute Ex falso suâ—positis t is taken by you for granted as necessary when it shall never be yielded to by us for so much as probable that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized either naked or else in the cloathes they ware immediately both before or after either for both Christ comming purposely to be baptized and the Eunuch though not thinking of baptism till Philip met him yet returning homeward from Jerusalem where he had been for some time were undoubtedly accommodated otherwise and with change sutable enough to such a businesse Secondly it supposes that both Christ Philip and the Eunuch posted all so immediately several waies from the water that they staied not so much as to cover themselves with other Cloathes then those they went with into and came up with out of the water whereas as nature it self forbids us to believe they went in much more that they went away naked for common sense forbids us to take the word immediately in so strict a sense as to think they departed in such extremity of hast as was no way consistent with the shifting and so fitting of themselves for departure Immediately doth seldome sound forth such a suddennesse as admits of no intertime nor invening action at all yea sometimes it signifies no sooner then some howers some daies some years after according to the nature of the matter asserted in the sentence wherein it hath its use as Matth 24.29 nor doth it expresse any other in Mark 1.13 where it is said Immediately the spirit drave Christ into the Wildernesse then within a while after his baptism as appears not only by Matth. 4.1 where it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is there peractis praedictis ordinative of another story but specially by Luke 4.1 where it s said plainly that he was returned from Iordan before it is said he was led into the wildernesse and had you or Mr. Simpson compared Scripture with Scripture or heeded the harmony of the Evangelists you had saved your selves the labour of all those lines and lost nothing by it but what is worth nothing viz. the Argument it self for as if I should say immediately after the child was sprinkled the Gossips and friends went along with it home it were absurd to understand me so as if I meant that they did not stay so long after as to wipe the childs face and put the face cloathes over it and lap it up again in the loose blanket to keep it warm so no lesse absurdity is it to understand that speech viz. And immediately the spirit caught away Philip and immediately after Christ was baptized he went in to the wildernesse so strictly as if there was not staying so much as to reassume any garments they had laid aside in order to the more conveniency of their baptizing One thing more I cannot but take notice of in this clause as t is Mr. Simpsons and that is what little proportion if not contradiction it holds with the words of Mr. Simpson or rather of Mr. Blake used by Mr. Simpson immediately precedent to these in his letter for he will not give way to it at any hand that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water or at least that they were put into the water by Iohn and Philip or taken thence but onely in the phrase of Mr. Blake at the third hand of Mr. Cook that they went to the water and came thence and yet here he forgets himself so far as to the confutation of himself and them to speak 〈◊〉 the phrase or Scripture concerning Christ and the Eunuch viz. that they came out of the water which if they could do and neither went into it nor were put into it then I know not how to understand plain English Rantist Well this is all but by the businesse let us go on and consider what more Mr. Bl. brings to disprove dipping to be the primitive custome he tells you further p. 9. it was the Apostles way to baptize disciples as soon as they were become Converts the same day rather sometimes the same houre as we see in the Eunuch the Jaylor and Lydia and multitudes of others but conversion of Disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping the Element of water being over Cold for that service If any object that in those Countreyes there was no danger in the coldest times He answers the commission being for all Nations disciples were made in all Countreys how soone saith he came the word to this Nation c. sometimes therefore saith he the water and weather was too cold for dipping Secondly the Number of Converts were so numerous 3000 5000. in one day that there was no possibility of baptizing in that Manner Acts 2.41 and the 44. Thirdly Sometimes the Baptizers were in that condition that they were unable for that work in that way as Paul and Silas men newly taken out of the stocks in the Inner Prison with such stripes that their Convert was fain forthwith to wash them in this case they were unfit to wade into the water for that work and had they made any such adventure the Scripture would not have been silent Fourthly Sometimes the baptized have not been in case for dipping and plunging which was Pauls case upon the Aparition of the vision he was lead into Damascus where he continues without meat or drink three daies and upon Ananias his comming in and instructing of him he is baptized and when he had received meat saith the text he was strengthned will any believe he went out in this case with Ananias into the water over head in water before the taking of any sustenance Baptist. That persons were baptized as soon as ever they became Converts and could be discerned to be disciples even the same houre commonly without delay is an undeniable truth for that and no other was the very period of time at which what ever their parents were they were deemed to have true title to baptism for neither if their parents were wicked were such excluded as were nor if the parents were godly were such admitted as were not converted upon the Account of the fathers goodnesse or badnesse but as they believed or not themselves and this makes me the more amazed at it that it is come to passe since that the faith of the father can now intitle the child to baptism though the child have no faith at all of his own and yet I muse more sith you all count infants at least of believers to be disciples from the womb why yet you delay their baptism so long and do it not at the same houre of their birth for whether they be Discipuli nati or discipuli facti if they be disciples as you falsly suppose they are if the primitive rule were to baptize persons as soon as ever they appeared
are men that make so much of every little for Christs sake that Crosses and diseases your flesh that you will hardly ever commend your selves as the ministers of Christ did of old 2 Cor. 6.5.6 c. 2 Cor. 11.26.27 in much patience in afflictions yea in necessities in stripes and imprisonments in tumults in crossings in labours in perils of waters in wearinesse in painfulnesse in watchings often in hunger and in thirst in fastings often in cold and nakednesse in indurance of hardship as good souldiers of Christ 2 Tim. 2. which sith you decline with all the might you can rather then expose your selves freely to for truths sake therefore the Lord have mercy upon your persons your ministeriall capacity will be cashiered Rantist Well what if it was so in the primitive times that total dipping was the custome must it therefore needs be so now will it follow that we must follow their fashion in that particular there may be sundry reasons whereupon they might baptize in such a manner then and yet no reason at all why we should tie our selves to the same Baptist. If it was so what do you speak suppositively of it still nay verily I hope you will not be so obstinate as to deny for all your gainsaying it hitherto but that it was so then for sure enough it was otherwise then in that way of sprinkling or powring nose dripping or face dipping either which are in use amongst you and keep it out at swords point as long as you can yet you will be forct to yield to it in the end when you consider that your own parâ—y are fain to flag so far in this case as to confesse it for not onely Tilenus reacheth us that heretofore submersion was the way of baptizing rather then aspersion but Dr. Featley also furnishes us as I have shewed above with as much as we desire and if it be once granted as it is in a manner already by not a few if not all but Mr. Blake why else do they trouble themselves and the world to render reasons why it might be by submersion in the primitive ages and places of baptizing but not so now I know no reason worth a rush on which we can be held excused from baptizing by submersion as they did Rantist T is true it is confest by some and if it were granted by all that baptism was then by dipping it were not so material to your cause nor would you get so much ground by it sith both such as flatly agree to it and such as see not cause to agree to it so fully as some do are all agreed in the grand reason why it was so then and why it may not be so now at any hand viz. the different temper of those climates wherein baptism first began and of ours wherein it now is practised theirs being so hot that there could be no danger by dipping in the coldest times ours so cold that it cannot but be very dangerous if not destructive to life and health I grant saith Dr. Featly that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptism of men especially in the Hotter Climates hath been is and may lawfully be used but the question is whether no other baptizing is lawfull or whether dipping in Rivers be so necessary to baptism that none are accounted baptized but those that are dipped after such a manner usitatior olim fuit c. submersion was more usual in Judea and other warmer Countreys saith Tilenus then aspersion notwithstanding sith submersion may prove prejudicious to the health specially of such tender infants as for the most part are baptized now a dayes we suppose the Church may use which she pleases and saies Mr. Baxter if it were otherwise in the primitive times it would be proved but occasionall from a reason proper to those Hot Countreys and saith Mr. Cook though it were granted that in those Hot Countreys they commonly washed by going down into the water and being dipped there whether in ordinary or ceremonial or sacramental washing that will no more inforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptism now then the example of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the sacrament of the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying which was their usual table gesture then now the ordinary table gesture which is usual among us is most fit so the usual manner of washing among us is most fit to be observed in baptism and that is by powring as well as by dipping so you see these men are all of a mind that is was or at least might be so possibly in the primitive times but if it were yet not so in ours in regard of the coldnesse of our climate Baptist. Then it seems we shall have it amongst you pro confesso that in the Apostles dayes the way was dipping for though Mr. Cook keeps a loof off in his hypotheticals saying though it were granted and Mr. Baxter who borrowes well nigh all he saies against dipping from Mr. Cook Cookes it out but conditionally saying if it were otherwise yet Tilenus takes our part plainly and the Dr. drawes neerer to us then so giving it for gone that in those Hot Countryes baptism in rivers was then used onely whether such manner of dipping in rivers be so necessary to baptism in all countreyes this we say saies he is false and so for ought I see you say all But Sirs first I pray tell me from the very bottom of your consciences whether you can conceive that Christ hath appointed two sorts of baptism viz. one kind of baptism for Iudea and those regions round about Iordan and another for England Scotland France Spain Italy and all the regions round about of the Romish Christendom whether he hath ordained two baptisms or rather two different dispensations whereof one is not baptism to be used in different places viz. baptism for the Hot Countryes and Rantism for the Cold or whether he hath not rather wild one onely baptism and that a true one to be used throughout the world Dr Featley Mr. Cook Mr. Baxter suppose the first but where 's Mr. Blake all this while their wonted Coadiutor in the cause verily he leaves them a little here and lends us his hand who hold that Christ gave order and commission for no more then one way of baptism in all Nations for howbeit he finds in his heart to let Rantism passe for currant baptism among them that take the liberty to maintain and use it for fear of cold p. 4 yet whatever way of baptism the commission was given out for in those Hotter Countryes whether submersion or infusion for aspersion he ownes not to be it however the very same way and no other he holds the commission to be for in the coldest Nations under heaven and this will appear if what he saies in his 9. p. be considered where after he had used this argument to prove
that total dipping was not the way of the primitive baptism viz. because the conversion of disciples and so consequently their baptism hapned sometimes to be when there was no season for dipping the element of water being over cold for that service he speaks thus in way of answer to an objection viz. if any object that in those Hotter Countryes there was no danger in the coldest times I answer saith he The Commission being for all nations disciples were made in all Countries how soon came the word to this nation c. In which words he is void of common sense that doth not discern Mr. Blake siding with us saying that the way of baptism should be one in all ages and places and asserting quite contrary to his fellow disputers against dipping so far as to confute them to our hands for whereas they all uno ore with one consent cry out that the reason why they baptized by dipping in the primitive time was because Judea and the regions round about were Hot Countryes but England is a colder climate and therefore we need not baptize the same way as they dâ—d he tells them plainly that the heat of those Countries could be no reason why they should use totall dipping then more then other nations because the commission for baptizing was one and the same to all Nations and disciples were then made in all Countryes as well as in Iudea in cold Countries as well as in hot yea how soon saies he came the word to England it self baptism therefore in his account should be the same in England as in Iudea not by dipping in Iudea more then in England because that was a hot Country and this a colder but the commission is a like in all places cold and hot this is the sense those words of his sound forth but if Mr. Blake were silent in this case the Scripture speaks loud enough that there is but one baptism for all Nations and no Rantism ordained for any for then the commission must include Christs willingnesse to dispense with colder climates in this point and in our understandings at least run thus viz. go and teach all nations baptizing them that live in hotter countryes and rantizing them that live in colder climates he that believeth and is baptized if he live in Iudea or any Hoter Countrey or is but rantized if he live in England or any cold Countrey shall be saved in which silly unsound sense to understand those Scriptures is to be silly indeed and without either sense or understanding and yet thus it may be understood if this be the reason why they in Iudea must be dipt and we in England must be no more then sprinkled for fear of danger viz. because Iudea was a warm Countrey and England a cold one for either Christ did ordain the thing to be done in this different manner in different regions or he did not if he did then it must be first some way or other intimated in the commission but there it is not and secondly it must be done accordingly in this different manner in the execution or else they are high transgressors that do but rantize in Iudaea and they high transgressors and so Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook say they are with a witnesse but will never prove it that baptize by total dipping in England but if he did not ordain it to be done in such several waies in several Regions according as they are hotter or colder but in one way only in all places then that one way is by baptizing i. e. dipping onely or else by rantizing onely and if by baptizing onely then they are high undertakers that take upon them to correct Christs commission saying t is better and safer to rantize only in some places if by rantizing onely then non tutum est ludere cum saâ—ris they were vain persons that made a Maygame and matter of pleasure of the ordinances of Christ that in Iudaea and the hotter Countreys would chuse to be baptized for delight and coolnesse sake by totall dipping and bathing in water rather then otherwise when Christ ordained no more then sprinkling or infusion Secondly Sirs you grant so much as to say possibly probably it might be done by dipping in Iudaea and the Hot Regions round about but may not be in these colder pray tell me from the bottom of your consciences without stifling them or shuffling with them so as not to suffer them to speak what constructions must be made of those Scriptures which we have canvast to and fro which relate the manner of their baptizings that then were viz. Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.9.10 Act. 8.38 where it is said of the people and Christ that they were baptized in Iordan into Iordan went down into the water and came up out of the water yea were buried with Christ in baptism Rom. 6. Collo 2. yea and of all the other Scriptures that tell us of the baptism that was dispensed in those Hot Countries as Iohn 3.23 Act. 16.13.14.15.33 where it is said Iohn baptized in Aenon because there was much water and Paul went out to a Rivers side and spake the word at which time Lidya and hers were baptized and a while after the Jaylor and his tell me I say what construction all these and all the Scriptures that talk of baptism as dispensed in those Hot Countryes must consequently bear if it be once granted that such total dipping was the manner of baptizing in the primitive times in those Hotter Countreys must they not then needs have the senses we put upon them viz. that Christ and the rest did really descend into the water were buried under the water and raised again and not those forced senses into which you would rest them to your own ends viz. that they went but to the water and there were wetted onely by sprinkling or pouring and from the water again without going into it or being dipped in it if you give us one for granted viz. that in Iudaea and those Hot Countreyes as Rome Phillippi and Collosse the manner of baptizing was by going down into the water and being dipped therein in this Sacramental washing you must necessarily give up also all the interest that you claim in those Scriptures for sprinkling they being no other then the relation of what baptism was done in Iudea and those Hot Coun-Countreys and not what was done in cold if then it be supposed that baptism by submersion and not aspersion was the custome in the Scripture times it must semblably be supposed that the Scriptures themselves that story out the baptism of those times do speak of that Manner of baptism that then was and not of another unlesse we suppose it must be interpreted as speaking of another thing then that it only speaks of and so consequently this Scripture this Testament must be supposed to be wholly on our sides and to speak only of mens baptism by submersion and you must suppose out some New Testament of
since in a loving letter from a worthy friend of mine whose words shall sway me where I see them suit with the word of truth where not I must be excused to the full as much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxters sway you be they right or wrong Grant that dipping was alwaies used in those Hot Countreys yet you know saith he that necessity and charity dispense with Ceremonies even of Gods own institution nor is the Nature of the Sacrament altered by this change viz. from dipping to sprinkling for seeing the whole vertue of the Sacrament is in signification perablutionem it no more matters Quantum quisque abluatur then it doth in the Supper Quantum quisque comedat But verily I am not able to discern either in this or in that you say above or in that you cite out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter the least warrant in the world for the way of sprinkling or for waving the old wonted way of dipping with all the wisdome I have to weigh it by at this instant as for what you take notice of that I said my self above viz. that there is difference between matters circumstantial and substantial so that we need not be so strict in the observation of the one I will not eat any thing I then uttered but me thinks you might as well had you not been partial have taken notice of what followed as of that which had you done you would have seen how little accrues to your purpose out of that granâ— of mine for I told you there and now tell you again sith I see you so quick to catch at things by the halves and slow to mind what in them makes against you that howbeit it is not so material which way you baptize so you baptize yet if you Rantize onely you vary not onely in a circumâ—tance but in the very substance of the Ordinance doing quite another matter then that you should do and not the matter i. e. Baptism in another manner onely for we will bear with that as a thing neither here nor there whether you baptize i. e. wash a person by overwhelming or burying him in water in this gesture or that this form or that with his face up or down yea be it by infusion of water on him or immersion or putting him under it which of the two is most proper and easy we weigh it not so you see to it that you bury and overwhelm him for all this while you retain both the true outward sign which is baptism or burial under water in baptism in its nature and essentiall form in its true Analogy and proportion to the spiritual things signified which are primarily the death burial and resurrection of Christ and secondly our being washed from sin by his blood but if once you fall from baptizing to rantizing from submersion to aspersion from dipping to dripping from a totall covering to almost a totall keeping him from the water you vary from the very thing that is required not from one manner of baptizing to another but from baptizing to another matter There fore Siâ—s when you talk of our being hot for a ceremony if by the word Ceremony you mean some petty trivial immaterial meer circumstance in baptism which may indifferenter aut adesse aut abesse sine baptismi interitu be or not be and yet baptism be baptism still as dipping backwards or forwards in ponds or Rivers you are much deceived in us we regard not such ceremonies But a ceremony is a thing which though it stand but for a time yet stands by positive command for that time wherin it is to stand by no lesse then divine institution nor know I any man Church or Angell that can institute a Ceremony to be observed and imposed and if by a Ceremony you mean thus not the meer manner of baptizing but the matter even baptism it self which of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may altogether with the ordinances of the Gospel or new Covenant very properly be stiled Ceremonies as well as all the Ordinances of Divine service under the Law forasmuch as these last but for their time viz. till the second appearing of Christ as those of the old covenant Heb. 9.1 lasted only till his first appearing then I confesse we are somewhat stiff for the ceremony nor can you blame us if you consider what we do for in so doing we contend for no lesse then substance as far as you can call any ordinance of Christ so that hath a tendency as a sign or otherwise unto something yet more substantial the rite of Circumcision the Passeover and all the other Sacrifices of the Law though shadowes in comparison of what they pointed at yet were ordinances so substantial as instituted of God and so strictly to be observed that who so should have taken upon him to alter and shape them more to the model of his own mind would have heard as ill from God for it as without his leave for omitting them altogether how ill that is he cannot be ignorant that hears how sharply he speaks to them that were too short but in tiths and offerings when in force saying that a curse had therfore devoured their blessings Mal. 2. and also that neglected circumcision saying every soul that is not circumcis'd meaning of whom circumcision is required but it was not of females then any more then baptism is of infants now shall be cut off from among his people and I appeal to your own consciencies if any should have said circumcision is a painful a tedious and dangerous piece of service and dispensation to little infants and so it was indeed much more then dipping in cold water and thereupon in charity circumcision being nothing and uncircumcision nothing but a new creature we will only pare there nailes and make that serve instead of the other would the Lord have took it better at their hands would either God or good men have held them guiltlesse yet whether they had circumcised thus or thus viz. with a knife a sharp stone or a pair of shears I suppose that circumcision had been dispenst with and even thus may we say of baptism as nothing as it is it being an ordinance of Gods institution both they that omit it to whom it is commanded and they that in charity take upon them to alter it so as to make Rantism serve instead of it preaching or practising no baptism at all or another thing that is no baptism under the name of it were it the Apostles themselves or an angel from heaven that should thus alter the Gospell shall equally be accepted or rather equally accursed before God Gal. 1. can you blame us therefore if we contend for the right baptism for it is not another manner of the thing then you use but the very thing it self we plead against you who cannot be said to alter the right way of baptizing but the rite of baptism it self it is not a
represent it yet so little is the quantity that you use not of water onely in the one but of bread and wine also in the other ordinarily nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing content with all in my heart that it be not too much on this hand provided that it be not too litle one the other so but that it may reach to resemble the things signified for the whole vertue of baptism lying in signification per ablutionem i. e. per submersionem per sepelitionem in aquâ and the vertue of the supper much what in signification per recreationem per representationem plenitudinis non multum interest quantum quisque abluatur modo obruatur submergatur sepeliatur nec quantum quisque comedat modo comedendo repleatur To conclude Sirs you are too short in that point of the outward element in the supper as well as baptiâ—m in the Church of Corinth there was so much bread and wine that if some hungred others were drunken as neither of these should have been so the latter could not have been but that the use then was to have more abundance of the elements then you have in your parish passeovers wherein the people are past over with so poor a pittance that all may in likelihood be hungry enough but none at all very easily drunken such niggardly snips and sups not at Rome onely where the Priests expounding Christ as speaking to themselves when of the wine saying drink ye all this and not to the people saying drink ye all of this do impropriate the liquor wholly to themselves but in England also do the priests supp I should say dine for it is done at noon dayes with them their poor patient dependant people at the Lords table There 's one thing among Mr. Baxters bedrow which I had almost quite past over without any answer which if I had you would have said it is like I willingly forgat it Christ told Peter saith he that the washing of his feet was enough to clense all Mr. Blake gives us a touch here too through the persons of a popish party p. 10. of Peters mind saith he not to be washed in one part onely which say some from the same place also viz. Iohn 13.9.10 is as sufficient as the washof the whole As if that Scripture even therefore because it speaks of washing doth speak of this ordinance of baptism either it doth Sirs in your opinion or it doth not if not to what purpose do you quibble upon it here if you say it doth I much marvel why you think so but more if in earnest you argue from it that a man need be baptized but in part onely sith you all confesse practically that the face and head but not the feet are the subject of baptism yea verily you had as good have said Pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude therefore the ordinance of baptism is no total dipping for the story of Christs washing Peters feet speaks no more of the ordinance of baptism then the other does yea it is most evident that the washing of the disciples feet was clear to another end and use viz. not to baptize them much lesse to shew how they should baptize others but meerly to teach them humility one toward another and to condescend to the lowest offices that could be for loves sake to each other this Christ expressed himself to be the direct meaning of what he did v. 12.13.14.15 c. after he had washed their feet he saies to them know you what I have done to you you call me Lord and master you say well so I am if I your Lord and Master have washed your feet you also ought to wash one anothers feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you this was Christs end therefore to learn them humility which was done as well in washing their feet onely as all the body yea the feet only indeed because the feet are the viler parts of the body for us to stoop to wash whereby to expresse our humility each to other in which respect and no other it is that when Peter yet ignorant â—o what Christ was about to do cryed out Lord my hands also and my head Christ replies that he that is washed i. e. not in Baptism but in this washing he was then about need not more i. e. ad rem substratam then to wash his feet but is clean every whit i. e. as much as he need be to this intent for which I now am washing you besides that the washing of the feet only is not a sufficient washing to denominate a man baptized according to Christs ordinance is evident by the Eunuch that went into the water and so was washed in his feet and yet not baptized for all that according to Christs will till Philip had baptiz'd or dipt him there it is a sign you are put hard to your shifts when you use such impertinencies to help you as these Rantist Impertinency I think all is impertenency with you still though never so solid that is brought in disproof of your idol dipping but what say you I trow to those two last unanswerable Arguments of Mr. Cook against totall dipping viz. that it is against both the sixth and seventh Argument both which Arguments Mr. Baxter also takes after him and â—angs you about with them a little better then Mr. Cook did and laces your sides so handsomely therewith that I believe you selves will be all sick of Mr. Baxter and your cause scarce be whole of those two Gashes he hath thereby given it salve it over as long as you will for he proves it plain that your plunging practise is no better then flat Murther and Adultery Baptist. I say these are knocking Arguments indeed if they be but as solid as they shew for but for all that let us see a little for our money before we part with it and hear what their Arguments are in words at length and not in figures if it chance to prove as you say they say and as they say indeed in this particular viz. that it is Murther and Adultery to dip as we do I assure you in the word of a Minister and a Christian that hopes to be saved in the way of innocency as well as your selves that dipping as it is no idol of mine for I adore it no otherwise then I ought to do every ordinance of our onely King Priest and Prophet Christ Jesus for his sake that ordained it so it shall never be adored so much as to be owned more by me but be abhorred rather with deeper detestation then I dispense it with affection to this houre but I believe that their proof will fall wondrous short of so high a charge as they venture to charge us with be pleased therefore since you mention it in gross to repeat their Arguments more at large
which I dare say your memory is more tenacious of then of any other and I shall examine them as exactly as you you shall desire me Rantist First then let it be well considered what they say to the first thing This dousing over head and ears and under water saith Mr. Cook that you plead for as essential to baptism seems directly against the sixth Commandment and exposeth the person baptized to the danger of death For first suppose the party be fit for baptism as you account in the sharp winter as now believing professing c. he must immediately be taken to the River as your tenet seemes to hold and there plunged in over head and ears though he come forth covered with yâ—e But if he scape perishing with cold how can he scape being choaked and stiffled with the water if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin Secondly be kept under water to signifie his burial And Thirdly be taken up again as A. R. and you seem to reason But whatever be the danger of freezing or suffocation it seems this you hold the only baptism and therefore must not be swerved from p. 21. Thus he but more largely and plainly Mr. Baxter p. 134. That which is a plain breach of the sixth Commandement Thou shalt not kill is no Ordinance of God but a most haynous sin but the ordinary practise of baptizing by dipping over head in cold water as necessary is a plain breach of the sixt Commandment therefore And Mr. Craddock in his book of Gospel liberty shewes the Magistrate ought to restrain it to save the lives of his Subjects c. that it is flat Murder and no better being ordinarily and generally practised is undenyable to any understanding man for that which directly tendeth to overthrow mens lives being willfully done is plain Murder but the ordinary or general dipping of people over head in cold water doth tend directly to the overthrow of their health and lives and therefore it is murder here several answers are made saith Mr Baxter some vain some vile First Mr. T. saith that many are appointed the use of bathing as a remedy against diseases To which I reply saith he 1. though he be no Physitian yet his own reason should tell him t is no universal remedy 2. Few diseases have cold baths appointed them I have cause saith he to know a little more then every one in this and I dare say that in Cities like London and amongst Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up and Antient people and weak people and shop keepers especially women that take but little of the cold air the dipping them in the cold weather in cold water in the course of nature would kill hundreds and thousands of them either suddenly or by casting them into some Chronicle disease I know not what trick a covetous Land lord can find out to get his tenants â—â— dy apace that he may have new fines and heriots likelier then to encourage such Preachers that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists I wish that this devise saith be not it that countenanceth these men and covetous Phisitians me thinks saith he should not be much against them Catarrhes and obstructions which are the two great fountains of most mortall diseases in mans body could scarce have a more notable means to produce them where they are not or to increase them where they are Apoplexies Lethargies Palsies and all comatous diseases would be promoted by it so would Cephalalgies Hemicranies Phâ—hiseâ— debility of the stomach Crudities and almost all Feavers Dissenteries Diarraeas Colicks Illiack passions Convulsions Spasmes Tremors c. all Hepatick Splenetick Pulmoniack persons and Hipocrandriacks would soon have enough of it in a word saith he it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world that are burthensome and to ranken Church yards But Mr. T. will salve all this for he saith that there is no necessity that it be in cold water To which I reply saith he 1. But then he forsaketh the generality of his partners in this opinion so much as we can learn who usually baptize in Rivers and ponds 2. And his warm bath would be very dangerous also 3. Where should this bath be prepared if in private it will scarce be a solemn engaging act if in the meeting place of the Church then 1. It will take no small room and require no small stir to have a bathiag place and water to dipp people over head 2. And if they do not run home quickly before they are well ingaged the hot bath will be turned to a cold one to them and make them repent this badge of repentance except they will have all things ready and be â—rought to bed also in the Church before the people 3. And it will be long ere Mr. T. can clear out of his reading Antiquity what Church had such a bathing place in it but me thinks they that call for Scripture for infant baptism should also bring Scripture for their baptizing in warm water but some say they may stay till the heat of summer when the water will be warm To which I reply saith he where is your Scripture for that I have proved the constant rule and Example of Scripture is clean contrary and requires that men be baptized when they are first made disciples and not stay till summer But some desperately conclude that if it be Gods way he will save our lives how probable soever the danger may seem I answer saith he that this is to begg the question nay I have shewed and am shewing that it is not Gods way God hath appointed no ordinances contrary to his great morall commands 2. God must not be tempted this was the devils trick to have drawn Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting God to have cast himself into danger of death 3. So you might have said to the disciples that if it were Gods command to keep the Sabbath then they might not rub the ears of Corn for God could sustain them without 4. If it were a duty yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty it is at that time a sin for it is alwaies a sin to prefer a lesser duty before a greater for the duty of self preservation is a morall naturall duty and baptizing is but positive c. God hath not appointed ordinances in his Church that will destroy men except they be preserved by Miracles for then it were a tying himself to a constant working of Miracles c. So that I conclude saith Mr. Baxter if Murder be a sin then dipping over head in cold water in England is a sin and if those that would make it mens religion to murder themselves and urge it on their consciences as their duty are not to be suffered in a Common-Wealth any more then High way Murderers then judge how these Anabaptists that teach the necessity of such dipping are to be suffered Thus you
see what opinion these men are of concerning your totall dipping and upon what ground yea though Mr. Tombs and others make so light of it and wash it over as well as they can yet Mr. Baxter wipes of all their varnish and represents it on its proper colour to the world in its own ugly hue and maintains it to be no lesse then meer Murder and you may prate a while and practise to if you please having your quiet advantages so to do in this distracted juncture of time but I hope an order will we taken with you in time according to your deserts is the right Kirk Government were once settled though hitherto you have the hap to scape Scot-free Baptist. If one were disposed to give no other answers then Mr. Tombes viz. that bathing is a remedy against diseases and that it is not necessary to be in cold water as vain as these are with Mr. Baxter they may serve to salve the cause sufficiently from any sore that Accrues to it from that much more vain and pedling pritâ—le-prattle in which Mr. Baxter reanswers him e. g. his learned conjectures about Coveteous Land-lords Physitians and his wretched wishes that they in hopes to have men dy apace do not divise countenance for the way of dipping and the divine verdit he vents on it as good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world that are burthensome and to ranken Church-yards what Rotten Riff-Raff is all this if one should answer him according to his folly saying and coveteous Clergy men should me thinks be not much against it if it ranken Church-yards that the Parsons horse may have the bigger pasture I wish they have not a trick to favor it c. were it not as wise a wish as the other but I spare him lest I be like him though if he be not answered according to his folly I fear the man may be so wise in his own conceit as to suppose his folly to be wisdome Furtherwhat great store of small stir doth the man make about a warm bath wondering much where it should be prepared in private or in the Church and what stir it would require as if it were more difficult to build a bath a little wider and a great deal lower then a font then t is to build a steeple house and what room it would take as if the Church had rather retain her Rome then be rob'd of her room in removing that Romish relique of infants sprinkling and how dangerous this hot bath may prove too and become such a cooling card as may soon make men repent of the baptism of repentance unlesse they run home quickly or be brought to bed before the people as if it were more impossible to bath in baptism without danger difficulty and immodesty then it is to bath as thousands do in order to meer health and pleasure What frivolous quibling is all this what is the man made of brown paper and fit for nothing but to sit by the fire side in a pair of slippers that his body may be baptized neither in cold water nor warm but it must needs be his death without more ado I speak this not as intending to answer as Mr. Tombes doth but to note Mr. Baxters fidlings for whether bathing in cold water be a remedy against diseases or no I am not so far a Physitian as to know Mr. Tombes saies it is against some and Mr. Baxter very wisely confutes him by confessing the same saying onely First it is no universal remedy Secondly few diseases have cold bathes appointed them it should seem therefore some have and whether there be necessity to baptize in cold water or no I say not Mr. Tombes saies no and indeed I see not how degrees of cold and heat in the element can well vary the nature of the ordinance but this I say at least there is no necessity that I know to baptize in warm for my part I am one who as grievous as Christs commandement is to Mr. Baxter do winter and sommer usually baptize in rivers and ponds nor shall I go about to scape his scrape or Mr. Cooks either who as if a man were undone presently if but dipt in cold water and weather cryes out of freezing starving choaking stifling death murder c. by balking one bit of the truth in this point or disowning the way of dipping in cold water and weather for which dispensation sith t is as I have proved and Mr. Ba. cannot disprove the ordinance of Christ for all Nations at all times as people happen to be converted in them I know no season unseasonable no time at all untimely save when it is dispensed to one in time of infancy nor would it be then untimely as tedious as it is any more then circumcision that was a farre more bloody businesse were it strictly injoined to be dispensed to infants as that was and as this is to believers at riper years as for all the paines Mr. Baxter bestows against it Improving Mr. Cooks argument with all his might it is all meer babble and bawbling he tells us it is a desperate conclusion and a vile answer to say that if it be Gods way hee 'l save our lives how probable soever the danger may seem and that it is to begge the question I answer for my part I beg no question of him for I have proved the question already and can prove to his face that dipping is Gods way and will not be beholding to him to grant it and being so if this be to be vile and desperate to conclude that God will save our lives in his own way I le be more vile and desperate yet and conclude with the three worthies that for Gods way sake ventured one a baptism more bitter then this viz. baptismum flaminis not fluminis with fire not water more hot then this is cold our God is able to save our lives but if not be it known unto Mr. Baxter and all men that we are willing when we must to loose them in and for his way He tells us God hath appointed no ordinance contradictory to his great and moral commands and that we might as well have said to the disciples if it were Gods command to keep the Sabboth he should have said Sabbath had he either known the Hebrew or remembred himself for saboth is another thing for sabbath is rest but saboth or sabaoth is hosts as we may see in these places Mat. 12.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 9.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they need not have rub'd the ears of Corn for God could have sustained them without if it were a duty yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty it is at that time a sin for it is alwayes a sin to prefer a lesse duty before a greater but the duty of self preservation is a natural moral duty and baptizing but positive As if circumcision were not as contrary to the duty of
self-preservation as dipping in water as if the Priests profaning the sabbath by servile work were not as contradictory to the moral command as your very selves call it of Sabbath observation as either of those to self-preservation and yet when all is done all these were to be done and none of these contradictory to the other neither for in very deed God never commanded sabbath-observations so strictly as that the ordinance of the dayly sacrifice should be neglected yea and the life not onely hazzarded but utterly lost and laid down for Christs name sake and the Gospels he tells us that the duty of self-preservation is a moral natural duty and baptizing but positive I tell him again he saies as much in that as I desire he should say to the confirming of our tenet for if baptizing be a positive duty so far as t is positive it must take place against the other a positive command being to be obeyed rather then self to be favoured in any wise in any case whatsoever God gave Abraham a positive command to slay his son therefore that being positive and the favouring and sparing of himself and his son though moral and natural yet but suppositive i. e. to be lookt at so far onely as God lent him leave to injoy his son it must be done and the other let alone God must be trusted and his will obeyed and the saving of his son must give way to the slaying of him the positive duty of killing him being the greater and to be preferred before the other and the sparing him being inconsistent with this though elsewise a duty yet would have been at that time a sin In that therefore he yields baptism to be a positive command as if self-preservation were not so he yields us more then we are willing to take of him for howbeit for the most part it is positive and therefore so far as such to be observed without respect to the ill consequences of it to the lifeward yet verily I question my self though I find no expresse exemption from baptism in any case whether there be not yea it is certain there are some cases wherein the forbearance of the dispensation may yea and must be dispenst with but those are not the coldnesse of the water and weather but the utter impossibility of the persons submitting to it of whom else it is required or his being bard from it either as the thief on the crosse was or by imprisonment or by some such absolute sicknesse or weaknesse as confines persons necessarily to their beds and puts them out of capacity and ability to betake themselves where it may be done as it ought I am willing to modify Mr. Baxters rigid epithete of a positive command whereby he denominates baptism so far as to spare persons in these cases and respects and to stile baptism a duty but suppositive i. e. a thing that necessarily must be done if either possibly or conveniently it may be done but if it cannot may be let alone but this proves not that self-preservation must be alwaies prefer'd before baptism for then it need never be obeyed at all there being no time wherein it can be done with so little seeming tediousnesse and disease to a mans self but that self will willingly excuse it self from obeying it by pleading the duty of self-preservation This duty of self-preservation hath couzened as honest a man as Mr. Baxter ere now and it couzens the whole Priesthood to this hour who generally suppose that God is no further to be served then self may be preserved hence no pay no preach no countenance from the magistracy no continuance in their ministry but for selfs sake they turn still with the times but no faster as if they durst trust God no further then they see him and this was the plea whereby Peter would fain have put Christ beside a duty that he foresaw would be dangerous for Christ and himself too but Christ gave him no great thanks for his labor far be it from thee Lord quoth he to go to Ierusalem and suffer by no means let this be he thought he did well to rebuke Christ for owning the Gospel in that case wherein he must expose himself to suffer but get thee behind me Satan saith Christ thou art an offence thou savourest not the things of God but those that be of men thou thinkest as if he should say that self must be favoured before positive duty be performed that the life must be saved and the gospel obeyed no further then is consistent with self-preservation but I tell you saith he that if any man will be my disciple he must deny himself and take up his crosse and follow me for he that will save his life i. e. discharge no duty that may prove dangerous to his life shall lose it but he that will lose his life for my name sake and the Gospel shall save it Mat. 16.11 to 26. if Paul had stood so much upon the point of self-preservation and counted his life so dear unto himself as Mr. Baxter seems to do his he would have harkned to such as besought him to favour himself and not have gon up to Ierusalem where he knew not what should befall him save that he knew that bonds and afflictions did there abide him if he would there testifie to the Gospel Act. 20.22.23.24 21.22 nor would he have exposed himself to so many hazzards and perils by sea and land perils by water perils by hunger and thirst and cold and nakednesse none of all which things moved him that he might witnesse to the Gospel He tattles to us that God must not be tempted and that it was the divels trick to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to have cast himself into danger of death who doubts of all this but is it tempting to perform a positive command of God and expose our selves to danger and difficulty in the discharge of our positive duty to him because it is so to indanger our liues by doing that which we have no call to nor warrand for and which is absolutely sin and hath not the least dram of duty in it at all it is true it would have been but pretence of Scripture and trusting of God in Christs casting himself from the pinacle of the Temple but dare he saie there is but pretence of Scripture and trusting of God in submitting to his own ordinance of baptism is there no more word to warrant us to be baptized and to trust in God and to expect his protection in the execution of that so absolute a command then there is to warrand the execution of our selves which God universally forbids and that on no more ground then the bare bidding of the devil who would think a mininister should be so moped as to make these two a like warrantable it was the divels trick therefore to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to self-execution against
truth as t is in Jesus I hope he may do yet in due time if he do not shut his eyes against the Gospel because I find him saying and unsâ—ying again what he said before he had well studied it p. 113. and he is out in print for infant baptsm and against the true baptism for all his professions of â—o serious search after it before he had well studied it to the bottom if he do not recant his error I am confident some of the people will that have been deluded by him and out of love to the Lord Jesus that loved them as a Priest and washed them from sin in his own blood and as a Prophet and a King requires them so to do arise and be baptized as they ought washing away their sins calling on the name of the Lord. Thus my friends and you my Ashford Antagonists you have my mind amongst you in this matter If any one of you answer and I have satisfaction from him to the contrary he shall hear of my recantation if I have not he shall see it by my silence for I le never lose so much time as I have done by the bare writing of this from preaching to poor ignorant creatures the free love and rich grace of God in Christ to all that obey him in truth and as I see I must if I meddle more at the presse with this subject ANTI-RANTERISM CHRISTNDOM NEW CHRISTN'D OR Christs ordinances continuing till Christs second coming In a small system wherein are some few reasons rendred for the now raising of water baptism into its right way of administration as to the form and subject and for the remaining of both it and other ordinances in their primitive right till the return of Christ Iesus FOr as much as I have been several times sollicited by several persons both by word of mouth and otherwise to give out unto them the grounds ends and arguments in writing of my continuance in the practise of water baptism and other ordinances of Christ as laying on of hands prayer breaking of bread church fellowship c. according as the Churches of Christ in the primitive ages of the Gospel did and for that I find it an easelesse and well nigh an endlesse businesse to write the same things in private letters about one particular subject to every of those particular persons that may successively desire it I have therefore thought good being called to the presse by sundry challenges of the Priesthood and more specially by not only the publication of that abusive pamphlet concerning the Ashford-disputation for infant-baptism but also their professed expectation that I should give some answer or give the cause to inserâ— here this ensuing account of my own reasons for the right of our remaining in the use of ordinances till the return of Christ and animadversions of what little reason the Ranter hath to run from them and redeem himself from that bondage which he deems to be in the observation of them before the time appointed much more to run beyond the bounds of modesty and all good manners also as not all but many if not most of those do first or last who despise any of the ordâ—nances of the Lord Jesus and herein as I shall be plain using no other form method and order then what the Lord gives into me as I write so I must be brief the foregoing part of this volume having risen already unawares to a far greater magnitude then was meant to the whole when I first cast the bulk of it in my mind and there remaining also something yet to speak and I know not well how much to the Priests concerning themselves in way of return to the last piece of that pedobaptistical pamphlet which was puâ— forth by who knowes or rather by who knows not whom in order to the plainer disquisition of the truth in this question viz. whether the ordinances of Christ that were in use of old are of right to be practised still as there are four services then in use the necessary use of which is now denied viz. baptism in water laying on of hands breaking of bread and church-fellowship so I shall addresse my self to prove the practise of these four severally to stand even de jure till the second coming of Christ which is yet to come And because baptism in water though most strenuously denyed by many to be so much as lawfull to be either dispensed or submitted to and by many even of those that have submitted to it to be necessary or any other then a matter of indifferency is yet the first in order to be practised and that without or before which we are not once to meddle with the other I therfore propound it as the first in order to be proved and in order to the proof of at least the lawfulnesse thereof against such as say its sinful for this will be included in the other I shall by the help of God prove a necessity of it against such as judge it needlesse or superfluous and by several Scriptures shew it to be such a service the present performance of which is so far from being sinful that it is no lesse then sin and rebellion against Christ himself to leave it unperformed The Scripture which I shall most directly make use of to this purpose and lay as the very basis and foundation of this businesse and make as a certain cardinal Topick â—lace from whence to argue and whether to reduce all the rest which I shall more coâ—laterally handle is Mat. 28.18.16.20 All power is given c. in which place these things chiefly are observable as subservient to the proof of the point in hand First we find Christ pleading that absolute power which was given him by the father to be the Soveraign Lord and Supream Lawgiver to the whole world thorowout all nations and generations of it from thenceforth even to the end in these words viz. All power is given unto me both in heaven and in earth i. e. I am he to whom this prerogative is granted to give out to all men what laws and rules they shall be guided and governd by what wayes they must walk in in order to that eternal salvation which as a Priest I have purchased them to by my own blood if ever they mean to attain it I am that Prophet which the Lord hath raised up unto all people now instead of Moses who was the faithful giver out of Gods will mind or Testament to Israel of old whose voice all must now hearken to in all things what ever I say unto them and whoever harkneth not to me shall be cut off from among the people behold God hath given me for a witnesse to the people a leader and commander unto the people Secondly After he had thus shewed his authority and commission from God to be the only Lawgiver whereby to summnon the sons of men to so much the stricter attention to
him he next begins to act according thereunto to act like him self to make out his mind to his disciples concerning them and all men most expressely and plainly about this matter of water baptism and to give order to them both when and to whom both in what time and to what subjects they should dispense it and likewise both how and for how long he would have the nations as by command from himself commissionating his disciples so to teach them to practise the same dispensation of water baptism in the two following verses Going out therefore teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy spirit teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and â—o I am with you alwaies even to the end of the world Where note first in general three things First That he gives order to his disciples to teach the nations and baptize them in water in his name ver 19. going out teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father son and holy spirit Secondly that whatever order is given out by Christ to his disciples concerning this businesse of water baptism as to the order of its administration and the term of its continuance the very same and no other doth Christen join his disciples to give out to the disciples â—hat should be successively in all nations to be observed as his will concerning them v. 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Thirdly that what ever he gives out as his will concerning both them and the disciples in the nations that they should make he gives out as his standing will and Testament to them and their standing duty to him in all ages of the world as well as that even to the very end thereof in these words v. 20. and lo I am with you alwaies i. e. in the observation of these things I command you to the end of the world Secondly more particularly yet let it be observed what Arguments in particular do most naturaly arise hence in proof of the continuance of water baptism by comcommand from Christ to this very day and that from several clauses and passages of this Scripture severally considered First from these words Go ye out therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name c. it is very evident to the utter confutation not onely of those who are for infant baptism as is shewed above but also of those that are now for no water baptism at all that our lord Christ expressely enjoines these two things viz 1. That all those whom his disciples presume to baptize in his name shall be first taught by them or made disciples i. e. preached to or instructed in the Gospel till they learn and believe it 2. That all those whom his disciples do teach till they have learnt the Gospell or by preaching to them have converted to faith in his name shall in his name like wise be baptized so inseperable hath Christ made these two viz. discipling and baptizing believing and baptizing in his will and Testament to us that as he would have no creature in the nations be baptized without precedent teaching and believing so he would have no creature that is instructed till he believes to go unbaptized whereupon in one and the same word of command he requires both neither can any one abstract either from the other without such violation to the will and Testament of Christ confirmd by his blood which wo be to that man or angel that disanulleth in the least particular so as to take upon him to give a toleration to persons either to be baptized before believing or to content themselves with belief only without baptism But first as expresse as t is the mind of Christ that one of these should be done so expresse it is that the other should be done and each in its proper order Secondly as clear as it is that these are commanded to be done by the very persons he then spake to viz that they should teach and baptize so clear it is that the very same is commanded to be done in all nations and among all people by such persons as should be discipled by them in these words v. â—0 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Thirdly and as long as t was his mind the one should be used viz. teaching and believing so long t was his mind that the other should continue viz. baptizing and being baptized and that was that they should all abide in force to the very end of the world Whence more formally we may argue thus viz. What Christ hath conjoined man must not seperate But Christ hath conjoined our discipling of persons and baptizing them as a standing course to the end of the world as Matth. 28.18 19 20. plainly shews Ergo man must not seperate these two In this very manner and form of words word for word little heeding how while he declines the gulf of no-baptism he runs against the rock and makes shipwrack of his infant baptism by the shift and at once breaks the neck of all his Arguments for it doth Mr. Baxter argue against these new No-baptists in p. 341. of his Plain Scripture-lesse proofs for infants Church-membership and baptism whereby verily as he wounds both himself to death and all those that together with him do plead for the baptizing of such subjects as they never teach viz. infants whom themselves must needs acknowledge to be uncapable of conversion by their instruction so all those likewise that plead for the teaching of all nations still and preaching of the Gosel to every creature and yet plead against any more baptizing of them in water who are converted to the faith by preaching who tear the Testament of the Lord Christ to pieces and take what of it will serve their own easie turnes and reject what of it is more tedious to the flesh as the way of outward ordinances is specially that ordinance of water baptism as a businesse long since abolished and out of date as being ended almost as soon as instituted as bondage as meer bodily exercise that profiteth little or nothing as but indifferent at most and so may be done and yet as well be let alone as a low weak thing as a foolish matter to make such ado about as needlesse for every one to submit to or make use of as that which some can live as well without as with c. as if Christ Jesus was a fool for so all those do say in figures though not in words at length to invent such foolish instruments to appoint such simple tooles to be used in his house such earthen vessels such vessels as are not honourable enough nor fit in their conceit for the masters use or for any thing but to be thrown aside as out of date and not worthy to be now meddled with any more to which high Notionists who camaelion like live
up aloft and yet feed on nothing but the meer air of their own high flown fancies I must needs say thus much here before I come to the other argument viz. that as wise and strong as they reckon upon themselves to be so that they can live to God and thrive toward salvation as well without baptism or any other ordinance as those that use it and as poor pieces of business as they deem these to be and unworthy of their condescension to them as smal despised homely and earthen as they are in their eyes yet they are of such precious and heavenly consequence as may well challenge a right of continuance to the end yea they are no lesse then the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth the wisdom of God in a mystery yea this foolish thing of God is wiser then man and this weak thing of God is stronger then man i. e. then all the gawdy formes and new wayes of mans tradition whereby the Rantizer or those non-entities and new-nowayes of mans invention whereby the Ranter hath made void the commands of King Jesus and howbeit they count it their spirituallity yet I cannot but count it their naturallity their carnality to call any of the ordinances of Christ even that which may seem to them the most empâ—y for here 's the mystery of Christ giving out heavenly treasure in earthen vessels I say to call those lowness weaknesse unprofitablenesse foolishnesse As many as Christ commanded to be taught preacht to and made disciples are commanded when discipled to be baptized in water in the name of the father Son and holy spirit But Christ commanded all nations even every creature therein that is capable thereof to be taught preacht to and discipled Ergo all nations even every creature none excepted so soon as discipled are commanded to be baptized c. The first proposition is most undeniably evident for teaching and baptizing are both concluded here under â—he and the very same numerical command and both instituted here de novo as parts of the will and Testament of Christ in one and the same word of institution and both enjoined to be used to one and the same subject viz. all nations every creature therefore if every creature as far as capable to be preacht to by us and we are capable to preach to him is to be taught as is expressely asserted not onely in the Minor but in the texts themselves then it must needs follow that every creature after he is preacht to and converted to the faith by our instruction is to be baptized and that no creature is exempted or excused from being baptized any more then he is from being taught and discipled no not one and consequently that baptism is not a meere matter of liberty and indiffeâ—ency that may ad placitum be done by us or let alone but a matter of absolute duty of positive praecepâ— and necessitate precepti and therefore how far forth necessitate medu ad salutem is worth examining a matter of necessity if not of equall necessity with that of repenting and believing for if it be his voice and command equally with the other and we see t is in one and the same place and phrase given out as his will together with the other then why it should not be equally obeyed and that sub paena fith he is that Prophet whom God hath now raised up unto us whose voice whoever harkneth not to in all things whatsoever he saith shall be cut off from among his people no man is able to give a solid reason nor yet why any should shun to declare it it being a a part of that whole councel of God which the Apostle Paul durst not decline to declare the whole of any more then to declare the doctrine of faith repentance and obedience in other things yea and such a weighty part of that councel and of such neer concernment and great consequence unto us is baptism that as it is said even that despised dispensation of water baptism to be from heaven and not of men so they that own it are said to justifie God and they that rejâ—ct it and refuse to submit to it are said to reject the councel of God against themselves And all the people that heard and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptism of John but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the councel of God against themselves being not baptized of him And to prove it to be no matter of meer indifferency but of duty to all believers I argue yet further from the forenamed Scripture thus That which is positively commanded to be done and dispenst to all persons when once discipled without exception of any and without the least intimation of a dispensation from Christ to any to omit it is not a matter of meer indifferency but of absolute duty among all those persons that are so discipled But baptism is positively commanded to be dispensed to all persons when once discipled without exception of any and without the least intimation of a dispensation from Christ to any to omit it yea I may say as positively commanded to be dispensed to disciples as persons are commanded to be taught discipled or to repent and believe the Gospel and that is so positively that he that knowing it to be Christs will concerning him submits not to it obeyes not Christ in it shall be damned Ergo baptism is no matter of meer indifferency but of absolute duty to all believers or disciples The Major is most undeniable the Minor also is most expresse and obvious to every eye in the text it self where it s said in one intire sentence by way of positive command concerning both these teach all Nations baptizing them i. e. all them that are taught and made disciples and not onely in this Scripture but also in several other which I may alledge very subservient unto this as to the proof of the second proposition The first whereof is Act. 22.16 and row why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord where it is not a little worth our noting in this case that Ananias doth not onely in one and the same sentence command Paul to be baptized as strictly as to call on the name of the Lord but also checks him in a certain round reproof and angry expostulation for his lingring and delaying in this businesse which he could not rationally have done if it had been no neglect of duty in Paul to be tardy to it and a matter of no necessity but of such indifferency that t was without danger of incurring divine dispeasure at Pauls choice whether he would be baptized yea or no. The second is Acts 2.38 the first place wherein we read of any practising according to that commission that Christ gives out in Mat. 28. that being indeed the first time of its beginning to
be put in execution by Peter and the rest who being impowred so to do in obedience thereunto went forth and preached repentance faith and baptism for remission of sins among all nations pro suo modulo beginning at Ierusalem as also they were required to do Luke 24.47 in which Scripture I mean Acts 2. to a people enquiring what they should do we find Peter preaching positively thus viz. repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for remission of sins c. where note that as he joines repentance and water baptism together so in one and the same precept and word of command he enjoines them both together to be practised as the mind of Christ and that to every one then and there present that had not yet performed these services without exempting any one of all those thousands he then spake to one jot more from the practise of baptism then of repentance it self which phrase viz. Repent and be baptized every one of you c. he could not warrantably have delivered himself in unto them in the name of Christ if he had not had clear commission from him by way of precept to impose baptism on all men as the mind of Christ concerning them and a duty to be practised by them all as well as repentance without holding any one excused The third is Aâ—t 10.47.48 Can any man forbid water why these should not be baptized which have received the holy spirit as well as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. In which words I appeal to the conscience of every considerate man whether Peter doth not not onely command all those persons and that in Christs name who were then and there converted to be baptized in water but also assert it to be beyond the power of the persons themselves or any other to forbid it to be dispensed to them or to gâ—anâ— them a dispensation to forbear it for when he queries who can he means no man can forbid water why these should not be baptized for an Interrogation affirmative concludes negatively whereupon nemine prohibente he commanded them and what hâ— commanded them was no lesse then their duty and the positive will of God concerning them for it s said to Cornelius v. 6. that Peter should tell him what he ought to do and also no lesse then what he was commissionated from Christ to impose upon them or else Peter deluded them to whom he spake for v. 39. he calls it the word of God sent to Israel and v. 33. they expected to hear not what he should please but what was commanded him of God he commanded them I say nemine contradicente in the Lords name to be baptized which Peter had no power to have done had it been by the Lord himself left ad libitum unto them yea had it been a thing so needlesse of such liberty and such no-necessity as many make it now adaies I would by Peters leave had I been there and been one of those that were so flatly commanded have interposed and forbid their baptâ—sm or at least my own unlesse my flesh had had more mind to it then it had when I used it and have pleaded as our Genteel spiritualists do against us in this wise against Peter viz. you are much mistaken Peter in this matter you go about to urge it as an absolute duty and matter of necessity for us to be baptized in water but alas it s no such matter t is but an external dispensation that may be done indeed if any be not satisfyed without it but else may full as well be let alone we have the most substantiall baptism already even that of the spirit in which case the other is but meer superfluity to be used afterward you cannot make it such an absolute command from God to us as you seem to do and therefore whereas you ask who can forbid even I can forbid why I should not be baptized as by positive precept from Christ seeing I have received the holy spirit as well as you Thus verily might one have cavilled against Peters command then as the Raâ—ter cavils against Peters command now which is not out of date nor hath lost any of its validity sure with lying so long unpractised if baptism in water were such an indifferent thing as t is now made by the new Spirituallists who little consider but I assure them wise men will weigh it well though they do not how little their Logick and Peters are like one another whereby it may be gathered what contrary spirits be and they speak by for whereas he reasons thus viz. these men have received the spirit and have the most substantial baptism already as well as those that are baptized in water therefore who can forbid water why or give any good reason to the contrary why these should not be baptized and accordingly commanded them so to be They contrary wise reason thus Viz. These men have the spirit the most substantial baptism already as well as those that are baptized in water Therefore who can command it as necessary or give any sound reason why these should be baptized in water and accordingly forbid them so to be But whether it be right in the sight of God to obey them foolishly forbidding it as needlesse at best but indifferency or obey God by the mouth of Peter commanding it universally to all men as their duty judge ye T is clear therefore out of all these places that water baptism is so far from being sinfull that t is more then lawfull more then indifferent yea a matter of duty and necessity and such as it would become men to submit to as well as Christ who needed it not as we do if there were no other end nor use of it then to fulfill all the righteousnesse of his law the least of whose commandements whoever shall break and teach men so i. e. that they need not keep them the same shall be least in the kingdom of heaven but who so shall do and teach the same shall be great in the kingdom of heaven and to whom he that is faithful though but in a little is faithful in much and he that is unfaithful in but a little is unfaithful in too much specially if that little be left us in way of command in his word as his positive will concerning us and not as a matter of such indifferency as that it may without â—in on either side be done or not done which we please for such things onely and indeed are indifferent of which we may by the word say as Paul saies of meats and marriage viz. one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs one man esteemeth one day above another another man esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind so seek not a wife yet if thou marry thou hast not sinned but
Iesus not one jot of Philips sermon unto him is set down but the next newes we hear is this v. 36. that coming to a certain water in the way the Eunuch desired to be baptized saying see here is water what hinder why I may not be baptized doth not all this plainly import howbeit what Philip preached to the Samaritans and the Eunuch is not extant expressely in any particulars thereof yet he preached the ends and â—uses of bapâ—ism to them and prest the practise thereof upon them how else could they have known it why else did they both do and desire it we see then how the first preachers of the Gospel Ananias Philip Peter Paul are said all along to preach Christ and Jesus and the things concerning the kingdome of God and the name Jesus Christ and the word of the Lord and peace by Jesus and things that we must do and that are appointed for us to do and what we ought to do and the things that were commanded them of God to command us in his name and yet preacht baptism still as well as faith repentance and salvation and so he seems to me to this day to preach Christ but by the halves that preaches salvation by Christ faith in Christ and not baptism in the name of Christ for remission of sins And as this doctrine of water baptism was thus universally preached in Christs name as his will concerning those that were converted and discipled in obedience punctually to Christs Commission in that kind Mat. 28.18.19.20 in those primitive ages of the Gospel so was it as universally imbraced and obeyed by them that were made disciples in those dayes not onely before but also after Christ crucified for as in the dayes before Iohn the baptist was beheaded and before Christ crucified all those multitudes of disciples which by each of them were made by teaching were universally baptized either by Iohn confessing their sins or by Christs disciples who dispenst in Christs name for he dispenst not himself in Enon or Iordan or some other places that were convenient Mat. 3.5.6 Iohn 3.22.13.4.1.2 so even long after Christ crucified raised and ascended were the people that were discipled and converted to the faith before ever they joined in visible Church-fellowship in one body in breaking of bread and prayers baptized all without exception for as it s said Act. 2.38.40.41.42 of that first Church of the Jews or Hebrews to whom that Epistle was after written they were bid to be baptized every one of them so as many of them as did gladly receive the word of the Lord i. e. as repented and imbraced the Gospel were baptized and then continued in the Apostles doctrine who surely taught them all the six first principles of the oracles or holy things of God at that time Heb. 5.12.6.1.2 and what more they saw occasion for for with many more other words then those that are recorded did Peter then exhort that people v. 40. and in fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers so it s said 1 Cor. 12.13 of the whole Church of Corinth in way of sacramental metonymy whereby that is very familiarly spoken of the thing signified which can be spoken properly onely of the outward sign et retro by one spirit we are all baptized into one body Iewes or Gentiles bond or free none excepted and have been all made to drink into one spirit Yea as these Churches in Iudea Ierusalem and Corinth were all baptized before bailt up in a body so which of all the Churches were not to whom the Apostles directed afterward those several Epistles All the Romans to whom Paul wrote were baptized all the Galatians were baptized the Ephesians which at first were but 12 disciples that imbraced the truth were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus the Colossians were baptized the Philippians were baptized as we see by Lydia and the Iaylor and all those that believed with them which was the beginning of the Church at Philippi and that the Thessalonians were not baptized is more then bruitish to imagine for surely Paul and Silas that went immediately thither from Philippi where the Iaylor and Lydia and many more were baptized had not got a new doctrine of no-baptism to preach before they came to Thessalonica nay it is evident by the Jews accusation of them Act. 17 6. that what doings and disturbance they were occasion of through their preachings and baptizings at Philippi the same they were by the same means no causes but occasions of at Thessalonica therefore of them say they these that have turned the world upside down are come hither also yea Paul himself hints that to us 1 Thess. 2.2 that after they had suffered and were shamefully intreated at Philippi they yet were bold to speak to the Thessalonians the Gospel of God the same Gospel sure that they preacht at Philippi for what he did and ordained in one Church the same he did and ordained in all the Churches 1 Cor. 16.1 with much contention By all which foregoing considerations the Minor of the third main argument above is cleared which assure baptism to be commanded to all without exception therefore a duty from which we are not exempted What Christ commanded to be taught and observed not only in and among all nations of the world but also in all ages and generations thereof even to the very end the same is not ad placitum but de jure not at mens own pleasure but of right to be taught and observed as Christs will and their duty in all nations to this very day Buâ— Christ commanded Baptism in water to be taught and observed not onely in and among all Nations of the world but also in all ages and generations therof even to the end Ergo Baptism in water is not at mens own pleasure but of right to be taught and observed as Christs will and their duty in all nations to this very day The Minor which only needs proving needs none neither to him that will but observe how plain it is to every mans understanding in the text For first if baptism be to be taught to and observed as duty among all nations and by every creature therein that hears and believes as t is clear it is both here for teach them saies Christ i. e. all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and did he not command them in the very verse above the observation of that administration of baptism and also Mark 16.15.16 where he bids that the Gospel of salvation be from thenceforth tendred on terms of faith and baptism to all the world to every creature capable of being preach to then of necessity in all nations and generations to the worlds end for all nations were not then extant but many nations are risen since that the world then knew not all the world every creature was not in actual being
at that time neither could possibly be all baptized unless baptism abide in its right in all ages unto the end by all nations every creature all the world Christ denoted all people of the earth that then were or thereafter should be whom as they should successively arise and grow into capacity for it he would have to be in their several generation succesively taught and baptized Besides how plainly doth Christ expresse his meaning to be that this course of baptizing in waâ—er should be kept a foot in all ages and generations v. 20. where after his precept to observe that dispensation he adds this promise of his presence And lo I am with you alwaies i. e. in your faithful observation of all these things for if men be not found in this way he is disingaged even to the end of the world Amen Whence the argument in form may be thus What way of outward administration Christ not onely required to be observed to the end but likewise promised his people to be present with them during their due observation of to the very end of the world that must stand of right to the very end of the world But Christ hath not onely required that outward administration of water baptism to be observed to the end of the world but likewise hath promised his people to be present with them during their due observation of it to the very end of the world Ergo that administration of water baptism is of right to stand even to the very end of the world The objections that are usually made against what is asserted hitherto concerning the needfulnesse of water baptism to all who will not be under a just account of rejecting the counsell of that Prophet and rebelling against the command of King Jesus among which I shall set down none but such as to my own knowledge have been made and among them I shall not fail to set down if not all yer at least hose that by the opposite party in this point are called and counted the principal for so is one parcel of the ensuing reasons stiled in a certain coppy of them which was given to me lately while I was at the presse viz. The principall Reasons why believers need not be baptized whereby you may ghesse how little worth answering the lesse principal are are on this wise Ranterist The Baptism mentioned Mat. 28.18 19.20 was not water baptism but the baptism of the spirit Baptist. Your blind boldnesse and buzzardly blindnesse in this I inwardly blush at when I as I hope your self will also when you consider 1. that it was a baptism enjoined and commanded to be dispensed and that 2. By meer men Who never were yet since the world stood so highly prerogativ'd from the Father as to be made administrators of more then water baptism or to be baptizers with the spirit for that was ever yet now is and ever will be the peculiar prerogative royal of Christs own royal person never to be impared to any other to give i. e. to baptize persons with the holy spirit the father by him and he immediately by himself without imparting any of that power which he only had to do it to others to give it in his name is the sole giver of every good and perfect gift Iam. 1.17 So Luke 9.13 Your heavenly Father will give the holy spirit to them that ask him So Act. 5.32 the holy spirit which God hath given to all them that obey him 2 Cor. 5.5 God who hath given us the earnest of his spirit 1 Ephes. 13.14 sealed with the holy spirit of promise which is the earnest c. The Baptism with the spirit is the inward seal upon the heart that only God sets and not any meer man meer man is commissionated and impowerd from God to dispense no more but the outward sign i. e. water baptism which is not the seal of the New Covenant as the Priests call it for that 's the spirit which God onely gives throw Christ the Son for him onely hath God the Father sealed i. e. authorized honoured with that priviledge viz. to be under himself the sole dispenser of the spirit Iohn 6.26 which wherever it s given gives gifts in such wise as seems good unto him 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. There are diversities of gifts but the same spirit all these worketh that one and the self same spirit distributing to every one severally as he will There are differences of administrations diversities of operations meaning internall administrations and operations upon the soul for there be outward administrations and operations ad extra as preaching praying water baptism laying on of hands with prayer breaking bread in which men act to Godward in order to his acting toward us in the other for men may promise us the spirit and shew us what to do and baptize us in water in order to our having the spirit and pray for us that we may receive the holy spirit c. and minister to us outwardly in the ordinances of divine service which this new Testament which in respect to the old Testament is called the ministration of the Spirit because God gives down to them that wait on him sincerely and believingly in these outward waies of the Gospel which are to see to but foolish instruments earthen vessels in some measure here the heavenly treasure of his spirit and hereupon as they hold forth the word of the gospel in the hearing of which the spirit is received as t was not in the hearing of the law for the spirit was not the promise of that Covenant of Circumcision but the old Canaan for I will circumcise thy heart c. was a Gospel promise though made in the time of the law and in these respects viz. as preaching and dispensing gospel ordinances they may be stiled and in such a sense onely are they so stiled 2 Cor. 3.6 Ministers not of the Letter i. e. the Law but of the spirit i. e. the Gospel But there is but one and the same Lord and t is one and the same God who worketh all in all All in All is Christs own glorious Paul and Apollos and the Ministers by whom we believe may work and do all that is to be done without to all men they may baptize in water by commission from Christ for so he himself baptized not but his disciples viz. Iohn Baptist and the rest and wicked men may by his permission baptize i. e. overwhelm us with suffering shame c. But himself onely baptizes us with that holy spirit of his that must support us under suffering he sends the comforter he was the onely baptizer of them upon whom the spirit sell in the Apostles ministration of baptism with water in which case the spirit was promised Act. 2. and of laying on hands with prayer in which way though not ever yet ordinarily it was dispensed I indeed baptize you in water saies Iohn i.
Iohn for Iohn was his so owned as his as not onely to honour it with his own submission to it though in no such need of it as we more above it then any of us to fulfil all righteousnesse of his own law i. e. the Gospel for example sake to us but also in his own ministry to give order to his disciples to administer it to all the disciples they should make and this not onely before as Iohn 3.11 Iohn 4.1.2 but likewise after his own death and resurrection even when he was now ready to ascend Mat. 28. Mark 16. which sure he would not have done if there had been such opposition as you speak of betwen the baptism with water that was called Iohns and that bapâ—sm of the spirit which because he onely baptizes with that is called Christs that they must not both abide together in the world to the end but one vanish away presently before the other and it had not been the mind of Christ that water baptism should be rather as you deny it to be an inseparable companion of his doctrine nay surely instead of confirming the doctrine and practise of water baptism as Christ did in his ministry before his death practising it i. e. by the hands of his disciples on all the disciples which he himself made as Iohn 3.22.4.1.2 and after his resurrection and immediately before his ascension giving commandments to his disciples to observe it and teach all Nations to observe the same as Mat. 28.18.19.20 he would rather have confiscated it instead of causing it to continue by giving new and fresh commission for it he would have caused it to cease by some intimation or other that when the holy spirit should be given and men begin to be baptized therewith then there should be no longer attendance given to the baptism with water he would have said go teach all Nations beginning at Ierusalem that there must be now no more bapzing with water but that in the way of repentance and faith onely without that baptism they shall be baptized with the spirit Peter knowing his mind would have said to them Act 2 39. when they askt what they should do repent you of all your sins and believe in Christ in order to the remission of them but in the name of Jesus Christ be not baptized in water as some while since every penitent was used to be for that was a dispensation and baptism of Iohn that had its time a while meerly to prepare the way of Christ but is now abolished and out of date we must forsake Iohn now and not be baptized nor walk after those customes but expect a baptism with the spirit onely also Act. 10.47 who can require these persons to be baptized in water that have received the spirit and are baptized with the spirit as well as we Thus I say they would have said and done as Paul when circumcision and the Law was to cease as much as he condescended in the case of Tiâ—othy yet never commanded it to conâ—inue but taught all the Jewes that were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they should not circumcise their children nor walk aftâ—r the customes Acts 21.21 if there had been such opposition such inconsiâ—tency between the baptism in water and that of the spirit that they must not stand together if baptism in water must noâ— have remained rather in a certain continual subserviency to the other if it were not to be according to Christs will an inseperable companion of his doctrine but we find not the least hint or intimation of the mind of Christ when expressed either by his own mouth or the mouth of his Apostles that were to deliver and command nothing to people but what they had received of the Lord Jesus and what was commanded them of the Lord as concerning the cessation of that service or any toleration of any one person to omit it but as we find it a part of Christs Gospel and Testament even from the very beginning of it which was in Johns baptizing with water So for ought I â—ind it was ae jure to continue as a part of his Testament among other things not a tittle of which Testament is yet annihilated till he whose will and Testament the whole is shall come to take account of all men how as to the preceptory part of it they have observed it Whereas therefore you seem to be of this opinion that Christ was not commanded i. e. not commissionated from the Father to baptize with water as well as Iohn because it s said by Iohn I verily baptize you with water but he shall baptize you with the holy spirit as if Christ had had nothing to do to meddle with that water baptism as any ordinance of his or to give any order about it as if he had had no more power to dispense or enjoin that then Iohn had power to meddle in Christs peculiarity or to take on him to baptize with the spirit I must tell you that Christ had command and commission from the Father to that service of water baptism though it being the external inferiour matter he committed the actual administration of it to his disciples and Ministers among whom I look on Iohn as the chief or else sith he commanded others to do it and so baptized per alios at least if not per se Iohn 3.22.4 12. his testimony of himself Iohn 12.49.50 Iohn 16.31 is not true which indeed were blasphemy to think for he there professes that he spake nothing of himself but the Father which sent him gave him commandment what he should say and what he should speak and that whatever he spake even as the father gave him commandment so he spake and likewise that as the Father gave him commandment so he did whereupon since he did by his disciples baptize with water in Iudaea while Iohn and his disciples in Aenon Ioh. 3.22.23 and made and baptized more disciples then Iohn for all came and flockt to his dispensations of water baptism at last and left John insomuch as he in his Ministry even of water baptism increased and Iohn decreased Iohn 3.26.27.28 29 30 those words of Iohn as much as you think it absurd to understand them so must necessarily run so in any solid understanding though the terms onely and also be not expressed viz. I verily baptize you with water onely i. e. I can go no further then to that outward administration of water but he shall baptize you also with the holy spirit i. e. he is impowered to dispense higher matters to you then water only with which he baptizes too as well as I i. e. not himself but his disciples viz. that bapâ—ism with the holy spirit in which words you cannot say properly that Iohn opposeth his baptism to the baptism of Christ as if that which is called his were none of Christs but rather that John magnifies the person of Christ above himself
as who should say I can dispense no more then the bare outward sign but Christ who though he came after me yet was preferred before me in whose name and not in my own I baptize and whose the baptism is that I dispense and not mine he is able besides the sign to vouchsafe you the very thing signifyed thereby This baptism then of water in the name of Christ together with repentance from dead works and faith in his name Iohn Baptist was the first Minister to begin in which respect it is sometimes stiled his but he left it after a while to Christ himself and his disciples to carry on who all tiâ—l Christ was actually crucifyed preacht and practised the self same things that Iohn did viz. repentance and faith in a Christ yet to suffer for remission of sins and baptism in water in token thereof and saving some circumstantiall difference the very same in substance even after Christ was crucified too For herein onely the baptism with water which was Christs and of which Iohn was but a Minister as we are differs since Christ crucified from what it was before he was crucified viz. that then it was the baptism of repentance and faith for remission of sins by a Christ that was ere long to suffer for so Iohn preached Act. 19.4 and baptized Matth. 3.2 saying repent for the kingdome of heaven is at hand and Christ himself preached the very same thing Mat. 4.17 and baptized i. e. by his disciples with the same baptism Iohn 3.22 23 26-4 1 2. but now since the Son is lifted up and hath suffered and is risen it is the baptism of repentance and faith for remission of sins by a Christ that is already dead for sin and risen again for justification Rom. 4.25 Act. 3.18 26-10 38 39 40 41 c. So that the baptism of Iohn for so that was called that was dispensed before Christ had suffered and was yet to come Act. 19.4 and that of the disciples of Christ after Christ crucifyed differ not in substance but onely in this small circumstance in which also theâ—r Gospel in point of faith did differ viz. that one was a baptism into Christ to suffer the other into a Christ that had suffered and so they preached a different faith a different Christ and yet all one and the same yea so Christs own ministry differed from it self considered in this different time of before and after his death for before both he and his disciples preacht the same gospel repentance faith and baptism that Iohn did viz. of salvation by the son of God to suffer but had Iohn liv'd till Christ had suffered he would then have preached the same repentance faith and baptism that Christ then did and we now do viz. of salvation by the son of God that hath suffered and this is all the same substantially though circumstantially thus diversified from the other wherefore the word of the Gospel under Iohn and after Christs death is called the very same word and the word that Peter preacht to Cornelius's house is said to begin from Iohns baptism and as the word with which Iohn came preaching so the baptism with which Iohn came baptizing continued still and was preached and practised by command from Christ by the mouth of Peter on disciples believing in that very place Act. 10 36 37 38 39 40. c. to the end and this not in honour of Iohn as in discourse with some it hath been frivolously answered me but as a thing which ought to be done as in force a new from the Lord Christ in whose name which Peter abus'd to them if he had not warrant from Christ so to do he commanded them all and that in water to be baptized Ranterist You have spoken much concerning Christs commanding the observation of water baptism to the end of the world and of Christs promising his presence to his disciples in the observation thereof to the end of the world but you are mightily mistaken in the meaning of Christ in that phrase to the end of the world Mat. 28.20 for he means no more thereby but to the end of that age as Mr. Saltmarsh well observed from the signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies age Baptist. That Mr. Saltmarsh hath such a passage there I very well remember and how many have been stumbled thereby and by sundry other fancies of his to the imbracing of such notions and principles as from whence they have at last commenced Atheists he being in his time a man of such account among some that his sayings were received as oracles I cannot but with some sadnesse consider and that the woâ—d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies age I dare not deny but that it signifies age in that sense in which Mr. Saltmarsh I hope onely mistook it and most of his admirers do yet miserably mistake it to do I dare boldly and do utterly deny for first where as they restrain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to say it sounds forth no more then seculum i. e. some one particular age or generation properly it rather signifies aevum age i. e. time taken together in the whole lump of it all time or all ages collectively considered from that particular age or time we speak of even to the end of time it self or at least of the time of this world neither doth the spirit ever for ought I find much lesse usually use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he means to expresse some one age or generation onely specially in the writings of the Evangelists and also elsewhere But Secondly when he speaks of time or age in the whole bulk of it of the world in all generations of it i. e. all the time of the world together from the time spoken of to the end of it he uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that not onely in that 28. of Mat. 20. but also in many other places as Iohn 9.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 3.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning of the world or from the beginning of time 2 Cor. 4.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God of this world yea and of the very same Evangelist yea I shall shew you no lesse then three or four places in Mathew in every of which I am confident your very selves shall say is not meant the end of that age that then was but absolutely the very end of this world it self wherein we yet are which yet draws very neer to an end in every of which places yet there 's no other phrase but the same that is used Mat. 28.20 to expresse it by viz. the end of the world yea the very same greek phrase which is surely enough if very common sense and reason did not also preach it to evince that and no other to be the sense in Mat. 28.20 those
places are Mat. 13.39 the harvest is the end of the world v. 40. as the tares are gathered into the fire so shall it be at the end of the world v. 49. so shall it be at the end of the world Mat. 24.3 Lord what shall be the signs of thy coming and of the end of the world I suppose no man that is well in his wits will say of any of these four places that they signifie the end of that age or generation onely or any other then the time of Christs second coming which is yet to come and when it comes shall put a period to this old world wherein unrighteousnesse yet dwells and begin the new wherein dwelleth righteousnesse and as for them that say he is already come the second time and with that coming that is enquiâ—ed after Mat. 24.3 much more the rabble of that ruder sort of Ranters and ungodly Scoffers of the last times spoken of 2 Pet. 4.5 that are willingly ignorant because of the tediousnesse of that thought to them that there is any more coming of Christ at all some of which also deny that there was any Christ or any first coming of such a one at all I deem none of that deep dotage of the one nor of those divellish dreams of the other worth disproving neverthelesse there 's no other Greek phrase used all along but the same that is Mat. 28.20 which is rendred even to the end of the world viz. m wheras therefore some say if water baptism were commanded by Christ as his baptism t was but for that age or generation wherein the Apostles lived and to say nothing of the whimfical uncertainties that are among them that deny water baptism whose witnesse of it hangs not together some saying t was Iohns onely and never commanded by Christ and that t was to end in Christ crucified some yielding that t was commanded by Christ and practised after his resurrection onely to do honour a little to Iohns ministry and not disparage it by too sudden abolition some that it was prest by Christ and pâ—eacht by the Apostles as his but to last onely for that generation and then of right to end some that it lasted de jure till the treading down which was more then one or two ages after that and then it was never to be raised as if mens might destroyed the right of it whose folly I shall shew more anon I still contrariwise assert that t was of right to stand to the end and though foretold that it should cease and all other services yet but for the term of 42 moneths only and then to rise again Rev. 11.1 Ranterist You tell us much of Christs sending and commissionating his disciples to baptize all nations but that seems not to me to be true because the Apostle Paul the great Doctor of the Gentilâ—s who was sent to preach the Gospel and throwly to convert men Act. 26.17 18. and whose indeavour was to present men perfect in Christ Iesus Col. 1.29 doth notwithstanding openly affirm that he was not sent to baptize 1 Cor. 1.17 making that the ground of his giving thanks to God for his baptizing of none but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanus but had the Apostle been sent to baptize though not chiefly it would have been his duty so to do and consequently he should give thanks to God for omitting a part of his duty which is absurd Baptist. By that expression of Paul viz. Christ sent me not to baptize but preach the Gospell the latter clause of which as having weight in it I suppose you willingly leave out he cannot rationally be understood to mean thus viz. that the Gosspel he preached had not baptism enjoined to be preached and practised as an inseperable companion of it for t is undoubtedly apparent by what is said above that baptism and teaching baptism and faith baptism and repentance were ever preached and practised both together but that Christ did not enjoin him absolutely to the actual dispensing of the ordinance of water baptism alwaies with his own hands but to preach the Gospel mark that to preach the Gospel i. e the baptism of faith and repentance for remission of sins and to see that the thing were done either by himself or some other when persons believed but not to baptize necessarily in his own person so but that the opus operatum i. e. the work it self might be aswel done per alios if not per se even as well by the hands of any one as his own and so indeed it might for whereas in these daies there is such ado and such stumbles in the hearts of many about a right administrator of baptism i. e. that may actually with his own hand dispense it as if he must be meliori luto some extraordinary kind of person of better mould then other men some strange man or miracle worker or other yet there is nothing more clear then this viz. that the bare administration of it being something a more servile work then ordinary might be done and was of old and why not now I know not by the hands of any at least any gifted he disciple neither do I find but that people are minded willingly many times to puzzle and wind themselves off from submitting to the administration of that dispised and to the flesh unpleasing service of baptism though convinced that t is their duty by pleading that they cannot find no fit administrator that the word speaks one tittle about the quality of the administrator but onely of our submission ex officio to the administration it s said by way of narration they were baptized in Iordan Matth. 3. when they believed they were baptized Act. 8 12.-10.15.33.18 8. and by way of precept repent and be baptized Act. 2.39 arise and be baptized Act. 22.16 and by way of promise he that believeth and is baptized in the passive still shall be saved but never required by whom in particular the thing shall be done so as to say repent and let such or such a one baptize you as if we should be better in having it from some hands rather then from others neither doth the efficacy of baptism to us depend one straw upon the quality of the person administring be it Paul Apollos or Cephas or any other disciple inferiour to them in capacity or office as Ananias or Philip but upon the quality of the person or subject to whom it s administred which if it be a person professing to repent and believe and so doing also as he professes it matters not so much who does it so the thing be done nay the validity of the baptism depends as not upon any other qualifications of the person baptizing so not on his being baptized or not baptized himself that does it specially in such a case or juncture wherein at first or after long neglect of it there 's none but unbaptized persons to begin it nor
baptized for that form of doctrine that was at first delivered to them was the form of doctrine spoken of Heb. 6.1 2. even the six first principles of the oracles of God of the doctrine of Christ which as they are here called a form of doctrine so there are called the foundation or ABC of a Christian and of the Church as also Eph. 2 20. the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles i. e. the first doctrine of Christ on which they built the Church of which baptism is there said to be a part yea and that very phrase of Paul Rom. 6.17 viz. ye were the servants of sin but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you is no other then a further prosecution and inculcation of the former argument upon the whole Church of the Romans still and is as much as if the had said ye were once i. e. before your baptism the Servants of sin and then nothing but sin could be expected from you but now the case is otherwise you have all obeyed the form of doctrine delivered i. e. have professed your repentance from dead works and faith and been baptized into Christ and thereby listed your selves visibly under him as his Souldiers and are hereby become Servants to righteousnesse therefore now you must not let sin have dominion over you This verily is the very meaning of the Apostle in the whole chapter yea and in those very words know you not that as many of us as have been baptized viz. not to have us suppose that but some of them had been baptized but to give them to understand that as all of them had been baptized so as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death in token of it that they should now all become new creatures if we speak his mind in a Syllogistical form it runs thus viz. As many of us as are baptized must know this that we are baptized into Christs death and therefore must dy to sin and live holily But we have been all baptized or buried with Christ in baptism into his death Therefore we must all dy to sin and live holily If this were not his sense but we must take the words as many of us as have been baptized to be conclusive of himself and but some of that Church and exclusive of the rest of them as to baptism then I testify they are much more exclusive of many of theâ— from that duty of dying to sin which he there presses upon the whole Church by the consideration of their being baptized yea if that phrase as many of us as have been baptized doth intimate to us that not all but some only of the believing Româ— had bin baptizd then it must needs intimate to us that not all but some of the believing Româ— were engaged by their baptism and pressed by Paul in that chap. from the consideration of their death and burial with Christ in baptism to dy to sin and live to righteousnesse which no rational man can imagine but rather as they were all urged by an Argument drawn from their baptism to live to God so they had assuredly been all of them baptized And the same may be said of that same phrase as t is used to the Galatians Gal. 3. to whom Pauls drift was to prove what he had said of them all in the verse above v. 26. viz. that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ and how doth he prove it that they were so no otherwise but by this Medium viz. that they had been all baptized you are all the children of God by faith in Christ for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have visibly put him on and thereby declared you have faith in him which having you are the children of God in form his Argument runs thus viz. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are thereby apparently declared to be the children of God by faith in him But you have been all baptized into Christ c. Ergo c. This must needs be his sense here too or else if the term as many of you as have been baptized must not be taken as conclusive of all the Galatians to whom he writes but exclusive of some of them from baptism it must be exclusive of the same persons from being proved by Pauls Argument drawn from their baptism to to be the children of God as many as received him to them gave he power to be come the Sons of God is as much as to say he gave power to become the sons of God to no more then such as received him so as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are thereby visibly declared to be the children of God by faith in him though it do not signify that all the Galatians had not been baptized but some of them onely yet it signifies this however that no more then such as had been baptized into Christ had put him on and were thereby declared to be Gods children and consequently that if but some of the Galatians were baptized but some of them onely appeared to be Gods children which were absurd to think and would render Paul as contradictory to himself in the verse above where he saies ye are all the children of God so very ridiculous in his Argument and render his proof as pedling as if he had said thus by way of position viz. you are all even every one of you the children of God and then by way of proof thus viz. for some of you have been baptized and by that baptism of yours are declared so to be though the rest are not Ranterist You make baptism I perceive very needfull but the Apostle Peter who very well understood the Commission given to him and the rest of his fellow Apostles Matth. 28 29 20. Mark 16.15.16 when he speaketh of the baptism that saveth 1 Pet. 3.21 least any should think that he meant the baptism of water whereof we speak by which the filth of the body is put away he excludeth the putting away the filth of the flesh and places baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience towards God neither can any man truely say that by putting away of the filth of the flesh is here to be understood the putting away of the â—ilthy works of the flesh for then could it neither be excluded from salvation which is promised them which mortify the deeds of the flesh but walk after the spirit Rom. 8.1.17 nor opposed to the answer of a good conscience which springs from the putting away of dead works such as the works of the flesh are for he only is truly said to have a good conscience who is not conscious to himself of walking according to the flesh Baptist. That by the words putting away the filth of the flesh is meant that bare outward dispensation of water
I freely do and every one must grant and therefore what is spoken by you in proof of that might well have been spared also that the bare submission to that outward dispensation of water is not that which simply of it self and abstract from the inward i. e. the answer of a good conscience doth save us must needs be granted also but what of this will it therefore follow that it is to be omitted and not made use of at all in reason surely it cannot be so assertter for as the bare outward hearing of the word without doing it will do us no good but rather hurt yet that outward hearing is an ordinance at no hand to be neglected but necessarily to be used in order to the doing of the word without which we had better never hear for we shall not save but deceive our own souls Iam. 1.22 and shall perish in the end Mat. 7.26 and as bare outward fellowship in breaking of bread is so far from saving that we eat and drink judgement to our selves unlesse withall we discern the Lords body and be pattakers of the thing signified and yet that outward service is needful to be performed so though water baptism doth not save us ex opero operato and unlesse it be answered within by the answer of a good conscience yet what consequence is there from hence that it need not be done at all neither doth Peter altogether exclude the putting away the filth of the flesh as not to be practised and place the business of baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience as you here say he doth but rather places the baptism that saves in both these not in either without the other yea in that he saies thus baptism doth also now save us not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience he includes the baptism with water as that which is to be done but not to be rested in as available to salvation without the other Ranterist There is no man sent by Christ to baptize so that were I never so willing to be baptized yet there is none to baptize me for though it should be granted which neverthelesse is false and cannot be evinced out of the Scripture that the Apostles were sent to baptize with water yet this doth not warrant others to do so likewise unlesse they can prove that whatsoever was spoken to the Apostles was spoken to them and by this account they must go into all Nations and make them disciples having first stayed at Ierusalem till they have been indued with power from on high for both things are injoined to the Apostles by Christ. Baptist. That the Apostles were not sent to baptize in water in such a sense as Paul saies 1 Cor. 1. Christ sent not him to baptize in i. e. to dispense that ordinance necessarily with their own hands so but that when they had preacht and converted persons to the faith others might help â—o administer it I granted above but that they were not sent to preach the Gospel i. e. the baptism of faith and repentance for remission of sins among all Nations as far as they were capable and that baptism in water was not a part of that Gospel ministration which was committed to them to command all Nations to observe and to see dispensed on all that should be discipled therein this I utterly deny and the contrary to it is so clearly evinced in the word that he that runs may read it for either Christ commanded them Mat. 28. to teach baptizing not with the spirit but in water or else Peter miserably mistook his commission that in obedience thereto presses 1000â— of people at once enquiring what they should do to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus promising onely that so doing they should not from him surely but from Christ receive the holy spirit Act. 2.39 and also concerning a people that were already baptized with the spirit asks who can forbid water why these may not be baptized commanding them who were ready to hear no more then what was commanded him of God to deliver to them Act. 10.23 to be baptized in the name of the Lord and if by the Apostles you mean the eleven onely that were within hearing when Christ spake as t is to him that is not afraid of cold water undoubtedly true that these were so as undeniable it is that others were sent to baptize in water as well as they viz. Philip that baptized the Samaritans and Eunuch Paul that baptized so many of the Corinthians as he did and Ananias that baptized him or else they made and preacht a Gospel of their own heads another Gospel and not Christs which if they did they made more hast then good speed to themselves for such as teach for doctrines of Christ their own traditions and run before they are sent do both worship God in vain and shall neither of them have any thank from him for their labour and that what was spoken to those 11 Apostles themselves as to the point of baptism was spoken also to us even to such in all Nations as being once discipled are after that enabled from God to preach the Gospel is no lâ—sse evident then all the rest Matth. 28.19 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you among which water baptism was one v. 18. and whereas you say upon this account we must go into all nations and make them disciples who doubts but that t is our duty so to do to the utmost of our power and they could do no more for that 's commanded and baptism too to be observed to the end but for their staying at Ierusalem till they were indued with power from on high and beginning first to preach there that did concern them only as a special circumstance for that time not pertaining to the substance of the service nor required of all the Apostles themselves and administrators of baptism then for if it had Ananias Philip Paul began at the wrong end of their businesse when one of them began to preach the Gospel at Samaria the other at Damascus not going up to Ierusalem first Gal. 1.17 and if not of them why it should be of us I know not Neverthelesse as to the substance of that command I grant that every one is to tarry till he be indued more or lesse with power i. e. boldnesse wisdome knowledge utterance resolution self denyall c. before he goes out as Christs Messenger to preach to the nations but being so indued and furnished must out for ought I know among all people as he hath ability and occasion beginning at the place where he is and proceeding to spread the Gospel afar off if he find not work enough neerer home Ranterist Could it be proved as it cannot that there are some sent to baptize yet even then will it not follow that I and such as I am ought to be
whole truth and are built upon the whole foundation or beginning doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles do yet ignorantly withstand it and some even of these bitterly band against it I shall the Lord assisting in all possible meeknesse brevity and plainnesse make good unto them and that in this one single long-winded syllogism onely least the presse which now presses on apace after me and is at the very heels of me all along at my penning of this whole businesse called Anti-ranterism should overtake me and stand still for want of such supply as it expects hourly from me least also I out run too much as I have almost done already the bounds prefixed to this interposed Treatise the Minor proposition of which argument being proved and cleared from those clouds of objection wherewith some strive to darken it will both evince and evidence the continuance of that service also in its right use to this day so sufficiently that howbeit much more might be spoken yet no more shall at this time at least by me Whatsoever was in the primitive times taught practised dispensed or submitted to own'd or observed as a command of Christ as one of the oracles or holy things of God as a part of that foundation on which the true visible Church is built as one of the very principles of the doctrine of Christ as a practical part of the Law Will and Testament of Christ concerning them in order to their receiving the holy spirit of promise according to the promise at their first beginning to be disciples at or about the time of their baptism and before actual fellowship in the visible Church in all the Churches and among all baptized believers even men and women without exception of any without the least hint of any limitation of it to those times onely and without the least intimation to us in the word of Christ that t was his will it should then cease and hath also plain injunction form Christ for its continuance for its being taught to and observed by the disciples that should be successively in all the world through all nations and generations of it to the end and hath also the same ends grounds and reasons why it was to be used continuing still to this day as much as then is certinly in the same manner as then to be observed to this very day But on this wise is that service of prayer and laying on of hands not onely on officers Deacons Elders messengers in order to their receiving of the holy spirit to impower them in a fuller measure for those severall functions but also on common disciples men and women in order to their receiving the holy spirit in such manner and measure as Christ Iesus shall be pleased to impart it in to comfort them under sufferings and make them fit for fellowship in the body or visible Church Therefore that service of laying on of hands with prayer on common disciples men and women as well as that on officers in order to their offices is now to be observed as in former daies The first proposition is so undoubtedly true that if any should be so irrational as to deny it as I judge none will but the Rakesham Ranter that regards neither God nor devil and reckons on all Christs commands as not worth a rush I shall be more rationall then to believe him to be a man fit to reason with or that it can be to any purpose in never so reasonable a manner to bespeak him As for the Minor wherein t is affirmed that the businesse of prayer and laying on of hands after baptism in water upon every disciple man or woman is such as was taught practised dispensed submitted to ownd and observed as an ordinance and command of Christ c. as it followes in the Major that remains yet to be cleared which by that time I shall have done in each of those particulars that are there asserted of it either expressely or by such plain and legitimate deductions and inferences from the Scripture as may be justly satisfactory to any sincere souls that love truth and allow others to draw inferences from the word without which who can prove that he shall be saved as well as themselves and by discovering the weaknesse of such exceptions as are ordinarily made against the present use of this rite or service t wil be more then high time for me to quit this subject also whereas therfore contrary to what is asserted in the very front of the foregoing argument viz. that laying on of hands was taught in the primitive times I find it intimated to us by way of query that some who even therefore as well as for other reasons by them rendred cannot practise it are in no wise satisfied that such a thing as laying on of hands on all baptized believers was ever taught by either Christ or his Apostles in proof of this that laying on of hands was taught I send such as doubt of it first to the name of doctrine of Christ by which in common together with the other five principles of it it is denominated Heb. 6.1.2 leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God and of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands which denomination of doctrine of Christ could not possibly belong to it properly but that it was somewhere or at sometime or other taught by either Christ or his Apostles or disciples in the judgement of any that are but so far learned as to know whence the word doctrine is derived which as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so is of doceo to teach but secondly whereas t is desired that we should if we know of any direct to some place of Scripture where ever Christ or any of his Apostles or disciples did preach this doctrine that all baptized believers ought to practise or submit unto laying on of hands for my own part I shall direct the enquirers to several Scriptures in one of which as it is expresse enough so in the rest its plain enough to such as are not more resolved to proceed in propounding questions then when they are answered to be resolved that some or other of the Apostles or disciples of Christ did teach and preach that doctrine the first of these is Heb. 5.12 where to that Church of the Hebrews or Iews the very platform to all the rest which as to its more compleat outward form and order and that denomination of the Church to which God added dayly such as should be saved had its first being and beginning under Peters teaching Act. 2. t is said thus viz. whereas for the time ye ought to be teachers ye have need to be taught again which be the first principles of the oracles of God Where note first from the words taught again that they were taught
were you baptized saies he if at least you have not so much as heard of it as who should say who baptized you I wonder and did not so much as instruct you about the spirit nor laying on their hands pray for you that you might receive the spirit this plainly shewes that by right they should all about the time of their baptism in water have heard of the holy spirit and in what way it was to have been expected by them even that of laying on of hands none of all which they having so much as heard of as yet Paul therefore after some words of fuller information to them and such other passages as fell out thereupon laid his hands on them verse 6. in order to their receiving the holy spirit These Scriptures what they are to others I know not are to me a cleer and safe conduct into the belief of this truth that the doctrine of laying on of hands with prayer in order to receiving the holy spirit both was in the primitive times and was to be preached to all baptized believers as that which was no lesse then their duty to own and submit to have dispensed to them And as it was so universally taught and preached so was it as universally in those times practised dispensed submitted to ownd and observed in all the churches and among all baptized believers even men and women without exception This is evident out of the four forenamed places viz. in the first of which it is not only expresse that they i. e. all that Jewish Church had been taught this principle among the rest but also that it had been practically owned and observed among them as well as all the rest for as it s said there of all the principles together that these Jewes had need to be taught them again so that they should not now lay them again but go on to perfection which shews that as these principles had been all preacht to them all so all these Jewes or Hebrews did once lay them all as a foundation at their first beginning to be a Church and therfore this of laying on of hands among the rest In the second we read that Paul laid his hands on all the baptized believers that he found at Ephesus being then no more in number then about 12. speaking as it were by way of blame and reproof of those by whom they were baptized that this was not also done by them at their baptism in order to their receiving the holy spirit much more in that they were not so much as informed that there was a holy spirit to be expected by them ver 32.3 which may serve also as an Argument to them that say as some of the inquirers do that the reproof of the omission of any service doth evince that that service ought to have been performed and as an answer also to the fourth question of the abovenamed enquirers with the ground thereof which is this viz. In the third place we find it most expressely asserted that Peter and Iohn prayed for them that they might receive the holy spirit and laid their hands on them i. e. all those men and women for that 's the only substantive to this pronoun them in that place of whom it s said before that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus which word only they were baptized intimates to us thus much also viz. that though they had submitted so far as to baptism yet they had not practised all that was to be practised by them but that some other service was yet behind which ought to be performed towards them viz. that of laying on of hands In the fourth it s asserted also most plainly that all the three thousand believers that were baptized did gladly receive the word i. e. the word that Peter preacht to them who exhorted them with many other words then those that are there specified viz. repentance and baptism and that they continued in the Apostles doctrine of which word and doctrine if we may judge the word or doctrine of Christ the Apostles to be one and the same laying on of hands was part as well as faith repentance baptism resurrection and judgement Heb. 6.1.2 besides if the word and doctrine of Christ that was preacht and practised at Jerusalem was the self same word and doctrine that was after preacht and practised at Samaria then we may safely gather that whatever was preacht and practised by them at Samaria had been preacht and practised by them at Ierusalem before from whence they came immediately to Samaria where its easie to be discerned by any but such as will bend their brains to multiply impertinencies and to make bluâ—ies to themselves and others in businesses that are beyond doubt to impartial inquirers that they laid hands praying for them that they might receive the holy spirit on all those believers there that were baptized whether men or women without exception if we may as warrantably understand the men and women that are said to be baptized v. 12. to be the same persons that are said to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus v. 16. and the same persons that are denoted by that pronoun them v. 14.15.16 as I am sure we cannot warrantably because not congruously do otherwise for who else can be meant all along but the very same and not some of them onely but even all the same even the men and women that are related above to be baptized for whereas its said ver 12. when they believed they were baptized both men and women and v. 16. that the holy spirit was fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized must not they and them there be taken for all those that are said to be baptized above and so consequently when it is said ver 15. that they prayed for them and ver 17. that they laid their hands on them doth not them denote out the very same Yet this cannot be digested for truth with some of the inquirers for t was asserted as his opinion the rest assenting to it by their silence by one of those with whom we had some discourse at Ely house Maâ—ch 27. 1653. whether the same be the sense of all those that sent him I know not that Peter and Iohn did not with prayer lay hands on all the baptized believers at Samaria but on the men only and not on the women And whereas in proof of the contrary I asserted that the pronoun them in v. 14.15.16.17 doth relate to not the men onely but the men and women even all those that are said to be baptized as the adaequate substantive with which it did agree t was answered by him to this purpose a pretty put off I confesse but nothing to the purpose viz. that the Scripture had expressions both particular indefinite and universal that the word them here as t was not a particular so t was not an universal for then it would have
in thus To all which viz. their introduction ground and question I answer as followeth First I deny not but that hands were laid on men then by several sorts of administrators godly and wicked in the several seasons of before and after baptism to and upon several ends purposes and accounts though all the several ends and cases you here distinguish by do not make so many several kinds of imposition of hands neither so substantially distinct each from other as you would seem to make them for imposition of hands on baptized believers before admission and after that before ordination to office were one and the same in kind distinguished onely by the different capacities of membership and ministership eldership messengership to each of which laying on of hands was Antecedent yea these were one and the same kind of imposition of hands used all in order to one and the same end in general viz. receiving the holy spirit or as occasion was more and more of the spirit in a measure answerable to their places diversified onely by the different degrees or stations in the Church to which they were thereby visibly designed but what if there were never so many kinds of laying on of hands is it therefore so impossible to determine as by your query you seem to imagine which among all the rest is meant in such or such a place shall we think the Apostles meant to deliver the mind and doctrine of Christ and that in the very principles or first rudiments of it too which ought to be the plainest in such obstruse dark and ae igmatical wayes that men should scarcely be capable possibly to know what they meant there 's several sorts of baptism spoken of in the Scripture is it therefore so difficult if men be not willing as some are to puzzle themselves besides the practise of water baptism to know when he speaks of water when of sufferings when of the spirit But to the question sith some will needs though needlesly query which of all these layings on of lands the Scripture speaks of is called the foundation principle or beginning doctrine I answer that laying on of hands that t was dispensed with prayer on baptized believers not as yet to be set apart to office mentioned Act. 8.15 16.17 not in order to gifted mens giving it for though you will mistake us do what we can and bring us in as confessing it here yet we ever utterly deny that any men were ever so gifted as that they could give it but in order to Gods giving and our receiving the holy spirit from the Lord that laying on of hands I say is it which in Heb. 6.1.2 is called a principle a part of that foundation of Christs doctrine on which the visible Church is built In proof of which let this Argument be considered viz. It s none of all the other kinds of laying on of lands mentioned by you that is meant Heb. 6.2 therefore it must necessarily be that Most undoubâ—edly t is not that mentioned Luke 21.12 where it s said prophetically as concerning the wickeds persecution of the Saints thâ—y shall lay their hands on you c. which we read of also as fulfilled accordingly and spoken of historically Act. 5.18 they laid their hands on the Apostles and put them in prison c. First because that is not simply a laying on of hands but a laying on of violent hands and so it should be read if the word there used were rightly rendred and translated into its true English out of the Greek for t is not the same but a word of a far different sense from that which is used every where else where this doctâ—ine of imposition of hands is spoken of for one sounds forth as much as a violent handling the other a gentle putting or laying our hands upon the persons Secondly as for that violent laying on of hands in way of persecution wherby the saints suffer that 's included in the doctrine of baptisms immediately foregoing it belonging to one of the three viz. the bitter baptism of sufferings as a branch thereof so that it were but confusion and tautology to expresse that ore again as if t were anoâ—her doctrine which was but a part of the doctrine going before by another name and such a one too as is never given it in the original viz. of imposition of hands Thirdly whatever doctrine is called a principle or part of the foundation of the doctrine of Christ Heb. 6.2 the same is called Heb. 5.12 one of the principles of the oracles or the holy things of God But the laying on of violent hands on the saints in way of persecution is one of the principles of the devils doctrine and a principal part of the very foundation of his kingdome yea one of the most wicked things that the devil does or delivers as Christs doctrine to his disciples Nor was it a laying on of hands though such a one was used some times in order to healing the sick or curing the blind that was taught as a principle and practically ownd and laid as a part of the foundation among all the Hebrewes Heb. 5.12.6.1 2. for they were neither all sick surely nor all blind when they past under this dispensation so as to have all need to have hands laid on them all upon such accounts as healing or curing Nor was it in order to ordination of them to offices that they might be gifted and fitted by the spirit thereunto for the laying on of hands there spoken of was laid as a principle as a part of the foundation on which the Church stood but the laying on of hands to set apart men to administer either temporal things or spiritual things in the Church is no principle nor beginning thing nor foundation antecedent to the Church as every foundation must be to the building for the visible Church ever since the first Apostles whose doctrine was the foundation to it was antecedent to its officers and not they to it the churches were first collected and constituted upon the foundation or first form of doctrine delivered by the Apostles and then officers were ordained in every Church for the true visible Church may be without officers though not without ordinances but Church officers cannot be chosen nor ordained in it till there be a Church besides this imposition Heb. 6.2 was learnt owned and laid by the whole body of the Church whom he reproves saying ye might have been teachers but ye had need to be taught again which be the first principles of the oracles of God but they were not all at first surely by laying on of hands ordained to office As to the sixth question of the Enquirers which is also the last that I am to speak to having spoke to the seventh and eighth above which with the ground thereof runs thus it is grounded upon such a grosse and grievous mistake that I am almost amazed that of the
14.15 16. one office also among the rest of which spirit when he should come so far was he by his coming from disingaging men from obedience to any one thing that Christ spake while he was on earth was because many would be very subject to to forget and be willingly ignorant of Christs lawes to teach all things and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever Christ said unto his disciples while he was with them Iohn 14.26 yea so he was come to his disciples and the Churches even unto Paul himself and that very Church of Corinth whom he praises for keeping some ordinances he delivered to them and charges to keep that of breaking of bread till Christ come long before he gave this charge and that in such a high degree that they had even all the gifts and manifestations of the spirit among them that might be 1 Cor. c. 12. c. 13. c. 14. so that they had abundance of Prophets and spiritual men among them 1 Cor. 14.37 that were higher in the spirit or if they were not Paul that was once in the third heaven was then the spiritual men of this age yea they were a people in every thing inriched with all utterance and all knowledge and the testimony of Christ was so confirmed in them by the coming of the spirit that they came behind in no gift 1 Cor. 1.5.6.7.8 yet were they to wait in the dispensation and use of ordinances wherein they were for another coming of the Lord Jesus in which way Pauls hope was that Christ would confirm them to the end that they might be blamelesse as else it seemes they could not be in the day i. e. the great and notable day of the second personal coming of the Lord Jesus Thou talkest to us alluding to Heb. 9.10 where the ordinances of the divine service of the law or old testament are so stiled of the ordinances of the Gospel under the name of carnall ordinances meer fleshly formes but know oh vain man that the outward rites or ceremonies of the Law are there called carnall on such an account as the ordinances of the Gospel cannot be so stiled viz. not at all because they were services performed by the outward man but because the performance of them served and sanctified no further then to the purifying of the flesh v. 13. viz. to the purging of the practisers thereof i. e. the Jews from such outward fleshly impurities as were contracted in the time of the Law by such things and actions as did denominate persons unclean for the time then being but neither do nor can so denominate them now that law with all the ordinances of it being abolished Thou callest Christs ordinances being not a little deluded by some expressions of Mr. Saltmarsh who speaks of them in his books as matters pertaining only to Iohns ministry whom together with his baptism and all that was done ad extra in the primitive time he puts upon the account of the law as pertaining to it rather then purely upon the account of the Gospel but know fond man that as Iohn was a minister of the Gospel of Christ and not of the law and his ministration of preaching and water baptism the very beginning of the Gospel of Christ as I have shewed above Mark 1.1.4 so if he and his ministration of baptism had related simply to the law as they did not yet that of laying on of hands and Church-fellowship in breaking bread were all given in charge by the new law-giver Christ Jesus and that of water baptism too for as if he had foreseen that some should delude themselves and others so as to say it ended at his death even that also was given a new after his death as his expresse commmand concerning all people to the worlds end Thou speakest of living higher then on such low weak empty elements and beggerly rudiments but to say nothing of thy abominable impudency and the desperate despite herein done by thee to the son of God whom thou treadest under foot whilst thou despisest his day of small things and settest light by the least of his commands and hurlst at thy heels the least jota of his law and testament or art ashamed of his words to let passe that I say we give thee to understand that we live not on these ordinances we use but only on our Lord Christ in them whose foolish weak things and earthen vessels they are by which he hands heavenly treasure to believing souls Thou tellest us that the use of outward ordinances was milk for babes in that infancy or nonage of tue Church which is no more then what we say our selves of some ordinances at least viz. baptism and imposition of hands which with the rest of the word of the beginning of Christs doctrine are so stiled Heb. 5.12 13.6.1.2 But what of this is it not very fit therefore that they should still be used the Church being yet under age unlesse thou wilt run necessarily upon the utterance of one of these two absurdities viz. that babes are not to be fed with milk now as heretofore but are more fitly fed with stronger meat or else which is as gross that there are no new born babes now in the Church as before at all but that every beginner in Christ is now a strong man a perfect man in Christ so soon as ever spiritually born Thou tellest us that to use ordinances is to know Christ after the flesh who from thenceforth was to be known so no more but herein oh spiritual man thou bewrayest thy own fleshly carnall and most crude conception of that place whereby the words of Paul though we have known Christ after the flesh he means not a knowing of him in the use of ordinances for then when he saies henceforth know we no man after the flesh it must have the same sense too and would suppose that till that time the Saints had known men in the use of ordinances besides that the Church at Corinth knew Christ in the use of ordinances long after this is eminently evident in the Epistle of Clement the Pastor and the Church at Rome written to the Corinthians upon occasion of their disorder in church affairs some 30 years after Paul wrote this but he means that they from thenceforth that Christ died did take cognizance of no man as ere the better upon the account of a meer fleshly descent or birth of any mens bodies no not of Abrahams as they had before nor count men in Christ and Christians at such a rate as they were counted to God as his under the Law but onely as new born spiritually born from above as new creatures as believing according to Iohn 1.12.13 and Gal. 3.26.29 if Christs by faith then Abrahams seed and heirs c. Thou tellest us that ordinances are as it were a dark glasse through which we are to behold Christ till we come to see him face to face a certain shadowy
one foot out saying yet I may go on the other in saying yet I may go back bespeaking its patrons to be in a twitter in a temper between Hawk and Buzzard afraid to dispute too downrightly for disputation least that should ingage them another time ashamed too directly to dispute down disputation least it be thought they have no mind to it any more But to come to the thing it self I confesse you have spoken Bonum but not Bene Rectum but not Rectâ— it is a moddle of for the most part right good true and honest matter onely made use of either very simply or very subtly to a bad end viz. the provoking of the Priesthood no need to bid mad folks â—un to preach up a false and oppose the practise of the true baptism Secondly most miserably misapplied if conscientiously and not cunningly it is the better to an improper subject and perverted the wrong way viz. to the fastning of the name Hereticks and Schismaticks for non-conformity to the Clergy upon those true Churches of Christ for non-conformity to whom in opinion and practise if miscariage about baptism may properly be so stiled the Clergy are in very deed the trust Hereticks and Schismaticks in the world I shall therefore in a serious survey and examine of what Heresie and Schism is discover plainly First that the people whom you call Anabaptists upon account of meer dissent and separation from you in the point of baptism are no Hereticks nor Schismaticks but the truest visible Church that Christ hath upon the earth Secondly that you the PPPriesthood of the Nations who dissent from them in that point are as to that point at least the veriest Hereticks and Schismaticks your selves Thirdly after some pathetical expostulation with your selves addresse my self by way of Peraphrase upon your own pathetical and paraenetical passages pathetically to exhort the true Pastors and paraenetically to perswade all people as you do yours to beware of us to beware of you the spirituallity by whom the way of truth is dispited who though you disguise your selves under the name of Gods Clergy or Heritage for a while yet will appear to be but cruel crushers of his true Clergy in the end First then let us see what Heresie and Schism is and then who is a Schismatical Heretick in the doctrine of baptism Heresie as to the Gospel is held and that truly by all manner of men I think the holding or maintaining any erroneous opinion in the faith and doctrine of the Gospel contrary to that doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles in the primitive times obstinately and pertinacously against all meanes that can be used towards conviction of the truth Schism is division or making of a rent fraction or faction in or separation from the true Church and from walking with them in the truth by the holders or maintainers of such false doctrine or opinion and consequently Schismatical Hereticks who ere they be are such as are bewitched from the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus and from the doctrine that was once received by the Church from him and his immediate Apostles so as both to believe and practise contrarily thereunto against all manifestations of the truth whereby to reduce and reclaim them and do also rend from and make a head against the true Church and true head thereof Christ Jesus separating themselves so as to have no fellowship or communion i. e. nor union of action nor unity of affection with them that walk in truth Now whether it be you O PPPriests who rantize infants or we who baptize believers that are thus gone off and divided from the primitive faith and practise from the true head of that Church from the true foundation i. e. the doctrine of the Apostles Eph. 2.20 Heb. 6.1.2 and from fellowship with and conformity to the true Church in baptism and otherwise is evident to him that is not blind or blear-eyed for verily the water baptism which we dispense is abundantly shewed above to be that one baptism Eph. 4. which was used in the primitive times then which there is no other water baptism enjoined or exemplified in the word as Christs ordinance to his disciples viz. the burying of new born babes i. e believers in water and bringing them up again in token of Christs death burial and resurrection and of their dying to sin and rising to newnesse of life this I say is that one onely baptism the Churches then practised and thus and no otherwise do we at this day for which the word is our warrant yea it is that faith which was once delivered unto the Saints that we now contend for and the words which were spoken before by the Apostles of the Lord as we are specially injoined to do in these latter daies by both Peter and Iude who foretold how they would be sleighted as we see they now are by the two Spiritualties viz. the Rantizer and the Ranter the one Hereticizing in the excesse by adding a new thing the other in the defect by owning nothing both Schismatizing accordingly from the way of truth and howbeit after that way which you call Heresie Schism separation from the Church and such like so worship we God yet as sure as the coats upon your back you shall first or last to your weal or wo find that as to the point of baptism Churchfellowship and the supper also it is no other then the way of truth we walk in yea so far are we from erring and Schismatizing from the Church that we of all men do stand for a full reformation in faith practise doctrine discipline worship manners government and baptism according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches i. e. those mentioned in the word according to which we are all sworn to endeavour to reform as we will not be justly charged with Perjury Perfidiousnesse and Prevarication the guilt of all which how little the Orthodox protesting covenanting Clergy are clear of in the sight of God and man is good for them to consider yea conformity in all things to the primitive practise is that we plead for presse after and persue and howbeit to the shame of his ignorance be it spoken Orthodox Mr. Baxter is pleased among other sectaries to charge the Anabaptists so he calls us that baptize aright as the Authors and approvers of the horrible wickednesse of these times and speaks of us as dispappointing and destroying their hopes in point of reformation to the grief of his heart yet with grief of heart that the way of truth should be evil spoken of by him by reason of such as do wickedly indeed yet those lascivious waves he laies to our score are lesse approvvd on in our Churches then in the purest Parish Church in all Christ'ndom Kederminster not excepted yea I tell him and God I hope will one day seal it home upon his heart to the grief of it another way that
the power and purity of Christs ordinances are a 1000 fold more strictly stickled for according to the Covenant by us then by all those Orthodox ones he talks of who the more shame for them do so zealously and constantly oppose us we therefore cannot rationally be denominated Hereticks and Schismaticks in separating from and practising contrary to you in the point of baptism so long as we keep close to the primitive truth gladly both preaching and receiving the word as t is preacht by Peter Act. 2. saying repent and be baptized every one of you repenting and being baptized accordingly and after that continuing in the rest of the Apostles doctrine and fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers and though we draw never so many disciples from you after us yet the man is out of his Christian wits that deputes and declares this to be Heresie and Schism sith so far are we herein from rending from and refusing to be reduced to the Church that we indeed earnestly endeavour to reduce them to the true Church to the true head Christ the true constitution the true Baptism and Gospel order from which they are rent and run astray wondring after a false Church a false head viz. a Lording Priesthood and Parochial posture both which derive all their being from Dioâ—rephes i. e. his prating Preheminence the Pope But now as for your selves the PPPriesthood of the Nations who mostly deny not but that the primitive baptism was of believers and dispenst in Rivers or places of much water which was needlesse if sprinkling was then the way you have a thing among you indeed which you call Baptism but t is not that one Baptism that old Baptism then urged and used but another a new Baptism and yet to say the truth neither another nor A new Baptism but A-no-Baptism Rantism Babism a toy of your own taking up by tradition from your forefathers but not the first fathers that were the founders of the Christian Church for you find it not there but fetch it further from thence by such consequence as besides the remotnesse of it is too weak and rotten to carry it downwards to these times you are they that dissent and rend from the truth in this point of baptism and draw all the world to Sectarize and erre after you by a law by your subpaena directories yea you pretendedly reforming Presbyters who peculiarize the term oâ— Orthodox to your selves even you as to the right administration of the outward right of baptism are not a whit lesse Erratical Heretical Schismatical and Heterodox then the Pope for as he hath another baptism then that which was in the primitive times viz. infant â—antism which by the mouth of his cardinal Bellarmine he confesses to be but a tradition of the Church so you have no other then the same yea you own that for good baptism which is done at Rome or else how to prove the Popish Bishops to be baptized themselves that baptized and ordained you Presbyters you plainly know not yet you falsely father it upon Christ and fain it to be an ordinance of his then which nothing is more clear then that it is not And as in point of baptism you all erre not knowing or at least not doing according to the Scriptures all means used to reduce you thereunto notwithstanding so in th supper and many more matters pertaining to that visible Church order that was in those times as namely impropriating to your selves sole power of speaking in your Churches i. e. steeple-houses so that your members may well say men mutire nefas it is not for them to open their mouthes there unlesse to answer when you catechise them whereas then all the Church were to covet to prophesie i. e. to speak mutually to the exhortation edification and comfort each of other and being gifted might all women onely excepted prophesie one by one and every one minister as of the ability God gave them great or small that God in all things might be glorified and all judge of the doctrine delivered but with you what doctrine ere ye deliver men may try it if they will but must take it whether they will or no the mouths of all must be muzzled up save such as in your sense are ministers i. e. have some Parchment Preachment orders to shew from such as can shew their orders from his Highnesse the head of the Church not Christ but his Holinesse the Pope who had his from the beast Rev. 17. who had his from the devill Rev. 13. yea verily as to the external face and fashion of the first Churches you have altogether altered it from what it was and brought in a businesse of your own heads being all gone aside and altogether become vain in your wayes as to your administrations of Gospel ordinances so that there is none of you that are in the right way of the primitive Churches no not one yea ye are separated from and make a head against the true head of the Church Christ Jesus and take upon you to head the Church your selves for this is not the fault of P the Pope onely but of PP i. e. you Prelates and Presbyters too who howbeit you seem to throw off that supremacy or headship which the Pope had once and laies claim to still in the protestant part of Christ'ndom yet in your several Christ'ndoms you have been not nominally but really as supreme in Church work as he and that not over the people onely but civil powers also to whom in all cases Ecclesiasticall and civill though you say you grant the headship or Supreame Government under Christ yet how doth that appear sith they only Corrective but you Directive till of late have done all for the Bishops and Sinods and General Convocations of the Clergy and assemblies of the Kirk seeundum te must determine what is to be done by Magistrates in Church affairs and they do it accordingly The Priests must give out the word and sentence what is the worship the way the faith the truth what Heresy and Schism who are Hereticks and Schismaticks and then the Princes in all their Dominions establish the one and root out the other as Rogues at their appointment in which cases saving the bare name of supremacy over the Churches which hath been allowed it is difficult to me to discern whether Christian Kings have not been as of old under the Popedome so more lately under the very Protestant Clergy as the Bosholder under the Constable at his discretion direction to whip the beggars and though you may say and so saies the Pope too that you claim to head and order the Church directive no otherwise then under Christ yet in very deed as he for all his saying so you have presumed to set your selves above Christ the only head Counseller Lord and Lawgiver to his Church for as the Pope hath done no more then broken his lawes changed his ordinances trampled his truth
quando intelligitur etiam id cujus est similitudo fit perspicuum et quidem magis quam fine similitudine et ut vera similitudo non intelligitur nisi analogia similitudinis intellegatur ita nec sacramenta nisi Analogia signorum et rerum intellegatur hoc sensu Apologia Augustanae confessionis aliquoties sacramenta vocat picturas x See legh crit sac p. 76.77 where he ore and ore again confesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ignifies to dip plunge under water c. primarily and properly p. 76. it signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is uâ—ed in Bucks where linnen is plunged or dipt Beza neque vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat lavare nisi a coÌ„sequenti nam proprie declarat tingendi causa mergere also p. 77. the native proper signification of it is to dip into water or plunge under water Joh 3.22 23. Mat. 3.16 tanquam ad tingenduÌ„ mergo Causab immergo intingo abluo Bucan mergo et tingo Bullinger proprie significat immergo submergo obruo aquâ Zanchius videtur copiam abundantiam perfectam quandam perfusionem denotare Areâ— a witnes these words received in a late letter from two Gentlemen of Chichester viz. SIR The occasion of these lines is the result of a late conference viz. to desire your grounds arguments in wriing for the continuance of water-baptism what you conceive required to evidence a right administrator and subject thereof Sir our end herein if we know our own hearts is to be assured of the mind of the Lord Christ touching that ordinance and our duty therein that we may walk conformably to his will c. a Acts. 3.22 b Is. 55.4 * for â—o Mark records the commission whereâ— Matâ—thewes meaning is much explaind Mar. 16.15.16 Go ye out into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature he that believeth and is baptizd shall be saved c. Argu. 1. d For these I speake to now and not to such as are shy of the use of Christs ordinances on an other account viz. a wretched conceit of such worth and weightinesse in them that no men in the world are now found fit to meddle with them or are admitted by Christ to be administrators of them for both these wayes doth the devil deceive men by to erre from the plain way of Christs truth e 1 Cor. 1.18 Rom. 1.16 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cor. 1..1.25 Argu. 2. f Act. 20.27 g Mat. 21.25 h Luk 7.29.30 Argum. 3. g Mat. 5.19 h Luke 16.10 h Rom. 14.2.5 i 1 Cor. 7.27 28. k Act. 8.4 l Act. 8 3â— m Act. 8.12 n Act. 8.14.10 36.18 11. o Act. 9.6 p Act. 22.10 q Act. 10.6 r Act. 10.33.48 s Rom. 6.34 t Gal. 3.26.27 v Act. 12.1 2 3 4. c x Col. â—2 12 r Act. 16.15.22.23 Arg. 4. Arg. 5. * for God whose waies limit us not himself was somtimes better then his word and anticipated the disciples obedience in these things so as to give his spirit beyond even Peters expectation to persons before baptized and prayed for yet did not this disingage them from doing that outward service but the more ingage them to be baptized Act. 10.45.46.47.48 h for its most certain that this was the will of Christ and tendred to all the world as so so to stand in all ages generationâ— of it to the end yea a special part of his testament as well as preaching faith repentance prayer and the rest and that since as well as before the Testators death Mat. 28.18.19.20 Act. 2.39.8.12.16.10.47 48.16.15.33.18 8.19 5.22.16 after which death of the Testator no man ever knew so much as a mans testament altered or disanul'd in one tittle of it without grosse palpable injury to the Testator x Mar. 1.4 y in which juncture of time he spake nothing to his discipâ—es by way of commandement or otherwise but such things as pertained to the Kingdom of God and to his Church and Gospel Act. 1.2.3 * See Mar. 1.1 2 3 4. the beginning of the Gospel of Christ Ioh. did baptize in the wildernesse and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins * in his book called Some glimps of that bright and morning starr a Mat. 24.34 Mar. 13.30 Luk. 21.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this generation or age meaning wherein we see the signs of Christs coming will no passe or be ended before all be fulfilled and â— he come b Eph. 3 2. speaking of ages divisim even all the several ages to the very end of time and age it self to the end of all times he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all ages of the world or to all ages of time of times even for ever c which how neer kin it is too to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth semper i e. alwaies every smarterer in Greek may understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * John did no miracle yet what he spake was true nor were any held excused that believed not his baptism to be of heaven but those are said â—e reject the councel of God against themselves that were not baptized of him * as if Christ had administrations in force but had made no provision of administrators whereby they might be at all dispensed * which may serve to the satisfaction of such as think that after the long cessation of tune baptism that hath been in the world there must be an utter omission and no resurrection of it again for ever because none but unbaptized persons to begin it for Iohn himself the greatest administrator of water baptism that ever was eiâ—her was not baptized himself at all or else by â—ome that were never baptized or else by some of those which himself had first baptized which still makes the case the same and evidences that unbaptized persons may possibly be right administrators and that the non baptization of the person that does it nulls not the dispensation of it to believers * As Christ also doth Mar. 16.16 saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved for true he that believeth not whether he be baptized or no shall be damned * 1 Pet. 4.11 * for he that hearkneth not to his voice in all things whatever he saith shall be cut off from among his people Act. 3.22 â—3 Major Minor * for no man can of himselfe by name prove expresly that he shall be save the Scripture promising life to neither Peter nor Paul by name save as they were believers but onely by an inference from the Scripture and in the ballance of right reason comparing Scripture with Scripture or by arguing in some such manner out of it viz. he that believeth and is baptized continuing in that his faith and obedience till death shall be saved Mark 16.16 Rom. 2.7 Heb. 10.35.38 but I believe and am baptized and continue in that faith and Gâ—d assisting will never draw back Ergo