persons denominated to go into and out of were once really and truly in Daniel was thrown into and taken up out of the Lyons den does not that shew plainly enough that he was in it the Swine ran into the sea were they not then in it I threw it into the fire saies Aaron of the molten image he made and there came out this calf will any say that the mettals he made it of were only warmed at the fire side they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and came up out of the water Iesus was baptized of Iohn into Iordan Mark 1.9 and when he was baptized went straitway out of the water Math. 3.16 can any man say that these two persons Iesus and the Eunuch of whom also Dr. Featley grants that they were baptized in the River were never in it at all but only wetted at the water side But that Philip and the Eunuch went into and were in the water and not unto it and at it only is evident by what I have hinted once already viz. in that it is said they were come unto the water before and therefore this must needs be into it or else either the Spirit Tautologized or they tautopoiâ—zed and came unto the water twice over but never into it at all Two more odd conceits and emblemes of the emptinesse of their apprehension in this point two a piece I mean in Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake I shall take notice of briefly in their fore-cited shuffles and so passe on to the rest First how peartly doth Mr. Cook squitch up A. R. with a question or two as if he would catechise him in that which he hath yet need to be further chatechisd himself Must they not go down to the water saith he if they would use it would the water come up to them in the Chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping In answer to which question I intreat Mr. Cook to ask his conscience this question whether if they had used the water only for sprinkling there was such necessity of going down to it as he seemes to intimate would not the water have come up to them in the Chariot sooner by far for sprinkling then for dipping yea verily both Philip and the Eunuch might have sat still in the Chariot and commanded water enough for sprinkling to be brought up to them thither in the hollow of the Chariot drivers hand if there were no bigger a vessel to bear it in but for dipping enough could never possibly be brought up into the Chariot at all Secondly he must saies he of Christ go down and come up from the water but here is not the least hint that John doused Christ over head or under water nay rather that conceit of yours saith he to A. R. 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 only implied that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it O how egregiously how shamefully doth this man forget and utter himself as if his senses were sodden into Trapizuntius his temper I would therfore ask him one or two questions viz. First whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth at all signifie to douse over head or under water or to plunge into water yea or no if not but I suppose he will not deny it so to do though he denies it to signifie onely plunging then I would have him to go to school again to the Lexicons which will teach him that it mainly signifies mergo immergo submergo and if lavo a bluo it is such an abâ—uâ—ion as is made immergendo but if it doth signifie to plunge dip or douse under water or overwhelm at all and I dare say he and every one else shall find it for all lavo quod fit immergendo to signifie a swilling in water altogether then I advise him to be think himself for I think he was asleep when he wrote this passage that there is at least some little hint that Iohn plunged Christ into the water when it s said Christ was baptized alias plunged dipt of Iohn into Iordan or washt in Iordan sith that pleases himself unless he put a difference between the active and the passive and will not yield it to be all one that Iohn baptized Christ and Christ was baptized of Iohn but though it be said Christ was baptized i. e. plunged of Iohn into Iordan overwhelmed in Iordan and that he came out of the water which is a shrewd sign that Iohn did not keep him there yet this is not plain and significant enough for him it seems unlesse he may have the framing of the spirits speech another way that is no whit plainer then the other neither viz. that Iohn cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water unlesse it may be said just so all that is said which yet is the same with that he would have to be said implies no more then that Christ went down unto the water and and came up again from it without being baptized so belike how A. Rs. opinion that Iohn doused Christ under water which is also mine and the very plainest expression the original can be read in is confuted by those texts Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.9.10 I can no more conceive then I can conceive that this expression viz. Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and he baptized him is a confutation of him that supposes the Eunuch to be baptized at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Mr. Cooks marginals wherby he would have us learn t is like from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that their ascension was but from the water but I muse why he would not set down the words of the other Scripture Act. the 8.39 which expounds this and where t is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in latin ex and englished most naturally out of The second thing more observable in Mr. Blakes businesse runs thus First saith he howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose but a general concurrence of all examples See how Mr. Bls. heart misgives him and well nigh wavers within whether he had not best yield us these two examples for all his tugging for them before into our cause and therefore now falls for fear these two will side against him to serve himself against them another way i. e. by denying that the testimony of the spirit in these two examples is of any validity to us without a concurrence of all examples To which I say had Mr. Blake but one half inch of an example in the new testament of baby baptism how much he would make of it we may see by his cunning counterfeit examples for that thing out of scriptures that in truth are not onely far from
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
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
of Iesus Christ in token whereof they are not only outwardly baptized in water immediately after they are thus born and become the Children of Abraham by faith but also circumcised in the heart with the circumcision made without hands i. e. inwardly sanctified by the spirit of God mortyfying crucifying cutting off and casting out the fleshlie superfluities thereof Col. 2.11 All which as its proved abundantly in each particular thereof in several other Scriptures as Rom. 4.13.14 Heb. 8.6 Rom. 9.7.8 Gal. 3.7.9.26.27.28.29 so is it verie plainly and summarily shewed in Heb. 9.23.10.1 where the Law of the old Covenant is said to be with all the holy things thereof but onely patterns of things in the heavens figures of the true and to have only a shadow of the good things to come and not the verie substance of the things themselves the Covenant-holiness therefore and birth-priviledge which was then in the Jewes fleshly seed with whom that Covenant was made was as all other things then were but typicall and consequently but ceremonial and temporal I mean abiding onely till the time of the Gospel And since your selves acknowledge that what was but typicall of old is now vanished I marvel that you should so much forget your selves as to renounce the same holiness that was then in all other things and retain it still as standing in the seed and you hold it to be removed from Abrahams own fleshly seed too and subjected onely in the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles you fight against the owning of any of that kind of holinesse that of old was I mean you Priests of the Presbyterian party for the Bishops and Dâ— Featley fight against it in the Pope and yet hold it themselves to be where you own it not in Temple Copes Surplices Altars Fonts Chalices and such holy Church-geer as Christs Church in London in Oxford in Cambridge in Canterbury did once supera bound with but neither Christs Church in Rome till corrupted nor Christs Church in Corinth nor Ephesus nor Philippi nor any of the rest of the Churches in the primitive times ever did nor any of Christs true Churches in these latter times ever will place holiness in any more I say you are against all that relative Jewish ceremonial holiness and abide not to hear of its abiding in any thing else yet abide not to hear any otherwise but that it abides still in that onely subject i. e. the fleshly seed of enchurched parents But Sirs although in most things I must needs preferre the worst of you two P Priest-hoods of the Prelatick and Presbyterian posture yet to give the Devil his due in this one thing I cannot but commend the Pope and his Priesthood beyond you both in that since you will all needs Iudaize more or lesse and regulate your Gospel service by that of the Law they Judaize more judiciously and more ingenuously than either of you two PP that pluck him to pieces for it for thou English Scottish Angel are neither hot nor cold neither gospel nor law neither wholy Romish nor rightly reformed but retaining a little of one and a little of the other and lying in a Lukewarm temper between them both for which God will spue you out of his mouth as well as them but as for the other they are not lukewarm but I bear them record they have as the Jewes also had since the Gospel came in a zeal of the Law but not according to knowledge yea they are zealous of the holyness of that Covenant more and more compleatly then either of you for they plead not only for the holiness of their fleshly seed as P. nor only a holiness in Temples Altars Fonts Vestmenâ—s Vessels c. as P. but for a holiness well-nigh in all those things and more too than ever were denominated holy under the Law in which supererrogating I must needs uncommend them again as far worse then you yea they say downrightly to the people that except it be after the manner of Moses in all things almost Iudicial and Ceremoniall only Moralls they are a litle more moderate in observing and can better bear an absolute abrogation of viz. one Holy High-Priest to procure attonement aliâs sell indulgencies and pardons whose supremacy must be owned and he answerably adorned with holy Mitre and Crown Purple Scarlet fine Linnen Chaines of Gold also if there be â—ot holy Altars Tapers Lavers holy Water Offerings first fruits fine flower Wine and Oile Salt Cream Spittle c. holy Fasts as Lent Wednesdaies Fridaies holy Feast-daies in memorial of such Saints as the Pope eanonizeth which are more by far then there are daies in the year holy Pictures and Images holy Warrs holy Pilgrimages holy Clouts holy Rags holy Reliques holy Bells holy Chanteries holy Churchyards of which they say Pueri sâ—cer est Locus extra Mejete holy persons devoted to service viz. holy Votaries holy Monks holy Friers holy Nunns sic de ceteris from the Vniversal Vicar to the holy singing men and pipers and the rest of that rabble which are the very vermine of Christendome yea if they observe not all the holy Statutes and ordinances which his Holiness their Lord God the Pope commands them especially if they seperate from the holy Catholike Church of his constituting they cannot be saved Thus they clean outstrip you if pleading for relative dedicative holiness and consecration of persons places and times be as proper under the Gospel as under the Law and are so zealous of that kind of holiness that in zeal thereof they will have all to be Holiness to the Lord till they come to be as wicked and prophane as the very devil himself can well desire they should be Si aliquando quare non nunc saies the Pope when you question him for his Dedicative holiness if so once why not now If under the Law why not under the Gospel the same phrase you commonly bespeak us in when we demand a reason why you fancy such a birth-holiness in your fleshly seed in return to which against such time as you shall satisfy us so slenderly in this case so as to say Si aliquando quare non nunc arguing from the manner of things under Moses that thus or thus they ought to be under Christ and deriving a holiness from that of the Jews fleshly seed to the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles under the Gospel I leave this double question upon record First Si aliquid quare non quicquid If you will have any thing holy with that Ceremonial holiness now why not every thing that then was so Secondly Si aliqualitèr quarè non aequalitèr if you will needs Iudaize at all why not in all as well as the Pope though where he doth all and more too he shall at last have no thanks for his labor The next and last argument whereby I shall prove that typical holiness of Abrahams fleshly seed as well as of all the other
upon you above that are held out by any of you out of the armory of Scripture in defence of infant baptism and those are Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 10.1.2 both which not onely knock sprinkling oth'head but may also very easily be sheathed in the bowels of baby-baptism As for the first it speaks as well nigh all scripture doth not much medling with infants not onely to buâ— of adult disciples only of whom as well as to whom and not of infants in way of satisfaction to them and answer to those that would have brought in the old circumcision made with hands among them Paul saies ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands which circumcision without hands there spoken of is not baptism neither as some dream who thence also draw in circumcision and baptism to be of so neer kin that as they have both one name so they must both have one subject also for baptism is no more done withoutehands then the other but the sanctification or inward circumcision of the heart cutting off the foreskin i. e. the filth of the heart which things infants do not in token of which he tells them they are not sprinkled but buried i. e. overwhelmed in water with Christ in the outward baptism wherin also they are risen with him through faith c. All which things he that imagins they more include then exclude the sucking infants of such to whom he speaks is no man in discretion with me As for the other place its most evident the Apostle speaks not of baptism litterally but Metaphoically onely there they were baptized unto Moses i. e. by the visible tokens of Gods presence amongst them viz. the cloud and Sea assisting and siding with them and overthrowing their adversaries they were confirmed in the belief of God and his servant Moses as we by baptism are in the faith of Gods goodnesse to us and of his Son Jesus Christ in further confirmation of which meer figurative sence of the word baptized you may do well to consider that though they were said to be baptized in the cloud and in the sea which phrases however sound forth such a total immersion as is not in two or three drops of water fingered on the face yet they were not so much as wetted with either the cloud or the sea for its said Exod. 14.21.22 the sea was made dry land under them and they went through it dry shod or on dry ground which they could not be well said to do had it so much as rained upon them such a figurative sence of the word baptize there Mr. Baxter himself denies not p. 90. yet Dr. Channel urged that place in a publique dispute at Petworth Ian. 1651. as one of his arguments for infant baptism besides Secondly if you will needs have it properly taken that they were baptized really and not quasi baptized as Mr. Baxter yields they were and if you will needs make that baptism such an emblem of ours that ours must have an adequate subject to that which say you was infants as well as parents then t will put you to your trumps to excuse your selves handsomly in your now denying to infants the same spiritual meat and drink in the supper which they then eat and drank of in a figure also viz. the Manna and the Rock which both were no other Antitypically then the bread and wine are mistically in the supper i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ. For all your vain boasting therefore of what innumerable arguments you have from Scriptures I say the Scriptures are sure enough on our side nevertheless taking the word in a sutable sense you do well to call your Scripture armes or arguments innumerable for indeed they are not to be numbred for even unit as much more nonit as non est numerus being no more than just none at all Secondly whereas you boast of the innumerable Arguments which may be brought for your infant rantism from reason the full force of reason is utterly against you and so wholly assistant to our cause that the unreasonablest man amongst you will once see it when sound reason comes to reign and sway the scepter indeed Yea not to stand reasoning on it now how reasonless a thing it is to ask a company of men and women as the priests were wont to do at the font thus viz. do you believe in God the Father and Christ c. and will you be baptized in this faith and when they answered yes that is all our desire then instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized to take a small sucking babe out of their armes and dat him with a drop or two on the face and send away all the other unbaptized Babist The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child that could not speak for it self and expresse his good resolutions to forsake the divel c. and his desires to be baptized Baptist How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signifie things to sucklings while they understand them not and that too by such a vanishing visible sign that when they can understand they neither see nor never shall and such like Trumpioall transactions to which there are as few grains of reason concurring as there are inches in an Apes tail even your selves however it happens that you so contradict your selves yet that is no news with you as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism are even in this very cause found falling out with and fighting down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections which by your own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism but I le spare you till I come thither 3ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof which you complain and grumble much p. 1.11.12 that t was set aside and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation is so utterly against your infant baptism that even this alone were it of any esteem with you had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it and laid the itch and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty is most manifest if by the Church of God and the Fathers therof you mean what I do viz. the Church of God in the primitive which were the best and purest times of the Gospel whose practise in this particular is set out in the word but specially in the Acts of the Apostles the fathers of which Church and of the Church
be converted and baptized which thing that it is at all to the infants of the faithful in their minority he saith not at all here nor any thing like it but elsewhere mentioning the same Scripture Iohn 3.5 as he puts the water and the spirit together so both before and behind it he puts teaching and dipping faith and baptism as things that by the law of dipping are imposed as of necessity to go together saying he hath bound fâ—ith to the necessity of baptism therefore all believers speaking of none else were baptized and then Paul when he believed was baptized in his book de baptismo advers Quintil. Editio de la cerda vol. 2. p. 153. ibid. c. 13. as Mr. Blackwood quotes him in his storm of Antichrist p. 28 29. so that in the quotation were are yet upon the Antithesis lies thus in my conscience as I read him viz. infants of the faithful in their infancy may be reputatively holy but not really holy none being really holy till such time as they be born of water and the spirit which was not in infancy in Tertullians apprehension as it seems to me in that very place which the Dr. and Mr. Marshall make so much of as the words designati sanctitatis non sancti do shew whereupon I perswade my self it was that in that other place of his that I must return to he uses disswasion from dispensing and perswasion to deferring baptism to all but specially to infants not of infidels onely but believers also as I shall shew clearly to Mr. Marshal now who scruples it and that by such reasons as shall take that rub and stumbling block of his out of the way I mean this last text of Tertullian of his own and Dr. Holmes his alleading by which they were both gravelled from believing Tertullian to be ours for indeed whereas that place he last alleadged did give him supposed ground to scruple whether Tertullians disswasion from baptizing of infants were from any but the infants of infidels I hope to shew him such a necessity of understanding his disswasion to be from the baptism of any infants whatsoever as shall give him contrarily sure ground of belief that howbeit Tertullian would have some infants higher accounted on then some yet he would not from thence have any baptized to which end I shall set down Tertullians disswasions of infant baptism in English as I find them quoted by Mr. Marshall in latin who I observe seldom Englishes what may make against him p. 34. of Mr. Marshall against Mr. Tombes and in p. 122. of Dr. Holmes in English and more largely then by either of them by Mr. Blackwood in his storm p. 29. together with the grounds why he would not have little ones baptized and leave it to be judged what little ones he means Tertullians words are these viz. According to every ones condition and disposition and age the delay of baptism is more profitable but especially concerning little children for what necessity is there if it be not so much a necessity as to have the sureties also brought into danger who may both by their own mortallity sail of fulfilling their promises and by the increase of an ill disposition be deceived The Lord saith indeed forbid them not to come unto me let them come therefore when they grow up to youth c. thus far Mr. Marshal and the Dr. Mr. Blackwood writes further thus Let them come whilst they are young whilst wherein they come they are taught let them become Christians when they know Christ a little further he saith shall it be done more warily insecular things that to whom earthly substance is not committed Divine should be committed they shall know to beg salvation that thou mayst seem to give it to him that asketh it also in the 20 chapter of the same book he saith it behoves them that are about to enter into baptism to pray with frequent prayers fastings kneeling and watchings and with the confession of their sins past in all these words is he recorded by the three authors above named disswading from baptizing infants now whereas Mr. Marshall professes he stands much inclined to believe that these little ones to whom Tertullian would have baptism delayed are to be interpreted of the infants of infidels onely and Dr. Holmes helps him what he can in this by quoting the words of learned Iuniâ—â— upon the place who is just of the same opinion with Mr. Marshall yet lends him as little reason towards it as one can likely look for from so rational a man I shall immind them first that Vossius on the place quoted by Dr. Holmes in one and the same page with Iunius found no good ground to evade the bang Tertullian gives to infant baptism in such a fashion as to say he denies onely the baptism of infidels infants how far you will heed him I know not but he thinks his think thus viz. not that infants of the faithful are here denied by Tertullian but that nothing is denied by him but onely the necessity of thâ—se infants baptism when there 's nâ— danger of death because t is said what necessity if there be no necessity defend you your selves if you will against that consent by silence of Vossius to us in this that t is all infants to whom Tertullian would have baptism delaied for that affâ—onâ—s your poor put off and I le look to Vossius his own put off as well as I can that he shall not go clear away with it for my own part then allowing Vossius his own thought I take the like liberty to think otherwise and the boldnesse to assert the contrary viz. That â—ertullian denies more then a necessity of infant baptism yea he denies any conveniency or lawfullnesse of the thing also especially in the testimony cited by Mr. Blackwood which the Dr. and Mr. Marshal durst not mention and clearly enough in those cited by themselvs for if it behoves them that are baptized to pray confesse sin c. which no infant can do then it behoves us not to baptize them and if it bring sureties into danger then t is not convenient nor expedient as well as not necessary and if it be more profitable to delay it to infants then we are so by duty bound to do what 's most profitable and edifying that to do otherwise is to do that which is unlawful moreover it being granted by Vossius that Tertullian denies but so much as the necessity of baptizing any infants I le prove thence a necessity not to baptize any for if there be not more or lesse a necessity of one kind or other viz. vel praecepti vel medii there 's a necessity at least of letting it alone for Christ commands no ordinance of his without need and with such indifferency as destroyes all necessity of obeying it and what way or point of worship was not ordained by himself is by command from him of such necessity to
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
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
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
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
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
as the other they that are baptized with the spirit and fire are also baptized in the spirit and in fire and put into the spirit and into fire i. e. wholly into a holy flame of zeal for God and the Gospel for that 's the baptism with fire that is there mainly spoken of and not as the Dr. divines that outward appearance of cloven tongues onely like as of fire that sat upon them in the assembly Act. 2.3 for that was but a special accidentall visible token of Gods presence extraordinarily appearing among those particular persons at that time baptizing them inwardly with the other which is no more necessarily incident to all persons that are baptized with fire and to all those unto whom that baptism with fire is promised which are indeed all the Saints that repent and believe the Gospel as well as those that were met on the day of Pentecost as we see Mat. 3.11 where Iohn promises the baptism with fire as well as with the spirit to all penitents most of which never had that vision of cloven tongues which appearance of cloven tongues I say is no more incident to nor to be expected by all that are baptized with fire then the appearance of the spirit descending in shape of a dove and lighting upon Christ at the time when he was baptized or filled with the spirit which was much vvhat such another special casual and visible token of Gods presence as the other is incident to or to be expected by all those that are baptized i. e. filled vvith the holy spirit and albeit this phrase in the spirit may seem to sound so non-sensically to Mr Cook out of our mouthes that are a people of no account vvith him yet I hope it shall seem congruous enough out of the mouth of the holy spirit and the holy Apostles themselves for they use it more then once or twice in the holy Scripture and me thinks he should not be unlesse he be willingly ignorant of it for not onely doth Iohn say twice viz. Rev. 1.10.17.3 of himself in this manner viz. I was in the spirit and he carried me away in the spirit but likewise Paul saies plainly to all Saints Gal. 5.6 walk in the spirit and to himself and all Saints v. 25. if we live in the spirit let us walk in the spirit and testifies of the Saints also Rom. 8.9 that they are not in the flesh but in the spirit if the spirit of God dwell in them where by in the flesh he means all over all together or totally fleshly drenched drowned in flesh plunged over head and ears as it were in flesh filth and corruption as the world is that lies in wickednesse so that there is nothing but flesh to be seen upon them as he is that is buried in water whom that Element hath wholly covered and by being in the spirit no other then that which is the baptism with the spirit i. e. being indued with the spirit wholly sanctified in every part though but in part with the spirit all over seasoned washed clensed by the spirit for thus he is that is baptized with the spirit i. e. he is in the spirit as well as the spirit in him More then this yet though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred with as well as in for t is both with and in water that we are baptized when we are baptized as we should be when it stands between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that we may read it as well I baptize you with water as in water yet can it not be very properly read so when it stands between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet so it stands Mat. 3.6 Mark 1.5 for though I can bear with him that saies thus viz. Iohn baptized with water yet he that shall say that Iohn baptized with Iordan or with the River Iordan as if all Iordan was used to every ones baptizing rather then in Iordan and in the River Iordan I shall think that his braines crow out nonsense which is intolerable Whereupon as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Translators do there English it in and not with and though I can read it with together with them as well as in when the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet by their leave and with non-submission to their judgements as no way sleighting them further then I find them not fallible and saving both the Dr. and Mr. Cooks conceits to the contrary I see no reason sith one of those places is a relation of the same thing with the other but that as Mat. 3.6 Mat. 5.1 we must read thus viz. they were baptized of Iohn in the River Iordan so we may without such uncouth utterance of the thing as seems to them to be in it yea and as agreeably to Scripture language as otherwise read Mat 3.11 Mar. 1.8 thus viz. I indeed baptize you in water but he shall baptize you in the holy spirit and fire But more then all this yet though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is used in those places may without any advantage to you be read with as well as in yet the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used Mark 1.9 where it is said that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan that cannot possibly be rendred with which yet in the intent of the spirit is doubtlesse the same in sense and signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the other and more significant to our purpose for howbeit it be rendred in Iordan as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is elsewhere yet into Iordan were more agreeable to that rendition of it that is usuall in other places but so to read it viz. he was baptized of Iohn into Iordan doth render your sprinkling a plain piece of Nonsence for it cannot be sensibly said he was sprinkled into Iordan therefore you will in no wise give way to that the Doctor indeed leaves A. R. and bids him farewell in that point as if he were affraid to have any noise of it and saies not a word against it but Mr. Cook and Mr Blake who saves himself a labor uses not a jo◠more then what Mr. Cook furnishes him with to that purpose do both sternuously stand against the reading of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 1.9 by into Mr. Cook p. 14. and Mr Blake p. 4. of their respective returns to A. R. and Mr. Blackwood who both make mention of that passage yet the utmost that both these repugnants bring against it is of no more force then a very feather for all that they say is this that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth often signify in or by and not into as Mat. 2.23 Mark 4.13 Mat. 5.45 Mat 10.9.11.13.33 he dwelt in Nazareth in Capernaum neither by Ierusalem c. neither possesse mony in your
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
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
the forenamed books that are extant specially that of Mr. Baxter whom I know to be a very able and godly man who hath in mine and I think in all discerning mens Apprehensions so sollidly disproved and clearly confuted your way of dipping that few or none of those that see what he saies in that point will be of your mind and follow your fashion therein for whereas you say that dipping was the custome in the first times and therefore go about to seduce men into the belief of it because it s said that the Eunuch went down into the water and that John baptized in Aenon because there was much water there he replies that is a thing never proved by any and that the Jaylor was baptized in the night in his own house and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey where water was so scarce and that the Eunuch might well be said to go down into the water for the Country was mountanous and the brooks in the bottoms and that even the River Aenon it self where Iohn baptized because there was much water is found by Travellers to be a small brook which a man might almost step over and much more that gainsaies much of what you have said is in the 135. page of his book which I shall expect your answer to but if you please le ts see what you can say to this first Baptist. I shall very freely speak to any thing which hath not yet been spoken to in particular and to Mr. Baxters exceptions in that particular rather then any other because he is most noted in those parts were he lives and also in the examination of his Exceptions I shall have the more hint to take notice of such reliques and broken pieces as remain yet unspoken to as the gainsayings of the rest in this point for he seems to me to have gathered them up there and to have epitomized those mens matter as iâ— were into a fardel of fewer words excepting the two last grand Arguments of Mr. Cook against dipping one of which Doctor Featley affronts us with in the title page and both of which are more sparingly spoke to yet covertly touched and tacitly touched upon by Mr. Cook and those Mr. Baxter rather comments on at large and makes I cannot say a fairer but a fouler a falser and far more miserable improvement of then any of the rest do This he professes to be the businesse of his book p. 13. viz. To use the proofs that others make use of in some newer kind of way confessing that few have improved their Arguments as they might have done nor mannaged them in the most forcible way and not to medle much with those arguments that others have fully mannaged Yet by his leave he meddles so much with the Arguments that others almost every one makes use of that he makes some of them the worse again he mars many a one with his mendall Mannagement It is not to use many Arguments saith he but to drive home a few Yet he uses many more then any one else viz. three capital ones to prove infants to be disciples twenty cardinal ones to prove them members to which Nos numeri sumus a number of others are subservient and subordinate two more in proof of babisme besides eight in proof of no body knows what all these in his Disputative piece of book so that for ought I find Et sinon prosint singula multa juvant his genius stood more to numerositie than dextery in handling a few unlesse by few he mean only the three main Mediums as Capital and Cardinal to the rest the first of which but especially the second in tot ramos ramulos ramusculos se ipsum Rantizavit hath stragled it self into so many small branches that indeed it hangs not handsomly together within it self and indeed the whole is but a certain three legged stool which he hath made for people to sit at rest upon in their vain Worships and seâ—vings of God after the Precepts of men which if they never be broken by any hand writing responsibly to them yet are so rotten that they will wear out within a while of themselves but be they few or many he might well say he would drive home a few for verily above all the rest those two I speak of viz. wherein dipping is called Murther and adultery he drives on beyond the bounds of modesty truth sense and reason as far I dare say to the full as God would suffer the Devill to direct and drive him For my part I never saw Mr. Baxters face that I know of but I see too much of his spirit in his latest labor in which if the spirit of God had been his leader he would not have led him into that confident utterance of such utter untruths not onely in point of doctrine but matter of fact too now and then let his parts let his piety you talk on be more then his parts if it will God once left as honest as holy as worthy a one as he can be in punishment of a people whom he had a mind to plague for their dotage on him to be stirred up by Satan to do things inconvenient and unseemly 1 Chron. 21.1 and so it seemes to me he hath left Mr. Baxter as Godly as he is or else there could never have issued from him such inconsiderate crudities such rank venomous viperous ulcerous fluxes of folly flesh fierceness fiction falseness firery invectives to the madding of the very magistracy if it would be any longer blinded by the bawlings of a mistaken ministry against many a dear Saint of God against a people precious to God though base in his eyes against thousands that are as intimate with God and more privy to his will in point of baptism then himself that thus he does shall appear by and by at present see what little verity and less validity is in that first viz. that it is not yet proved by any that dipping was the primitive custome when yet it s proved if not by many yet at least by two of our way viz. A. R. and Mr. Blackwood and that so sufficiently that if Dr. Featley and Mr. Baxter Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake did not decline them and if they had been minded to mark and seriously to search the Scriptures and not to dazle mens eyes with all the fiddle-faddles they could find to fling before them and to satisfie themselves at slender rates in the present custome rather then cry out for a change sith it is the present custome the Scriptures they hint on are so plain taking the words thereof not in feigned forced figurative and forreign but in their own prime direct native ordinary proper and rational sense and signification that he who runs may read no lesse then this that dipping yea total was the way wherein baptism was then dispensed but if we had not such proof of it extant from our own party yet t is so
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then he p. 2. saies in way of answer to that that there is nothing more ordinary then to have words used out of their prime signification Baptist. Nothing more ordinary then to have words out of their prime signification what a strange extraordinary expression is that I dare undertake to shew him something more otdinary then that and venture to avouch that it is more ordinary to have words used in their prime signification then out of it or else I know not how we should handsomely understand one another in any tongue for howbeit there is now and then a word figuratized besides its proper meaning yet that a secondary borrowed bastard forraign sense should carry words so quite away from their own proper direct prime proxime native signification that we must take them in no sense no not in their genuine sense more ordinarily then in those secondary senses is such a peece of senslesse as will hardly enter into the center of my understanding while I have one yet so do you dote upon the farre fetcht senses of words when they onely though never so untowardly too may be wrested in â—o serve your turn that nothing is more ordinary among your selves indeed in such a case then to shut out the aptest the amplest acceptions altogether and force the first senses from having to do at all with those words whose own whose plainest whose neerest whose likeliest whose chiefest properest senses they are and on this wise do you deal with the truest sense and signification of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which because it signifies sometimes onely as Mr. Blake observes which is however argumentum ad hominâ—m though I grant it signifies ever yet onely secondarily to wâ—sh therefore if you may have the vote of it it must never signifie any thing else and never be interpreted by its prime signification at all it signifies i. e. usually and for the most part and primarily for who can take Mr Blake as meaning otherwise to dip or drown c. and sometimes quoth he out of Scapula to wash but if I should ask Mr. Blake how often he would give it leave throughout the whole new testament to be taken in that sense which his word sometimes annexed to the sense of washing shewes he takes to be the most usual and common sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. to dip plunge or overwhelm I am afraid he will change his note and say it signiâ—ies alvvayes to vvash and not allovv the sense of it to dip or plunge so much as sometimes no not yet so much as once throughout the gospel yea I demand of him vvhere he dare give vvay to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be construed in its prime sense i. e. to dip overvvhelm or in vvhat one place he vvill be pleased to let us give it any other then the secondary that onely sometime signification of vvashing I doubt it must be contented for him and all the Rantists to be vvithout its neerest to be stript of its plainest to be banisht and forct for ever from bearing its truest sense in all places of the book of God unlesse they may be forc't once to be vvithout their vvills for in all the Scripture that I knovv of where the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is placed it is thus displaced from its principall signification by them so that all our desires to them on its behalf that it may sometimes at least be granted the sense of dipping shall in no vvise prevail for itâ— ovvn sense to be allovved it I remember but these places at present vvhere the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used vvhere vvater baptism of persons is spoken of viz. Mat. 3.6.11.13.14.16.28.19 Mark 14.5.8.9.10 and the 16.26 Luke 3.7.12.16.21 Luke 7.29.30 Iohn 1. â—5 26.28 and the 3.22.23.26 and the 4.1.2 Act. 1.5 and the 2.38.41 and the 8.12.13 16.36.38.39 and the 9.18 and the 16.15.33 and the 18.8 and the 22.16 Rom. 6.3.4 1 Cor. 1.13.14.15.16.17 Gal. 3 27. Col. 2.12 in vvhich of all these places dare they allovv us the prime signification of the vvord not so much as one I dare say yet Scapula quotes but tvvo places viz. Mark 7. Luke 11. vvherein it is taken to vvash vve vvould be contented to allovv them that not sometimes onely as they talk of but that alvvayes it shall signifie to vvash for dipping indeed being a chief kind of vvashing it cannot be rationally gainsayed onely proh dolor vve must not once english it dipping or overvvhelming no not by any meanes in the world But Sirs though you are so accustomed to that trick so that it is to be feared you will be hardly brought off it viz. to have nothing more ordinary among you then to carry vvords and specially the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clearly and that not sometimes onely but continually besides its prime sense of dipping into its farre off sense of vvashing and into its non-sense of sprinkling for it signifies no such thing as that yet vve have no such custome nor the Churches of God but to take vvords ordinarily in the sense vvhich they most properly bear Rantist But Mr. Blake denies dousing over head to be the prime signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tells you p. 3. that the great Criticks in the Greek tongue will not allow you your sence to douse over head and years to be the prime distingishing between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Latter to bear your sense the former to be a dipping more light and overly as Luke the 16. and the 24. it is evidently used Baptist. O that 's another matter he should have said so then at first for because he talked that words are used out of their prime signification and among the rest this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sake of which he saies the other out of its pâ—ime signification of dipping I took it for granted and so I might well for he allowes it to signifie washing in Scripture and what sense is it that he pleads against by that speech viz. that words are oft used out of their prime significations I took it I say for granted and seriously a grant it is if he well examine it that he took dipping or overwhelming to be the prime sense of baptism unlesse almost a page of of his be pennd in vain and dares he now deny it that is worse then all the rest but I wonder what is if that be not the prime for I am sure the prime is not to wash it is quoth he a dipping more light and overly then so To which I say let the persons baptizing dip the persons baptized as lightly and overly as they will so they dipp them and not some of them barely for then I know they must do it underly also for what man is truly to be baptized that man is to be put under water not a part of him only as
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-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-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call 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-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
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
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
by Christ Iesus of resurrection of the dead and the eternall judgement and baptized in water in the name of Christ for remission of sins and together with imposition of hands prayed for that they may receive the holy spirit of promise do afterward continue stedfastly in the doctrine of the Apostles and in fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers all the true universall visible Church that I know of if you will needs have an universal visible is that which doth exist in these particular visible societies and is neither narrower nor wider then these particulars Such was the visible Gospel Church in the primitive times and the same and no other then that which was the visible Church then is the visible Church now and in all times of the Gospell wherein it is at all the visible Church was that which did consist and was made up of all the particular Churches that then were viz. Rome Corinth and all the rest which were societies and assemblies of persons thus called gathered and built up an house unto God upon the foundation of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ as the six above named are called Heb. 6.1 as they are also called Eph. 2.20 the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles i. e. that form of doctrine as t is called Rom. 6.17 which every beginner in Christ did own and obey and which obeying he was fit matter for the visible church and was after by mutual consent of the party offering himself and their suffering him to join with them Acts 10.26 formally added actually admitted to visible fellowship with them in breaking of bread and prayers for that with freedome on both sides such persons as had thus far been taught and had learned these principles this a b c and owned it i. e. professing to believe what of it was matter of faith and visibly practising what of it was practical were visible disciples new born babes Heb. 5.13 and such babes being baptized and having laid this foundation as to fellowship were then accepted thereunto that they might grow up to perfection in order whereunto unto this visible church Ephes. 3.21 which though it exists in many several particular bodies each of which is independent on any other head then Christ and impowered from him to determine all its own affaires ultimately within it self yet since it endeavours to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace is said to be but one body because of one spirit one call one hope one Lord one faith one baptism one God and father of them all who is above all and through all and in them all God hath given officers gifted for its service viz. some Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of this visible body of Christ till we all come to a perfect man to the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ Eph. 4.3.4.5.6.11.12.13 As for that Catholique visible church I mean that voluminous body or part of the world commonly called Christ'ndome which was once all as it were of one language and one speech and is now rather three in one or a Triune treader of the truth viz. Papall Prelaticall Presbyterial yet to this day exists in those particular visibles as were never thus seperated and called and constituted upon the foundation of the doctrine of the Apostles but conglomerated by the lump by the Apostle Peters supposed successor into Nationall Provinciall Parochiall to call a spade a spade I can call it no other then the CCCatholique Beast that bears now in three parts a BBBabilonish CCClergy Rev. 16.19 i. e. indeed the very CCCatholique whore Rev. 17. As for particular persons though professing to be believers that yet are not baptized and added to some such particular visible society or church but are yet abiding in the capacity only of single though visible Saints till they are both baptizd and added as members to walk in fellowship with some particular assembly and congregation in breaking bread and prayers as every such a one as supposes himself to be a saint ought to be or else his saintship may be much suspected if he will not they are no visible members of the visible church but onely fitter materials then they were before their faith and in a neerer right to be both baptized and admitted to be members then when they had none they are better matter for the visible church but not yet formally of the visible church have jus ad rem not in re ad ecclesiam not in Ecclesia a right to the church but not actual standing in it till entered and admitted Nor yet are they immediate matter for or in immediate right to membership though believing till baptized but materia remota and in jure quodam conditionali remoto a certain remote matter though neerer then when meerly men and in a conditional and remote right For as believers are the immediate matter for or in immediate right to baptism so baptized believers after laying on of hands in prayer are the immediate subject i. e. in immediate right to be admitted yet neither are baptized believers actuall members till admitted the formality and most immediate entrance and way of becoming a visible member of a particular visible Church and so consequently of the generall visible if I may so call it which hath its existence in all the particular churches which are the immediate matter of which that is made up being not simply the act of baptism but the act of joining our selves after it Act 9.26 and the constitutive form of a visible Church is not their being all baptized but their free falling into fellowship with each other and though we are said to be all baptized into one body t is an expression of the necessity only of every ones being baptized in order to a being in the visible Church for none hath right to be of the visible body unbaptized but though the baptized have immediate right to be of the body yet are they not meerly of it because baptized till added to it and as one cannot be said to be actually under baptism from an immediate right to it by faith till he have submitted so neither can we be said to be actually in the body from our immediate right to it by baptism till we are admitted Self condemned sinners have a right to believe in Christ believers a right to baptism baptized believers a right to the spirit of promise to have hands laid on with prayer that they may receive it according to the promise Asts 2. Acts 8. Acts 19. such as these to fellowship in the visible Church yet not in fellowship till assaying to join themselves they are accepted and yet in a visible state of salvation too both before baptized as the thief and after baptized before added to the Church visible as the Eunuch who both were seemingly members of the
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
so we cannot say nor do the Apostles speak concerning baptism viz. one man believeth that having the spirit he may but needs not be baptized another who is weak must needs be baptized let every one do as they see good or are satisfied in this case if they be baptized they have not sinned and if they never be baptized they have not sinned c. nay both Christ and they speak here in way of peremptory determination of all persons to one point for whereas if baptism were a matter thus left to our minds Christ must have said to his disciples go teach all nations every creature baptizing as many of those you make disciples onely as judge it needful as have a mind to it not teaching them to observe that outward rite any further then they please and Ananias to Paul and Peter to those he preacht to Act. 2. Act. 10. must have said repent and believe remission of sins and call on the name of the Lord and if any of you be so mindeed you may be baptized in water in token of Christs death burial and resurrection but those that seem to themselves to be as well without it may forbear we have no power either to forbid it or force them to it but they say clean otherwise viz. Go teach all Nations baptizing them teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized â—nd wash away thy sins c. repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus c. who can forbid water why these i. e. all these should not be baptized c. all which if it do not import and expresse water baptism to be every ones duty and not any ones liberty onely then my understanding stands under a cloud of utter darknesse Yea verily t is very remarkable in my mind and as well worth our heeding as any thing else in this case that when Paul in his trembling and astonished condition enquired of the Lord what he would have him to do the first thing and well nigh the onely thing that the word expresses that Christ by the mouth of Ananias declared to him as his will at that time which was immediately after his conversion was this duty of baptism see Act. 6.9 and the trembling and astonished said Lord what wilt thou have me to do and the Lord said unto him arise and go into the City and it shall be told thee what thou must do which passage Paul relating of himself Act. 22.10 expresses it thus viz. and I said what shall I do Lord and the Lord said to me arise and go into Damascus and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do Now when he was come into Damascus Ananias speaks thus to him v. 14. the God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou should know his will But what part of Christs will doth the word say Ananias there makes known to Paul in that place as that which at that time he must do and was appointed that he should do no more then what is exprest in these words Act. 22. v. 15.16 thou shalt be his witnesse unto all men of that thou hast seen and heard And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. And as Peter in his first preaching the praeceptory part of Christs Gospel to the Jews when they enquired what they should do and to the company at Cornelius's house and Ananias in his to Paul when he quaeried what he should do did preach baptism as the will of Christ concerning them as well as repentance prayer and such like duties so we shall find it was the constant course of all other primitive preachers in their preachings of Christ to any people to hold forth baptism to them as that which was to be submitted to by them out of hand after faith and repentance professed and also the constant course of persons converted to the faith without delay to submit to that dispensation accordingly for howbeit the very form of words wherein they spake to them concerning baptism and prest it upon believers as their duty is not set down syllabically in every place where its evident yet most manifestly evident and past all doubt it is to any but such as seeing will not see that in their doctrine they delivered the mind of Christ to people in this point of baptism and commanded it too even in those places where the Scripture doth not expresse what they said or else how it came to passe that their converts were acquainted with it so as readily to imbrace it and some of them to demand it as we find they did I know not unless we shall imagine they knew and owned it by some divine immediate instinct Acts 16.13.14.15 it s said that the Lord opening the heart of Lydia so that she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul she was baptized and her houshold who undoubtedly attended to the things that Paul preached together with her doth not this palpably presuppose that baptism was one of those things spoken by Paul and prest upon that Auditory or else how came she to know it and also to what purpose did she perform it likewise Act. 16.30.31.32.33 to the Jaylor asking Sirs what must I do to be saved its said that Paul and Silas preached the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house but what word of the Lord was it that they spake to them indeed the summe of their doctrine is not set down but that the doctrine of baptism was some of it as well as faith which is expressely set down as that which concerned them in the first place is clear or else it s a mystery to me how he and all his who are said v. 34. to believe in the Lord together with him should come to understand that they ought to be baptized much more to submit to be baptized straightway â—o Act. 18.8 it s said that Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue and all his house and many of the Corinthians hearing the word bâ—lieved and were baptized which how or why they should suffer themselves to be if the word they then heard none of which is set down did not hold forth baptism as well as faith I cannot possibly conjecture in like manner we read Act. 8.4 that Philip went to Samaria and preached Christ to them and v. 12. that when they believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdom of God and the name of Iesus Christ they were baptized both men and women yea and this not a service they submitted to on their own heads in their own names as that which had they been so pleased they might as well have forborn but v. 16. they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus it s said also v. 35. of the Eunuch that Philip preached unto him
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.
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
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
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
in that truth on their side doth animate and assist them you meet them with staff and spear and humane accomplishments and they stand before you in the name of God and strength of that truth and true Israel of his whom you yet defie this makes Schoolmen like Schoolboyes under the rod when they are taken tardy in their exercise and see they are like to be whipt for it cry spare us in that their School-masters the Pope and Councels have overtaskt them and set them a Theam which Scripture whence onely they must fetch all their proofs saies just nothing of at all This makes the Disputers the Divines to come abroad a begging in print among the vulgar as you here do saying cover pass by bewayling the weakness of their Arguments their defects in disputing their presumption in entring the lists their non-preparation for the disputation because it s not the true Gospel they disputed for a very stripling may make a Gyant give back if he have hold on the hilt of his sword and the other thrust hard against the blade 't is hard for thee O Saul to kick against the pricks a learned lawyer may be at loss in a lame suit Asinus ad lyram may play his part better and make sweeter musick then the most accurate musitian that hath nothing to beat upon but a board it may well put any but the meer Sophister to his shifts to prove the moons made of green cheese and so 't will any save the meer self-seeker that is set to serve it out of a sight that he can serve himself of it and therefore is resolv'd to make any Argument serve turn even libet ergo licet rather then leave it to prove Infant-baptism much more Infant-rantism to be a good cause and yet the more 's the pitty this is the cause you have to make good and have been so bold as to stand up for which though your wishes are here that it may not suffer wrong through your defects yet mine are much rather that you may not suffer your selves to be wrong'd any more or to be wrong'd for ever through its defects for howbeit it flatters you into an opinion of its ability to be maintain'd by you by its appearing ability to maintain you yet you 'l find ith'end that by its fair flourishes it hath flusht you into more zeal then furnisht you with ability to maintain it when it shall have brought you to your choice of one of these two ex quibus minimum est eligengendum viz. either of Repentance from it and all other your Parochiall dead works tithes and other traditions that depend upon it upon a sight and acknowledgement that you have been mistaken about these as well as other Romish Remnants that you have seen cause through the Parliaments eyes to renounce since that long since Lutheran reformation which after longer standing out will be so much the harder Chapter for you Clergy men to run throw or else which is worse then nought of perseverance in your evil waies and dead works against light to prevent the other which last the Lord prevent from befalling any of you if it be his will Pre Who would not have presumed to have entered the lists c. Post. It had been no presumption in you had you been true Ministers of Christ and the cause you stood up in Christs cause indeed for grant it to be presumption in Vzziah to meddle in the publique service of the Temple and in Vzziah to put forth his hand to uphold the Ark and consequently for so you argue not we for men to meddle so as to minister to the Gospel publiquely in your Churches that are not in holy orders yet it is none vos Apello for the Priests or ordained Ministers of Christ to stand up any where in defence of Christs truth where it s traduced but rather duty which in speciall they stand bound to in that therefore you accounting your selves Christs Ministers do grant it to be presumption in you to put forth so publiquely when you saw it tottering you do no less thou give the cause you stood up in to be none of his as indeed it was not but your own and that was it only which made it presumption and very high presumption in you too in that you durst enter the lists against the Lord Iesus in in his own ordinance and that with such weak Arguments such flags as flam'd like swords but alas such as could not bear the brunt when it came to blows here how much less will they in that battel of the great day of God Almighty which is now marching apace upon you 'T is true therefore as you here confess you have been presumptuous and presumption is one of the most desperate sins that can be against Christ yet for all that in his name and as an Embassador from him though otherwise an unworthy and ever a contemptible creature in your eyes as though himself did beseech you by me I am bold to beg of you that you would not despair but come in and be reconciled to him presuming no more to stand up against him with such weak weapons as before least he tear you in pieces fall upon you and grind you to powder but sit down and humble your selves that you have stood so long in the way of Sinners so that they could not come to Christ through your Blurres lay down your arms and yield your selves prisoners to him stoop to that golden Scepter he yet holds out unto you own him as your King Priest and Prophet list no more against him but list your selves under him for he is gracious and will yet receive you and baptize you with his spirit if you turn at his reproof and repent and be baptized in water in his name for remission of sins Pro. 1.23 Act. 2.38 become little children in such a sense as you should be that you may be baptized and then be baptized in truth and in token for your memory hath lost your traditionary token sprinkling that hereafter you will not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified but manfully fight under his banner against sin the world and the devill and continue Christs faithful souldiers to your lives end How happy had it been for you if you had took quarter from Christ before this time for he would have given it and forgiven all your enmity against him in his truth but you are stiff-blades and your words have been stout against him you Clergy men are Lords you will not come neer but I beseech you become Lord beggars at the throne of grace as Brightman said truly the Bishops were for earthly honor at the thrones of Kings and Princes that you may have more of that grace and holiness to worship God with reverence according to his own will which God gives to all humble Suppliants then had you less learning and living then you have and more disgrace in this world then ever
having that at present they rather scoff at the holy spirit yet dare you not say they are all reprobates for some of them may turn at Christs reproof for ought you know therefore what consequence is there from not being reprobates to a present possession of the holy spirit Secondly do you know so precisely which infants are Elect and which Reprobate as to take upon you to distinguish them by baptism or are all infants of unbelievers reprobate so that you may accordingly denominate them for such by whole sale as you do Do not the infants of unbelievers very often prove believers and so elect and precious and as ordinarily believers infants when they come to years I mean prove reprobates were not Asa the son of wicked Abia and Iosias of wicked Ammon elected both when Ishmael and Esau the sons of Abraham and Isaac themselves were in Scripture secundum te o Accountant p. 13. both branded for reprobates Lastly to the plain perverture of the words of the the text you quote to your own ends instead of Iesus Christ between whose and the spirits being in men there is no small difference for Christ may be in us by faith I mean we may be in the faith when yet he is not in us by his spirit I mean before the spirit is yet given witness all the disciples that believed and were baptized with water some while before Christ gave them the holy spirit Act. 8. Act. 19. instead of Christ I say you insert the spirit of God you also wholly pervert the sence of the Apostle in that place 2 Cor. 13.5 who speaks it not to infants nor of them neither but of persons that could both know and prove and examine their own selves of all which infants were uncapable by your own confession he wrote it of them to whom he wrote it and so indeed though you are slow of heart to consider it the whoâ—â— Gospel was written viz. de adultis adulâ—orum officiis of grown person whether parents or children and their duties but not for the use of infants in â—â—fancie at all In the next place upon occasion of my denial that it can be made appear that infants have the holy spirit to the making of them subjects of baptism you argue it on thus Disputation The report of Scripture concerning them and the necessary consequences of the former Arguments do make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason then the Profession of any particular person who perhaps may be an hypocrite as Symon Magus can make it appear of himself Gods testimony being to be preferred before mans Disproof Here is one of the most prodigious pieces of absurditie and contradiction of your selves as you speak in other places that was ever discerned to pass from men that cried out so loud as you do for libertie to reason logically since the art of Logick was found out In that you here call the consequences of all your former Arguments necessary consequences which is as much as to say such as conclude the thing in hand i. e. that infants have the holy spirit necessarily universally and infâ—llibly for that and no other were you so well skilled in Logick as you would seem to be is a necessary consequence which proves the matter concluded certainly so to be yea certo ità esse nec alitèr se habere posse a necessary consequence is when there is tam necessarius nexus indissolubilis dependentia c. such infallible dependence between the subject and the praedicate that the conclusion must be universally and perpetually true whereas your conclusion which is this viz. That little Children have the holy spirit as it followes not so much as probably nor possibly from all that you have here premised toward the proof on it witness all the Disproof made of your Disputation hitherto so much less doth it follow from them necessarily to be true for then it must be at least truly denominated de omni i. e. universally true concerning all little children that they have the ho-spirit de omni being the very lowest degree of necessity but this for shame you cannot say that all little children of every sort have holy spirit no nor yet so much as all of that sort of whom you so peculiarly assert it viz. the little children of believers among whom when they are at years there are as many destitute of the holy spirit as are indued with it And in further evidence hereof that it follows not necessarily from any thing you have said that those little infants you sprinkle have the holy spirit I appeal from your selves to your very selves for howbeit you here affirm as also p. 16. inch a necessity in the consequences whence you conclude that infants of believers have faith and the holy spirit yet to the utter confutation of your selves herein you elsewhere confesse that at the best your proof can be no more then probable viz. p. 18 where you write concerning the infants of Christian parents having faith and the spirit as if notwithstanding all that was said before to prove the certainty of it you could not now tell well what to say to it for as in p. 16. you acknowledged that all infants have it not so these are your own words p. 18. viz. the spirit is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor barr'd from working it in any of the children of infidels so that no judgement of science can be passed till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriori onely and yet by the way be it known unto you that every necessary consequence demonstrates a priori the discovery of habits it made that unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound nor yet bard there can be no conclusion made In which words see how plainly you acknowledge that no conclusion can be made of it that infants of Christians have the habit of faith i. e. it is a thing that doth not necessarily follow and cannot appear in infancy at all nor be certainly presumed whether they have or have it not till they come to years and be seen to act so that then it may be known by your own confession and yet in this place I am now in hand with you say no more nor lesse but in effect the clean contrary as also p. 16. where you seem to wonder almost and fault the difficulty in mens understandings that there are at all any doubts in them about their having it avouching that the Scriptures by necessary consequences confirme the thing viz. that they have it That the report of Scripture concerning little children and the necessary consequences of the former arguments do make it appear yea plainly yea more plainly then the profession of any particular person at years can make it
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
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
into a mist of so many other errors besides that of infants baptism that we may boldly use the proverb viz. Bernardus non videt omnia for as Mr. Blackwood quotes out of his 65 ser. in p. 31. of his storm speaking of some Christians that opposed the popish stream he saiâ—h thus They laugh at us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we require the praiers of Saints All which doctrine though falling from a father is yet indeed too ridiculous to be received for truth in these daies of its return from captivity by any but meer children in the Gospel Thirdly I appeal to your consciences not to Mr. Marshalls and Mr. Blakes here for they from the Fathers assert no more than matter of fact that infant-baptism was then whilest you matter of faith that it ought to be whether that foretold testimony of Tertullian may not ballance with those of Origen Cyprian c. who were not so near the pure times of the Apostles as he and whether he were not as likely as Origen and Austin to know if it had been so that infant-baptism was a Tradition from the Apostles and in case he did know it to what end he should deny it to be now dispensed or do you imagin him a man of so mean a conceit of the Apostles wisdome and so highly conceited of his own that he would forbid that as unprofitable which the Apostles prescribed and prescribe a more convenient way himself sure he must know as well as they if it were Apostolicall and they possibly might not know so well as he that it was not being all Iuniors to him and one of them viz. Cyprian so much beholding to him for much of what he had that he dignified him with the name of his Master such a diligent disciple i. e. reader and learner of Tertullian was he that Damihi Magistrum was his common speech of him so that his rational diswasion from infant-baptism cannot but be a more cogent ground of faith on one hand then Origens Scriptureless position and Cyprians Antapostolick and reasonless reasons and perswasion to it are one the other unless you will needs so father it over the Fathers themselves as to authorize which of them and which of their sentences you please disowning the rest as not Orthodox or Authentick further then they serve your own turns and then by my consent they shall be no longer fathers to you but you fathers over them and us too in their stead But Mr. Marshall who hath a longer arm then every body reaches us a rap yet by a certain quaere which he propounds to Mr. Tombs p. 35.36.37 to which till he hath some answer he will conceive we are so sick of Tertullian that wee le say no more of him his quaere is this Babist Why may not the diswasion cited out of Tertullian de baptismo infantium reasonably be interpreted of the infants of infidells only whose baptism he would have deferred till they come to years and to profess faith themselves and not of the infants of Christians I am inclined to believe that to be the true meaning of the place for such considerations First because Tertullian alledges this double reason why he would have the baptism of little ones delaied viz. least their Sponsors or Sureties be in hazzard of not fulfilling the promises they make on their behalf by either their own mortality or the childrens proving untoward of â—nclineable to iniquity for whom they undertake Secondly Because t is clear and evident by the 39th Chapter of Tertullian book the 18th Chapter whereof hath this disswasion to baptize little ones that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of believers are by birth designati sanctitatis salutis counted holy from 1 Cor. 7.14 not sancti till they be born of water and the spirit and have a kind of priviledge and prerogative by nature yea such a sanctity and the very same as is called faederall or covenant holinesse that gives right to baptism Baptist And so saies Dr. Holmes also p. 122. upon the same text of Tertullian Mr. Marshal quotes and out of which he raked his 2 reasons to which second reason or Mr. Marshal I answer First and that thus confessing that that good old Father who is no more infallible than your selves so that his Sentence without reason proves any thing at all to be de jure doth seem to me to erre together with you though not so grossly as you as touching the genuine sense of the Agostle in that 1 Cor. 7.14 when he saith to parents of two religions in one civil relation that their children are holy and to own a certain meer reputative holiness as there meant which is not to other children yet denying altogether that he held any such thing as that thereupon these children should be baptized for that is a fictitious conclusion of your own which follows not if such a reputative holiness as you woâ— of were there meant nor doth Tertullian so much as hint it in that place which M. Marshal is so brag off that he supposes he wounds us shrewdly by setting it down in words at length and not in figures which place will for all that never scare in any wise any wise man of our way though it be set down by Dr. Holmes in words at more length and not in figures i. e. in plain English and not as Mr. Marshal doth in unenglished Latine for what if some men think as for reasons above rendred I surely never shall from that place that the Apostle is willing to give way to faithful parents to hope well of their children and to count upon them till they see either that or the contrary as more hopefully then others holy and happy ones tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina as having some prerogative above others in being the seed of such who have prayed for them before they were born as well as in being more likely to be discipled into the way of holinesse and life by their godly education of them is there an necessity of their thinking consequently they must baptize them out of hand unlesse there were more command from Christ for so sudden administration of that ordinance to them then there is I trow not for a man may look upon his child as some way priviledged by being his seed viz. as a child of more prayers and hopes and future happinesse and advantages and present holinesse too then many others being ignorantly conceited as you are that some infants in very infancy are eithâ—r really oâ— reputatively more holy then some from that place viz. 1 Cor. 7.14 and not think them fit as yet to be baptized or else if he do yet not find good ground in Scripture for that thought by beating the best brains his head piece holds either about that place or any other yea verily I my self who hold not that high birth priviledge of
so belike must be baptized and Mr. Blake in p. 24. of his birth-priviledge who saith If the ground of a childs admission to baptism be not the faith of his immediate parents but the promise made to Ancestors in the faith whose seed is though at a greater distance then the loose life of an immediate parent can be no bar to his baptism this is plain if Josia have no right from his father Ammon yet he is not shut out in case he have right from his father David or his father Abraham yea even all the national Clergy I think excepting your new English and congregationall men and lastly they themselves too witnesse Dr. Holmes who p. 11 makes the remote father Abraham he upon whose belief those 3000 Iewes in Acts 2. were to be baptized aâ—d Mr. Cotton himself Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus who p. 79. of his grounds c. affirms all the seed and then surely the seed to many generations as well as the nearest to be holy by adoption and wearies himself and his reader in about 20 pages to prove remote Abraham to be the parent upon whose faith the Iew shall be taken in at last viz. from p. 79. to p. 100. Some again put the practise of infant baptism upon the score of neither the childs nor the fathers faith necessarily but on the faith of Christian Sponsors and of these there 's two sorts too considering Sponsors as either witnesses or sureties aliâs Gossips or Guardians first some sprinkle them upon the witnesses or gossips faith thus all that still retain the old English deformation after which yet the New English Christians that were born here were Christâ—ed by the Priests saying I baptize thee when they did but Rantize which practise though the directory allow as the ordinary way yet the common prayer book did not save in case of necessity which Priests when they should by right baptize the spâ—nsors professing their faith and repentance from dead works and desires to be baptized in that faith in these words we forsake them all all this we stedfastly believe that is our desire instead thereof take a child of what parents it matters not out of the midwifes arms putting two or three drops of water upon the face of it and so there 's an end of the business this is that which Mr. Cotton the great Gamaliel of New England though after that fashion possibly himself was sprinkled is now utterly and bitterly against professing for himself and those Churches p. 88. of his way of the Church of new England that they know not any ground at all to allow a faithful man liberty to entitle another mans child to baptism upon the pretence of his own promise to have an eye to his education unlesse the child be either born in his house or resigned to him to be brought up as his own and then he is confident but from no other law then that of circumcision from which I may be as confident that males onely and that on the eighth day must be baptized it may be done Some upon the faith of the sureties or guardians as Mr. Cotton who from Gen. 17 12.13 grants but very doubtfully and therefore whether damnably or no let him look to it so much liberty to a Christian Sponsor i. e. Surety that if a stranger or a very wicked man should give him his child from his infancy to be brought up as his own it may be baptized as his own in confutation of which I le quote no Author but Mr. Cotton who in that same 88. page where he speaks this but two or three lines above it saies thus The Covenant is not intailed to Sureties i. e. to such for whom they undertake but this is the utmost bounds of liberty Mr. Cotton saies he can give and I wonder who gave him power to give so much in this case he allowes a little bit and no more because he is not sure he may allow that but by his leave from that inch I le take an ell for if a wicked mans child may be baptized then it may and then why not a 100 as well as one in the like case and so at least the promise is not entailed to faithful parents only and their seed yea his grant p. 88. intailes baptism to the children that have believing Guardians as well as to such as have believing parents and so he gives the question as stated concerning believers children only Some again put it on the score of neither the childs nor the parents nor the sponsors faith but at least either the fathers or the Mothers membership in a gathered Church so as if this be not the parents though otherwise never so faithful may not have their children baptized thus the Churches in New England yea and I think all of this indifferent semi-demi-Independent way both in Old England and New and elsewhere witness Mr. Best Churches plea p. 60 61. who saith thus A man must not only be a Christian and by profession within the covenant only but also a member of some visible Church and particular congregation â—re his child be baptized For which Mr. Rutherford rounds him about again and takes him to do p. 174.175 of his Presb. and flatly contradicts him thus saying Baptism is a priviledge of the Church not of such a particular Independent Church and the distinction between Christian communion and Church communion in this point is needless and fruitâ—ess for none are to be refused baptism whose parents professe the faith c. howbeit not members of a settled Church Which also contradicts Mr. Cobbets Castle of come down whose whole structure is settled upon that same dainty distinction of Church choice and true choice of this mind also was my beloved friend Mr. Charles Nicolls of whom I have more hopes yet then I have of every one of his own form that he will fully own the truth in time forasmuch as he doth more fully appear for it against that Truth-destroying thing called Tythes then those of his way do in other parts of Kent who either per se or at least per aliâ—s take them not to say rake and rack both Christs flocks and the parish flocks also for them still which Mr. Nicolls preaching publiquely at Dover in my heaâ—ing Ian. 1650. whether he fetch his doctrine out of Mr. Cobbets book yea or no I cannot tell in page 17. whereof the same is found declared himself to be of Mr. Cobbets mind by the delivery of this doctrine viz. Thaâ— an enchurcht believers natural seed is faederally holy from 1 Cor. 7.14 which position I have also since seen under his hands so narrow a corner is the ease crouded into now that it is not the believing but the enchurcht belieuing parent i e. who leaving the perochiall posture betakes himself to membership in some seperated society who sanctifies the unbelieving parent and the seed else were the children unclean but now are they holy i. e.
things let that or any judicious Gentleman spel and put together and see if it be not tantamount to such a testimony as this viz that those that believe and aâ—e not baptized shall be damned for to be damned and not saved are all one and as for children of Tuâ—ks and Pagans dying in infancy you record it it as a monstrous thing that I should say that for ought I knew they might be saved yea by the reply that was made to that speech of mine by one who said perhaps I thought the devills might be saved it appears that your party thinks it as possible that the devils may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans and yet of the children of believing parents who in your opinion do also believe themselves you say the opinion of the Anabaptists which denyeth baptism to little children puts the parents out of hopes of their salvation und makes them to be in no better condition then Turks and Pagans yea you say believing parents may say of their children that dy without baptism what hopes of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels and really they say true if the state of infidels dying infants be so damnable as you saie it is is it you or we Sirs whose doctrine damnes believers if they be not baptized I le conclude this matter with you much what in your own words and form of speech Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven whosoever believeth not shall and be damned this doctrine of yours that little infants are believers and yet out of all hopes of being saved if not baptized shuts out believers if they be not baptized i e. if they be not rantiz'd for that is the best baptism you use and by consequence if your doctrine which you delivered in this Account as judicious Gentlemen that read it will affirm be true that even believers not baptized shall be damned you had need baptize your believing infants indeed i. e. to do more then cris crosse two or three drops of water on their faces or else for all your plea for their baptizing on pain of their damnation they l be damnâ—d if they be no more then sprinkled for want of true baptism when all is done for that is not so much as the Ceremony it self in truth which you are so hot for without the substance yet would I not have you be an abhorring for all this but pittyed and prayed for rather that you may in time for this and all other your follies and false accusations of others of things whereof you are more guilty your selves abhor your selves in dust and ashes that you may not be an abhorring as he is more then half blind that doth not see who will be once amongst both God and men Rev. 17.16 Rev. 19.2 And thus I have done with your first Argument Review The second is this little Children under the law received the Seal of the Gospel covenant for circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith which is the Gospel-Covenant The Law saith Do this and live the Gospel only believe in the Lord Iesus Christ and therefore God calls it an everlasting covenant and the Apostle saith the Law that came 430 years could not disannull it Gal. 3.17 and he saith expresly the Gospel was preached to Abraham ibid. ver 8. nay more the carnall seed of Abraham Ishmael and Esau men branded for Reprobates in Scripture yet because they were born in Abrahams house received that seal by Gods appointment Why then should not children under the Gospel receive baptism which the Adversaries confess to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant Re-Review This poor forlorn wretched Argument hath been handled and laid sprawling once or twice before where both its consequence is denyed and good reason gien of the senselessness of such syllogizing as is here from the Law to the Gospel therefore it is but needless to defend our selves any further against it it being a demi-dead man that is disabled from being dreadful to us already nevertheless sith he hath strengthens himself again what he can and comes up recruâ—ed and attended with a company of scambling and for the most part very unsound sentences at his heels t wil not be amisse to enter the lists a little with him and these his Auxiliaries First then Sirs whereas you come in again with that crooked consequence viz. infâ—nts must be baptized under the Gospel because circumcisied under the law we might more pertinently let up a shout at your shameful folly in this particular then set upon the shewing of it any more it is so palpable for verily as is proved sufficiently above these two viz. the Covenant of the law and the Gospel from the Identity of which you infer an Identity in the subject of the ordinances and administrations of both and by way of analogy would evince them both to belong to the same persons I must tell you these are two Testaments or wills of God concerning men in those two different times viz. before Christ and since and these two so specifically distinct that they not onely run upon different strains and require different terms as your selves here confesse the law saying do this and live the Gospell onely believe but also stand upon different promises whereof the Gospels being of the heavenly Canaan are better then the laws which were but of an earthly one and these also pertaining to two different seeds viz. the legal to the natural children of Abraham i. e. Isaac and his posterity by generation the Evangelical to the spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. such as are of Christ by faith and regeneration and they had also different dispensations the one circumcision the other another thing viz. dipping a thing no way like it and different subjects also for those different dispensations so that if men and their ministers were not all turned Momes they could not but must manifestly perceive it the old Testament admitting to circumcision onely males and these onely on the eighth day in case they were in the house so young and all the males in the house whether sons or servants whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger and all this without respect to either faith or repentance in the persons to whom dispenst or any prae-preaching to them by the person dispensing the new Testament taking in to baptism as no servants upon the masters faith so all persons in the world both males and females upon their own and that upon any day and not the eighth onely wherein after they have been preacht to they professe to repent and believe Mat. 3. Act 2. Act. 8. Act. 18. The proof of which real specifical diversity of these two Covenant◠〈◊〉 yet farre more evident First because the spirit denominates them so to be in Scripture calling them expressely the two Covenants Gal. 4.24 and also very often in plurali the Covenants the covenants
this because they understand not the nature of baptism it is Gods seal he sets it they that receive it are passive in that he appoints it to be set to whomsoever he hath made the promise and with whom he hath entered into covenant A seal of an estate made to infants in their cradles is firm so is God's Now here must be a sealing on the other side for both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when we believe John 3.33 The Covenant is sealed on both sides when faith comes God may set to his seal as he did to many of the Iewes and the seed made void to them through unbelief The End of Gods setting it to such as he foresaw would have no benefit of it is the same with the making of his promises and sending of his Sonne to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not Re-Review The reason of all your Objectations against our way of baptism and pleas for Paedo-Rantism which you practise is this you understand not the nature of baptism it is not Gods seal which he sets which you sillily suppose for that is his spirit only as I shewed you plainly enough above but Gods sign which man sets which they that receive aright are not altogether passive in but voluntary and very active i. e. confessing their sins calling on the name of the Lord desiring to be baptized professing faith in order thereunto going down inâ—o the water with the dispenser and there setting their senses and understandings on work upon the sign and things thereby signified submitting their bodies freely to the dispensation Neither doth God appoint it to be set to whomsoever he hath barely made the promise for in the word preached he makes it to every Creature Mark 16.15.16 but to such as professedly believe in that promise he hath made and visibly verily for ought we can judge have entered into covenant with him to become obedient such only so far as it is possible for us to know are those with whom he hath entred into Covenant for say you there must be a sealing on the other side and both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when and not before we believe neither is the Covenant sealed on both sides so that it can be said these two parties are now entertained into covenant each with other till faith come and that is not in infancy but after And this your manner of speech viz. when faith comes here implies to be your own opinion as well as ours though else where as p. 3.4.8.9.15.16.17.18 19. you strenuously contend it yea and to say the truth t is well nigh the whole businese of your book to assert and assay to prove it that faith comes to infants in their infancy and to make it appear to us as well as you can by contradiction that infants do believe Moreover if ever men were troubled with the simples I think you are is baptism Gods seal of an estate i. e. the heavenly inheritance made over to infants in their cradels and is that seal of his firm to i. e so sure that it cannot fail then I wonder how that seal for so you still stile circumcision and baptism is made void and infirm to so many Iews and Christian people as it is for not all yea few of many do obtain that estate at last and that most lose it for all that seal you tell us by their unbelief but I had thought you had been of the mind when you wrote your 4th page that children of Iews and of believing parents did believe all without any exception for asserting it there positively that the Iews children did believe and consequently that believers children do now you prove the Antecedent viz. that the Iews children did believe because God did witnesse it by setting to his seal circumcision which if it were Gods seal to them of their eternall salvation by faith and witnesse to the world that they had faith also that seal must be firm and that testimony true concerning them all being set to all as well as some so that unlesse they depart from the faith which you say God who cannot ly witnessed they once had and that your principle of not falling from faith will in no wise give way too they could not possibly void it by unbelief and so must necessarily and universally obtain the inheritance but sith t is most clear you selves also yielding it that they do not therefore assuredly one of these must be true viz. either that circumcision was not to infants in their cradels Gods seal of their eternal salvation as you say it was or else that that seal of God is not firm as you attest it is or else that God did not witnesse by it that those to whom it was set had faith as you say he did or else that Gods witnesse and testimony was not true which were blasphemy to think or else that they fell from that faith which at first they had in infancy and at the time of their circumcision and that self confutes you in another case among all which grant which you will to be true you must contradict and convict your selves of falshood And lastly if the end of Gods setting baptism to persons be no other then the very same with that of making his promises and sending his son meerly to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not not to speak of your telling truth here unawares viz. that mans own will rejecting God first and not Gods own will first rejecting them without respect to their fore-seen rejection of him in time is the true cause of their condemnation then as God makes his promises to all and sends his son in his love a Saviour to all so baptism should be dispensed to all without exception belonging as well as Christ himself tell they appear finally to reject him to every one as well as any one in the world but that being denied by both you and us doth shew that the end of baptizing a person is somewhat more viz. not to beget him to the faith before he doth but to improve him in it when he doth believe To conclude this whole train of stuff or long tail of that short shower of shot that went before it is not of so much force as a scottish mist nor scarce enough to wet a naked man to the skin therefore bear with my folly in sheelding my self so much against it i. e. in saying so much in answer to it for a wise man would have said no more to it but mumm Review The third argument is this Those that have the holy spirit that have faith the Anabaptists will not deny but are the subjects of baptism but children have so as their justification declares without which there is no salvation Hence it is that the
signifies and not to sprinkle and therefore that I may rouze all those people into a remembrance of this matter whose Priests deceive them and draw them to dream that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to dipp to sprinkle which some whether it be of that ignorance of the truth that cleaves and accrues to the common sort of Priests through their taking things upon trust and tradition one from another without tryal or of meer malice making them willfully to hide the truth after they have received the knowledge of it I know not God knowes but some I say stick not still as much as they can to make their people believe it But to awaken such to some attention to the Heterodoxness of their Priests as well as all waies to the Orthodoxness of them I here summon all the priests in Christendome out of either Stephanus or Scapula the two Greek Lexicons that are in so great request and of such ordinary use among you and such friends to your selves as you may see by the bitter invectives of both of them against us as Anabaptists as a Diobolicall sect and therefore would favour your cause as far as in conscience they could to shew the contrary to what I here have said viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eiher doth not signify a totall dipping of the immediâ—te subject that is denominated baptized or dipped by it or that it ever signified such a thing as sprinkling at all Yea the word that signifies to sprinkle is another word viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is ever used in Scripture by the spirit when he speaks of such a thing as sprinkling yea t is used three times in one chapter viz. Heb. 9.13.19.21 and is all along englished by sprinkling neither is there any one place of Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered to baptize or used to signify baptizing neither is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred sprinkling or used to signify such a thing as sprinkling not is there any reason why it should be so rendred specially if you consider Secondly The Non Identity and deep diversity that is between these two actions viz. Sprinkling and Baptizing Anglicè dipping by which as by a second Argument its most plain that sprinkling is not only not the baptism of Christ but in truth no baptism at all and so consequently that he is properly no-Anabaptist who baptizeth them that were but sprinkled and he Ano-Baptist that doth but sprinkle Rantist Our sprinkling is baptizing as well as your dipping and these two are one say you what you will Baptist. I tell you and you will see it at last that as Christ hath but one water baptism and as he hath by appointment but one subject for that one baptism and not two kinds of subjects as you dream viz. a believer only and not both a believer and a believers seed so he hath but one true way and essential form wherin that one Baptism is to be dispensed and that is baptizing Anglicè dipping and not two waies forms or dispensations of it specifically and essentially distinct from each other so that they are not so much as in speciall kind the same but sprinkling and baptizing alias dipping are truly two waies two forms two actions two kinds of actions â—o really different in their essentials so specifically diversified in their nature as actions that even homo and brutum which he is a brute that will say are all one and the same do not differ more essentially in Praedicamento Substantiae then sprinkling and baptizing alias dipping do differ in the Praedicament of action and therefore they cannot be called one and the same T is true all things that are are the same in general i. e. genere remoto for Ens dividitur in omnia so that all things that are are equally denominated entia i. e. things that are so a man and a beast in genere proximo they are both Animals yet are they not so all one as that the one may be universally understood by the naming of the other nor the one denominated by the other so as to say a man is a beast and a beast is a man they are one in genere two in specie and the like may be said of dipping and sprinkling which are two dividing members of one and the same general as Homo and Brutum also are and as specifically distinct they are in genere remoto both actions yea they are in genere proximo both wettings with water yet are they not one kind of action or wetting in specie nor all one so as the one may be universally used and done instead of the other and yet the business be as well done or both done and yet but one and the same thing done but one and the same word of command obeyed in so doing nor so as that the one may be as well understood as the other when eiâ—her of them is exprest nor so as to be denominated properly by each other nor so as that the one is the other but all actions that are so specifically the same as sprinkling and baptizing alià s dipping are made to be with you are so as that they may be indifferently promiscuously universally used and done one in the room of the other and yet no other then the self same thing in specie is done still as much as if we had used or performed the other yea so as they may be properly denominated one by the other so as that in specie one is the other so as that in speech sense and signification they are so alike that it matters not which term you use or which of the two you speak by for the sense will still remain the same and stand perfect sound and entire and the sentence have no non-sence at all in it notwithstand e. g. smiting and striking or to smite and strike to be smitten and stricken are all one and may be denominated one of the other so as that one is the other and though here are two terms yet but one thing is exprest thereby and the sentence you place them in may be without non-sense and as entirely the same as before if you use one of them in the room of the other as he mas stricken or he was smitten are the same in sense yea universally in all speech where you may use the word smite you may use the woâ—d strike and both the sense and matter signified thereby will still be the same But now so it is not between sprinkling and baptizing t is so indeed beâ—ween baptizing and dipping baptizing and overwhelming with water baptizing and putting under water baptizing and dousing or plunging ore head these are all one they all denote the very same kind of action the very same kind of wetting with water and though here be a difference in terms yet t is in word onely not in deed the distinction is onely nominall not
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
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
himself speaking properly enough when he speaks so yet little otherwise then thus do you speak and think you speak properly enough too whilst you commonly call them i. e those persons baptized that never had more then a little baptism I cannot call it neither but meer Rantism on their faces from which though we are foold together with you by a custome of speech to afford persons that denomination of sprinkled at least yet to say the truth t is more then may be well challenged from us if we should stand upon it and plead for propriety to the utmost or for denomination but ex majori which reason would back us in if we should so little of that little subject i. e. the infant whose face onely you sprinkle is sprinkled by you when all is done but we let that passe Neverthelesse know this that totall baptizing is the onely true baptizing and a subject not baptized totally may not be said to be baptized properly but onely figuratively and Synechdochecally and surely the spirit speaks not all along by Senechdoche and t is as improper almost if not altogether to say that man is baptized whose fingers face hands or feet onely have toucht the water as t is to say the swan is black because his feet are so or the black-moor white because his teeth are so expresse not dentes et pedes and then Ethiops albus and Cygnus niger are two monstrous creatures indeed and baptizatus merè rantizatus is no other then rara avis in terris nigroque simillima Cygno We may not therefore without abuse to our selves and them conceive them that wrote the hystories of the new Testament that we might know the certainty of those things which were at first done Luke 1.14 and to this very end too that we might do thereafter to speak so improperly all along as to declare and denominate those to us to be baptized i. e. in true English washt plunged in water submâ—rsi dipt under water who if it were then as you say or at least as you do now were onely wetted with a few drops or if dipt whose noses foreheads or faces onely felt the water the wisdome of the spirit in them would rather have used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he ever doth when he would have us conceive no more then sprinkling as Heb. 9. or else some more moderate phrase suitable to such a petty padling as face dripping is had that been the onely way of those times then the word baptize or else have exprest that particular or member of the body which onely was baptized if he would not have been understood as speaking of the whole for that 's the usuall way wherein the spirit speaks when he speaks of the dipping of some members onely as Luke 16.24 when he speaks of the dipping of a member onely he expresses the member so dipt and the particuler subject so denominated he saies not send Lazarus that he may be dipt or that he may dip himself or that he may dip his body in water but that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and coole my tongue so Mat. 26.23 he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish he denominates not the man dipt from the dipping of so smal a member as the hand or face or feet or what ever member of the body it was that you imagine was then baptized for that wetting of the face onely came up surely in Cyprians daies when they had got that trick of ease to be baptized I should say to have their faces the onely member at that time extant besprinkled in their beds Rantist But Mark 7.4 Christ speaks thus of the Pharisees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. unlesse they be baptized they eat not and yet by that baptism is meant no more but the washing of their hands and that appears plainly in the very verse above where it s said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. unlesse they wash their hands and then immediately after thus and when they come from market 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they be washed i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their hands suitable to what 's said before they eat not yea and surely he would have exprest so much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that t was exprest so just before under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was needlesse to repeat it and therefore he rather leaves it to be understood therefore sometimes you see Christ denominates men baptized or washed when no more then some members of them are dipped or washed Baptist. That by the baptism or washing spoken of v. 4. and exprest by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant no other then the washing of the hands of the Pharisees I freely grant and also that the 3. verse so clearly proves it that no man living I think may rationally deny it nor can I think that the Pharisees when ever they came from market were plunged ore head and ears before they sat down to dinner or were washed or baptized any further then manuum tenus onely in that part viz. their hands but I beseech you be you as ingenuous in acknowledging what you must also necessarily grant and what you have in a manner given and granted also viz. that the force and sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse before is carried to the 4 verse so that it must be understood to the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also as following it as well as it followes the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be exprest onely under the first of them and then your recourse to the former verse for the finding out of the sense of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes much for the proof of what I say viz. that Christ does not usually denominate the whole man to be dipt or baptized when yet he meanes that some part of him onely is baptized or washt without expressing some way or other that part of the body wherein he is washt and according to which onely he denominates him so to be for even here by your own plea and t is the truth we must to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they be baptized subaudire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand this word their hands which as you say so I say also would undoubtedly have been set down under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that to be the plain sense and meaning out viz. washing the hands but that it was so newly named before under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that its more elegantly understood then exprest So that the place runs as smooth for us as we would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subaudi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pharisees except ever and anon they wash or be washt as to the hands at least for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first future of the middle
voice and is read either actively or passively but rather passively they eat not and when they come from the market unlesse they be washed meaning manuum tenus as just before they eat not Assuredly therefore Sirs sith the Apostles and Evangelists all along in the new testament tell us of men and women that were baptized or washt by dipping into the water without varying this word or using any more words whereby to give us to take that in a more moderate sense then for total dipping and all this too without any expression of any particular parts or members of those men and women nor any more particular subject of that baptism then the whole persons the bodies of those men and women they meant to acquaint us thereby that those men and women were totally dipped that we might be so also afâ—er their example or else their denominations of men and women baptized dipped in Iordan so often so onely used are scare fair free plain and proper but rather contrary to what Paul professes when he saies we use all plainnesse of speech forced improper figurative dark and delusive which farre be it from us once to think Thirdly as far as the thing well can or at least need to appear in the word by instance and example it appears in Mat. 3.16 Act. 8.38 by the baptism of Christ and the Eunuch that the form and manner of baptizing was then and is now to be by a total dipping of the party Rantist There is no pooof of universals by particulars besides it will hardly be make good that Christ and the Eunuch were dipped mark and peruse what Doctor Featley saies to this and some other passages and places of Scripture p. 69. This saith he is a weak and childish fallacy for ex particulari non est Syllogizati no man in his right wits will conclude a general from a particular viz. some men that were baptized went into the River therefâ—re all that are baptized must do so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies to dip Ergo it must alwaies signifie so besides Act. 11.16 Iohn 1.26 the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not in but with as the words immediately folâ—owing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make it plain notwithstanding I grant saith he that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the River and that such baptism of men especially in the hotter Clymates hath been is and may lawfully be used yet there 's no proof at all of dipping or plunging but only of washing in the River but the question is whether no other baptizing is lawful or whether dipping in Rivers be so necessary to baptism that none are accounted baptized but those who are dipt after such a manner This we say is false neither do any of the texts alledged prove it it is true dipping is a kind of baptizing but all baptizing is not dipping the Apostles were baptized with fire not dipt into it Tables and beds were baptized i. e. washed yet not dipped Israel baptized with the cloud not dipped into it Christ and Zebedees children baptized with blood yet neither he nor they dipt into it All this he writes in Answer to what you say as if he had foreseen it by way of preoccupation and one thing more which I had like to have left out The Fathers called Teares a Baptism yet there is no dipping in that Baptisme Baptist. These are Dr. Featleys feat feigned and frivolous interjections indeed in Answer to Rs. Argument from the same examples to all which I reply as followes First from particulars universals will not follow is a rule that will not universally follow neither but in some particular cases only For first out of its particulars collectim consideratis considered all together the knowledge and true understanding of the universall doth not onely consist but exist also i. e. appear by all its singulars severally observed Secondly Though there are cases wherein one or some few singulars singled out and considered Sigâ—llâ—tim apart from the rest do not prove all the rest universally so to be as they are as namely when that one or these few particulars are extraordinarily or as I may say singularly or choicely so or so e. g. the particular cases of Iohn the Baptist being filled so timely with the holy spirit and of Ieremiahs being seperated for so the spirit meanes by that word sanctifyed Ier. 1.5 from the womb to be a prophet and of Paulâ— being seperated from the womb to be an Apostle Gal. 1.15 these do not prove as you sometimes very simply falsly and fallaciously infer at least from that of Iohn that therefore infants of believers at least are in general filled with the holy spirit and ordinarily sanctifyed in their infancy for it was only the measure of Iohn Baptists gifts say you my Ashford Antagonists p. 16. that makes his Example extraordinary as if it were ordinarily commonly and generally so that believers infants are filled with the spirit as well as he though not so fully as he was but these are childish consequences and infantish inferences indeed from these singulars for the cases were singular cases and notoriously known not to be incident to all Or else when the matters in such particulars from which we would argue that t is generally or universally so are meerly fortuito accidentally adventitious not necessary per se de essentia naturà thereunto then there is no evincing a general by it for it followes not that because one man or a few men are blind and lame or maimed or sick therefore all are so or when a matter is meerly indifferent ad placitum and not ex necessitate praecepti necessary by any positive command of the same thing unto all as well as some then t is silly Syllogizing from some to all as to say some men who were weak did eat herbs therefore all the disciples did and we all must eat no other But again there are cases wherein it followes from one to all as when the matter spoken of that one doth agree to it per se and quâ tale then t is true de omni also as one man quâ homo is a reasonable creature Ergo all men are so there are cases also wherein the Example of what particular persons then did do prove what all then did or should have done what all ejusdem capacitatis now should do in like manner as namly when the matter done by those particulars is necessary no other then what by duty they stood bound to that by vertue of a cleer command given out not to them only but to all those that are in the same capacity in common with them but specially when those particulars are recorded for our instruction and to be patterns and examples for us to follow then all ought to be in general as that is and so Paul followed Christ and others ought to follow him be as he was and of this sort is the case
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
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
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
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
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
also Senior Mr. Simpson one of you my Ashford opposers who in a letter under his hand to a neighbor of his much of which is partim directe verbatim partim oblique collateraliter out of Mr. Blake so that it stands or falls in him and of the rest that is not translated thence into his turn some already is and some that is not yet is to be spoken to as I go along tells us that there was not any water in Jerusalem wherein so many as were there baptized in so short a time at that time of the year when water was more scanty could possibly have been dipped What a strange conceit is this what not water enough in nor yet about all Ierusalem to dipp a man over head in for sith he saies not so many the same water course I hope that one can be dipped in may also serve to dipp a thousand shall we think that in the greatest drought that could happen all those brooks the Scriptures mentions viz. Cedron and Siloam and the fountain of Gyhon and the Conduit of the upper pool which ran with several streams and were at one place all coincident with Cedron were dryed up so that not a place could be found of any competent depth for men to dip in But perhaps what Mr. Baxter saies concerning Aenon upon the report of travellers viz. that even the River Aenon it self where Iohn baptized because there was much water is found to be a small brook that a man may almost step over or as I find it expressed to me in a letter to a neer and deer friend of mine upon the credit of eye witnesse historians Aenon was but a small purl scarcely knee deep at the deepest so Mr. Simpson may say but it is on his own head if he do concerning these brooks that were about Ierusalem to all which I shall for brevities sake dispatch this answer here now I am about it And first I intreat Mr. Simpson to consider that this serves not his turn howe-ever if Cedron and Siloam and the rest that were without the City and the stream also that ran through the City from the fountain of the old pool into Cedron should be all such as Aenon is supposed to be sith the fishpool Bethesda at which lay a great multitude of impotents and into which one amongst the rest desired to be put or cast for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but could not was both deeper and broader then so and convenient for many to dip in at once for if we may credit Bethesda it self the very name instructs us in no lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being in english no other then the house of flowing down so called for the concurrence and confluence of many waters thereinto see Calvin upon the place who tells you that it was a pool he thinks into which water did flow down continually through either channels or pipes that the Priests for it was neer the Temple might as well be furnisht with water for their sacrifices as the people were with sacrifices themselves in the sheep market wherein it was others think and as I take it Beza in his Anotations that it was a pool at which cattel drank and in which they used to be plunged whereof saith he there could not but be great store in Ierusalem so much may well serve without any more to salve the sore eyes of Mr. Simpson As for Mr. Baxter I le bate him his almost and yet he will not get much by the matter for as I have seen others baptized by totall dipping in the like so was I seen to be baptized my self in a place of so little latitude that an active man might make shift to step over not almost but altogether in which yet there is water enough left behind to baptize a thousand if not a million more in the same manner and so not to say how possible it is if not a thousand to one that Aenons eye witnesses never sounded Aenons depth in all places nor secondly how possibly a brook might be much swerved up since then somwhat shallowed in so many Generations nor thirdly how possible it is to deepen the shallowest stream that is very easily in order to such a purpose for I have seen ancle deep streams so ordered as I speak of more then once or twice for a need though that Aenon had need to be made deeper in those places where Iohn did baptize may be twenty times told by some Travellers that love to hear themselves talk before I shall believe it once Not to say any thing I say of these let Aenon be but knee deep if you will experience hath so taught the expedience of knee deep to dip in to my self and other Baptizers that I know that as we have dipt persons oft where it hath not bin so deep so except in such a channel where we cannot well avoid it we choose now not to go in much deeper See Fourthly how all your three Worthies Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook do deceive you as being indeed deceived themselves and that in a manner so plain that none but Blind Seers can look beside it for though each of the three were alone in each of those other errors which they severally utter in your last joint quotation and confident commendation of them yet wo is me may England say that my leaders are so mifled the whole Trinity of them is at unity but against all verity in this even in the very thing in which principally you would have us mind them for whereas as an instance that baptism was not by dipping they all alledge that the Iailor was baptized at midnight in his house and therefore probably not in such a way as dipping that he was baptized about midnight is true enough but that he was baptized in his house is so contrary to truth that a very child may find the falsenesse of that assertion for howbeit Mr. Cook saies plain-ly it s like the waters they had within doores at midnight sufficed and Mr. Baxter more plain-ly that the Iailor was baptized in the night in his house and Mr. Blake most plain-ly t is sure there was not many waters nor rivers in the Iailors dwelling and it is as sure that they i. e. the Iailor and the Apostles went not out in the night to any such places as were fit to dip in yet what saith the word in plain truth no lesse then this that the Iailor after he was baptized brought them into his house and set meat before them and rejoiced for it is said first that upon the earth-quake and Pauls crying out to him that he should do himself no harm the Iailor hasted into Paul and Silas and brought them out secondly that they upon his then inquiry told him what he should do to be saved and preached the word to him and all his whereupon in this intertime i. e. between the time of the Iailors bringing them
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
to be disciples then unlesse you have any special instinct whereby you know them to begin to be disciples and in the faith as many of you count them about that very houre you baptize them in and not before you will appear to be a little tardy in your dispensations by your own rule though in truth you are too hasty for all this Now as to Mr. Blakes terrible conceit concerning the coldnesse of the water specially in some weather when yet if dipping were the way there would by means of mens conversion occasion be ministred to dip in sith I see occasion will be ministred to discourse more of winter dipping when I come to Mr. Baxters grand Arguments with one of which this is coincident I shall say nothing to it here but there speak to both under one save only that I must here tell Mr. Blake that conversion of disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping without danger the Climate being by reason of persecutions that rose against that way much more over hot then the Element of water can at any time be over cold for the owning of that serviâ—e must it therefore be forborn for fear of hazarding our lives if no exemption from a hotter service why from a colder for the lifes sake which whoever will save shall loose but whoever will loose for Christs name sake and the Gospels shall preserve it to life eternal as for the rest under that head I fully agree with it viz. that whatever that is there is commission but for one manner of baptism for all nations As to the multitude of Converts three thousand five thousand converted in one day which shift word for word Mr. Simpson covers his nakednesse with adding thus much thereunto viz. could Peter and those few with him the dispensers of this ordinance have stayed so long in the water or by dipping every one dipped so many in so short a time I answer how many and in how short a time does the man mean as for the 5000 it is doubtful whether they were all converted in that one day or whether he speaks not rather of the whole multitude that believed before which were 3000 together with those that afterward were added which might be some 2000 and so 5000 in all but if there were fullly 5000 that then believed and that they were all at the same time baptized too which is not said and t is more probable for done it must be that t was done at another time or else by other hands then by Peter and Iohns for they were laid hold on in the Temple as they were speaking but suppose I say that there be at any time full five thousand newly believing in so short a time as one day if they could not be baptized all in one day they must necessarily they might lawfully for ought I know stay till the next but yet 3000 we read were baptized in one day neither is it such an impossible thing as you who stumble at every straw are slugg'd by every rub and look on duty with such difficulty as if a Lyon were in the way would seem to make it for 5000 to be baptized in one day Multorum manibus Grande levatur Opus Multorum manibus Grande levatur Onus Many hands of them that have love to Christ may both lessen and lighten that service and suffering that is sustained for him and make burthensome performances and such I perceive it is to you tenderlings that make provision for the flesh to fullfill it in the ease thereof to dipp many or be dipped your selves in cold water or weather possible easie and pleasant and how many hands there might be at work at once at the dipping of the 3000 besides the hands of the 12. who as occasion was made use of others to dispense the ordinance it being an inferiour work to their preaching see Act. the 9. Act. 10. 1 Cor. 1. may be conjectured when the number of disciples were a hundred and twenty where if there were but forty dispensers with what ease might they baptize a 100 a piece and do themselves no more wrong neither with abiding in the water knee deep or a little more for half an hour together then he that stands deeper for almost a day together and washes many a hundred sheep as I have known some do and that not by plunging onely but longer padling with each of them by farre then need be in onely dipping persons and so letting them go again besides when once 3000 were baptized how many hands there were ready to baptize not 5000 onely but 5 times 5000 if occasion were and that quickly too is evident to any rational man that reckons it for it is a work which when it is once ready to be done is done in lesser time then I have seen taken up by the Parish Priest in his dropping and crossings and other font fidlings about an infants face and if you suppose it may ask so much hand for so many persons in so short a time as one day to make themselves ready for such a work I hope the same time that serves one to undresse and dresse in which may be some a quarter or at most not above half an hour may as easily serve ten thousand for as if all set at once to sweep every one his own door a whole City may be clensed in an instant so every one that is willing addressing himself to the work a thousand may be ready as soon as one And as for that other conceit of Mr. Blake which Mr. Simpson transcribes out of his book into his own letter in these words viz. that Paul when he was baptized by Ananias was not in case by reason of his weaknesse to be plunged in water over head and ears as he was not by reason of his stripes to have gone in a deep river or pond when he baptized the Iaylor it is as wisdomlesse as any of the rest for what if he were taken out of the stocks in the inner prison had such stripes that his convert was fain to wash them was he therefore so unfit or was it such a strange adventure as Mr. Blake proclaimes it to wade in the water for such a work as the dipping a few persons could that water that toucht his legs while he waded be more mischievous to him then the water that washed the blood of his stripes and when he was baptized himself what though he had fasted three daies from food in that sudden extasie of his mind which time its like he spent in fasting and prayer to the Lord for behold he prayeth saith the text yet I trow as dainty of danger as our Clergy men are that dare dip their fingers but not their feet in cold water for Christ that voluntary keeping under of his body did rather fit then unfit him for burial with Christ in baptism which his proud flesh would else not have stoopt to Surely Sirs you
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
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
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
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
duty and whether it be Mr. Baxters trick onely or the divels in him to draw men under pretence of Scripture and tempting of God to self-preservation so far as not to trust God in the discharge of duty is not amisse for Mr. Baxter to examine for that it savours not of spirit but of flesh it is so sure that it needs no examination If therefore it were indeed so dangerous to be dipt as is imagined by Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter yet I see no word of Christ willing a declension of the dispensation But what if this be but a meer Chimaera of these mens coining how much lesse are we then excused in our non-submission and yet such and no other will it be found to be at last by then we have sounded this most murderous mater to the bottom For as to Mr. Baxters dismall divination of the hideous consequences that are if you will believe him as it were entaild to this course of constant dipping and his composed catalogue of Chronicall diseases viz. Catarrhes obstructions Apoplexies Lethargies Palsies all Comatous diseases Cephalalgies Hemicranies Phthises debilitie of the stomach Crudities Feavers Disentaries Diarrhaeas Colicks Iliack passions Convulsions Spasmes Tremores and all Hepatick Splenetick pulmoniack distempers and Hippocondriacks also All which to what end he hath Nomen-clattered together here I know not unlesse to make himself whilest he denies Mr. Tombs to be a Physitian seem to be a smatterer in the Art of Physick as to that pittifull piece of proof I say together with that formidable lecture Mr. Cook reads us concerning freezing and suffocation it is ridiculous and frivilous fibbling to fray faint hearted folks with from finding out that straight gate and narrow way that leads to life but a few will find it for all this especially when they shall find their so much believed Mr. Baxter to be such a flat false accuser as he is of this way of truth Hear therefore o ye doters on Mr. Baxters deep divinity he talks if you will believe him as if it were little lesse then impossible that persons should be dipped in cold weather in cold water and not be killed suddenly by hundreds and by thousands or at least not be cast into some Chronical disease which within a while must be an occasion of their death whereas there are hundreds if not thousands alive at this hour even in this cold Countrey as they call it many if not most of which have past through that sharp service in the sharpest seasons conversion falling out as ordinarily in winter as in summer whose present health both proves the falsnesse and reproves the madnesse of your prophet Yea I have cause to know a little better then every one and a little more then Mr. Baxter in this Expertus loquor I speak by experience against which no Argument of his availes I have seen since my five or six years converse among the commonly called Anabaptists many a one baptized totally in cold watet and weather too by others besides toward two hundred by my silly self many of which have come forth covered though not with yce as Mr. Cook phrases it out yet with that water which yce truly covered but just before yet never saw I any one so baptized in all that time who was not if not better in meer bodily respects yet at least as well after it as before he tells you if you will believe him that totall dipping is for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world that are burdensome but then I wonder how the Creature called Anabaptist that is so burthensome to Mr. Baxter doth not dy out of the way by hundreds and thousands and so save him and others that labour of dispute against their growth but rather grow from hundreds into thousands so fast that they are not likely to be dispatcht out of the world till they are such a burthensom stone as will press them to death i. e. the whole Priesthood that is troubled with them He tells you if you will believe him that dipping will destroy men except they be preserved by Miracles why else doth he say speaking specially as to this ordinance of dipping God hath not appointed ordinances in his Church that will destroy men except they be preserved by miracles now if it be not so as hee saies viz. that it is a miracle to be dipped and not destroyed then what a strange man is he to say so but if it be so indeed viz. a Miracle to be dipped and not destroyed then â—o fools and slow of heart to believe the truth though the Lord confirm it to you with Miracles which are wrought day by day amongst the Disciples who are dipped Winter and Summer as occasion is yet are not destroyed Yea whereas Mr Baxter dares say that in Cities like London and amongst Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up and antient people and weak people and shopkeepers especially women that take but little of the cold aire dipping in cold weather would in the course of nature kill hundreds and thousands suddenly or cast them into some Chronical disease I dare say that in the City of London there is hundreds if not thousands dipped in cold water and as it happens in cold weather too many of which are Gentlewomen tenderly brought up and antient and weak people and shop keepers and women that take but little of the cold aire and yet by the course of grace they are preserved from perishing by either cold or suffocation yea and out of the City of London too for these hands have baptized of all these sorts in the Countrey viz. Gentlewoman most tenderly brought up very antient people very weak people shopkeepers and specially two women both alive at this day which I 'l become a fool in telling you of them sith Mr. Baxter compells me did take so little of the cold aire that one of them if my memory fail me not and if I were truly informed was but once out of her house in 5 year before by reason of a dropsy and that was with much adoe and but a little before her dipping and to hear this doctrine notwithstanding which weaknesse and such swellings that she was wellnigh twice as bigg as now she is and scarce able to betake her self to the water she was dipped and was rather better in body then worse after it and after sending for some elders of the Church to pray over her and anoint her with oile in the name of the Lord according to his own institution in that behalf Iam. 5. was within a while so asswaged in her swellings that she is now as slâ—nder as in former times before ever he distemper took hold on her The other had scarce been out of her Chamber in two years together and durst not dip her finger in cold water and was ready to have her breath stopt with the least annoyance that could be yet was dipped and was better after it through Gods mercy
do not if you do not then you cannot dip the whole body but if you do if that be not so shame fully sinful as is scarce fit to be named among Christians I know not what is and this Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter doth intimate to us whose words I shall also intimate to you at the present I would know with these new dippers saith Mr. Cook whether the parties to be doused and dipped may be baptized in a garment or no if they may then happily the garment may keep the water from some part of the body and then they are not rightly baptized for the whole man say they must be dipped Again I would ask what warrand they have for dipping or baptizing garments more then the Papists have for baptizing bells therefore belike the party must be naked and multitudes present as at Johns baptism and the parties men and women at ripe years being able to make confession of their faith and repentance yet though they both sin against the sixth commandement indangering life and against all common honesty and civility and Christian modesty required in the seventh commandement they must have this way observed because they fancy it the onely baptism shall we think saith he this was the baptism of John Christ and his Apostles thus he And saies Mr. Baxter Another wickednesse in their manner of baptizing is their dipping persons naked as is very usuall with many of them or next to naked which is usuall with the modestest that I have heard of against which I argue thus If it be a breach of the seventh commandement thou shalt not commit adultery ordinarily to baptize the naked then it is intollerable wickednesse and not Gods ordinance but so it is therefore The Minor is thus evident saith he that commandement forbids all incitements to uncleannesse and all immodest actions but to baptize women naked is an immodest action and an incitement to uncleanness therefore and to this he saies Mr. Tombes answered it was thought no immodesty in former times but though it may seem no immodesty in Countries where they still go naked yet among such as are not savages me thinks it should saith Mr. Baxter if Mr. T. could baptize naked all the Maids in Bewdly and think it no immodesty he hath lost his common ingenuity and modesty with the truth Thirdly every good man is to watch over his heart and to pray that he be not led into temptation and would it be no snare and temptation to Mr. T. to be frequently imployed in baptizing maids naked me thinks the very mention of it saith he could I avoid it is immodest and what it may be to all sorts of spectators I stand not to expresse Besides all this saith he it is likely to raise jealousies in Ministers wives and others and so to foment continual dissentions and it will make the ministry a scandal and make the people look on them as so many vile incontinent men if auricular confession brought that infamy no wonder if ordinary baptizing naked do it Further it would debauch the people and bereave them generally of all common modesty if once it growes into custom to behold each others nakednesse and sure that practise is not of God which so directly tends to bereave men of all common civility modesty ingenuity and humanity Moreover it would make the worship of God ridiculous would not vain young men come to a baptizing to see the nakednesse of maids and make a meer jest and sport of it Moreover the practise of baptizing naked would bring a general reproch upon the Christian profession among the enemies of it and discredit the truth for when Christians have the repute of Adamites who will turn Christians sober men will be loath to take a woman to wife that hath the impudency to shew her self naked to an assembly and would esteem it next to taking one from the stewes If they shall say to all this as Mr. Tombes said in his Sermon it is not necessary they be naked I reply saith he First if it be next to naked the difference is not great and the former inconveniences will follow and God would not have the Iewes go up by steps on his altar lest their nakednesse be discovered thereon Cam was curst for beholding his fathers nakedness Christ tells us it is adultery to look on a woman to lust after her the Scripture forbids filthiness and uncleannesse as not to be named among Saints Secondly such as would have them wholly or mostly covered differ from their partners and to dip them covered will overthrow their own arguments for the necessity of washing the whole body for this will be no washing but a soaking or steeping if they stay in long enough it may wash the garment but the body will be but infused in all likelihood and so I leave this unsavory practise which were it not necessary to confute I should not meddle with it But in these last cases we dispute not against bare words but against experiences and known practises for their naked baptizing is a known thing and the wickednesse that hath followed on some and that some have died on 't and I would saith he have others more wise and escape both dangers onely let me say saith he thus much more that it is very suspicious and to me unsavory that Mr. T. should say no more but that it is not necessary they should be baptized naked and in cold water as if he took it to be lawful but not necessary me thinks he should rather have given his testimony against it as sinful and expressed some dislike if he he do indeed dislike it and judge it sinful and if he do not I dare say he is very far gone one may see what you are by the words of these men who have here set you out in your colours so that I hope all that read or hear what they say will rather abhor then adore your dipping doings and if you were not a people past all shame and sense of sin me thinks you should abhorre your selves in dust and ashes at the remembrance of your abhominable baseness in this particular yea give me leave to say one word more to you who were a minister once that did baptize infants and it is the words of Mr. Baxter to Mr. Tombes p. 255. I conjecture that by that time you have baptized half as many maids and women naked in a cold River as you have baptiz'd infants like an officiating Priest your feet will either take cold or your heart will take heat if you would be ruled by me you should not indeavour to introduce into the Church a custome for every young minister or neighbour so much as to look on a bathing Bathsheba or Susanna least to those without the name of a Church and a stewes a Presbyter and a Pander a Christian and a fornicator do prove Synonimaes Baptist. To those without I wonder who those are those without your Church must
be out of the Nation too for ought I know and cannot well see what is done by you in it but to let that passe Here is thunder enough but no lightning a shrill sound but an empty barrel such is Mr. Baxters book indeed specially this twofold fardle about murder and adultery in which whether there be more noise or non-sense I know not but sure I am there is ten times more twittle-com-twattle then truth this doctrine would make a terrible rumbling in a Country Church as they say and make all the people amazed to hear what manner of men these Anabaptists be but he that sleeps there with his eyes open will be sâ—und no more at the hearing of this clamor then by the barking of the bells in the steeple I must needs confesse that this is matter of weight indeed and a stone is heavy and the sand weighty but a fooles wrath is heavier then them both this soon shot bolt is big enough to hurt where it hits but as it happens it hits not us and so happens to hurt them most that mannage it as for us against whom it is managed it rejoices us rather then otherwise sith it reproaches and reviles and saies all manner of evil against us falsely for Christs sake Mat. 5.11.12 1 Pet. 4.13.14.15 if our dipping were such evil doing i. e. murder and adultery as these men say it is we had reason to hang down our heads indeed and might well be ashamed in suffering from them in this particular but sith as Paul said Act. 24.13 they cannot prove the things whereof they accuse us we are not ashamed but glorifie God on this behalf Of these two accusers of the brethren Mr. Cook is more candid and a little more modest then the other and yet he utters so much that he hath much reason to be ashamed of it for howbeit he does not so audaciously charge us with that foul fact of naked dipping as the other doth yet by some simple supposals First that persons cannot be rightly baptized by dipping with a garment on as if they may not be put under and covered and buried therein cloathed aswell as naked and as if a soaking or steeping in water Mr. Baxters bald conceit of our dipping were not a washing or burying Secondly that it is as unwarrantable to baptize garments as t is for the Papists to baptize bells as if those that baptize persons in garments did as directly and intentionally baptize garments as the papists do baptize bells or as if it were more unwarrantable for us to wet the cloathes that persons are baptized in when we baptize their bodies then t is for the priests to wet the head cloaths of infants when they rantize their faces By such silly supposals I say as these that there can be no true totall dipping unless the persons be uncloathed he subtly insinuates the world into a certain supposition at least a shrewed suspition that dipping naked is the onely baptism dispensed among us for which hee 'l once be ashamed but as for Mr. Baxter he is so uningenuous impudent and uncivilly foolish in this present parcel of his you have here spread before us that I professe against it as having in it much falsenesse and more immodesty then I ever saw expressed at the totall dipping of any person that ever I saw dipped in my life for he not only makes a long supervacaneous discourse of his dislike of dipping women and maids naked in which is such a needlesse and over often nomination of those termes too as tends more to the offending of chast and corrupting of unchast consciences then to any use of edifying at all but also most rashly relates it to the whole world to be the usuall ordinary known practise of a people that are as abhorrent of such abominations as himself As for his Argument it is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi for he concludes not the point in question for they who stand most for baptizing by totall dipping are all for ought that ever I heard of as much against naked dipping as himself yea so far are we all if any had been otherwise minded Mr. Baxter would surely have assigned them whose design was to vilifie us what he could so far are we all from countenancing such a practise that I dare in the name of all the Churches of the Baptists through England declare their unanimous utter detestation of it in Mr. Baxters own words viz. that it is a breach of the seventh Commandment an intollerable wickednesse an immodest action an incitement to uncleannesse likely enough to raise jealousies in Ministers wives yea and other womens husbands too and so to foment continuall dissention a means to debauch people and bereave them of all common civility modesty ingenuity and humanity to turn Gods worship into contempt and make it meerly ridiculous to bring a general reproach upon the Christian profession among all the enemies thereof yea amongst the most sober and discreet to discredit the truth and prejudice men against it yea verily t is scandal reproach and discredit enough in that it is but belied by Mr. Baxter to be so base how much more and more justly would it be reproached if his reports were as true as they are full of falsehood we I say acknowledg the practise of naked dipping to be as bad as Mr. Baxter proves it to be therefore quorsum haec to what purpose doth he with such prolixity proceed to prove what no sober minded man of either party doth deny This is aliud a negato a plain absurd a berration from the question which is not whether it be a sin ordinarily to dip naked or no but whether we ordinarily use that kind of dipping The first which none doubts of he indeavours to make evident as one that light a candle whereby to shew men that the sun shines The second which is unknown utterly among us he proclaims to be our usual notorious known practise but he offers no proof of this at all Such silly Sophistry as this Mr. Baxter uses also in almost every of these Arguments whereby he professes to disprove our practise as unwarrantable concluding all along another point than that in question for whereas our tenet is that persons at years professing to believe of what parents so ever born are to be baptized he most simply and sinisterly concludes against us as he supposes in a matter of four or five Arguments that the children of Christians may not be baptized when they come to years and that this practise of baptizing of Christians children is utterly unconsistent with the Rule of Christ as for us we say as much neither is it our practise or opinion to baptize Christians children at age upon that account meerly as they are Christians children any more then the children of them that are no Christians unlesse they professe to be believers and Christians themselves as their parents do and upon that account viz. as they professe
to believe we baptize heaâ—hens children as soon as them Thus the man busies himself beyond measure in beating the aire and wearyes himself ad ravim usque and his reader ad nauseam in refuting non entities about the proof of such things as no body denies and per ignorationem Elenchi concludes that which is as clear to his Antagonists as to himself and leaves that utterly undemonstrated which is the onely thing denyed by them the absurdity of whose way he pretends it to be his businesse to discover For verily those against whom he fights under the name of Anabaptists are as clear in it as he can be that no Christians child qua talis is to be baptized when he comes to years saving upon the same account on which an heathens child may be at years so baptized as well as he viz. his own personal profession of faith and desire of baptism Again they hold dipping naked to be intollerable wickednesse as well as he yet these things he be labours himself not a little in making good but that which is denyed indeed viz. that it is our usual practise to dip women and maids naked this he charges us with most stoutly most desperately and tells a tale of us most absurdly to the base abusing of himself the true Church and the whole world also but he is so impertinent and impertinently imployed in proving naked dipping to be a sin that he either forgets or has no while to prove it to be practised by us at all But Sirs who but he that sees the right eye of the idol shepheard to be utteâ—ly darkned would ever think that from such a man as Mr. Ba. desires to be accounted such a piece of paultry should proceed that such a messe of balterdash as here is should ere be broached by him that such a mad report of the walkers in truth should be publisht by one that goes for a publisher of the truth among thousands of deluded people Me thinks I see Satan gone forth and become a lying spirit in the mouthes of the prime among their prophets perswading and in the just judgement of God prevailing with multitudes of meer formal Gospellers to be strongly deluded and to believe lies out of their mouthes that they may be damn'd because they receive not the truth that was troden down for 42 monthes and now rises again and shines forth in the love therof that they may be saved but have pleasure in unrighteousness and superstition and have no pleasure in the truth Me thinks I see National Ministers of singular piety in peoples eyes prove men of singular pravity singularly bewitched into an implicit belief of the base tales that vain fellowes raise of the way of truth and singularly bewitching their people into implicit belief of them that so it is as they say that neither Priest nor people may obey the truth but both stumble and fall and be broken and snared and taken and ashamed each of other in the end Good Lord how is the practise of the truth made a reproach unto thy people and a derision dayly for I have heard the defaming of many report say they and we will report it possesse the pulpit and make the Priest believe it and then all the Country shall ring out and the people soon be diabolized into the faith on 't but hear ye rude reprochers of that people that are reprovers of the wayes whereby you run a whoring from the Lord you shall not prevail by such sleights such plausible pretences you shall be greatly ashamed you shall not prosper and unlesse you repent of your belying the truth of God your everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten It is too bad to be credulous to flying reports worse so violently to vent them worst of all malevolently to invent them I dare not say nor dare I deem Mr Ba. to be guilty of the last but of the two first I cannot clear him sith I perceive that he takes it for a truth that we ordinarily dip naked and thereupon disputes against it as our usuall practise and then not confidently onely but of a certain relates to the whole world that it is no bare word nor any doubtful thing but an experience a known practise if he can clear himself he hath leave to do it for me who also summon him in the name of Christ Jesus whose true disciples he hath done such dispite to the Lord keep him from despiting the spirit of grace the people of whose love are the people of his wrath to prove it our practise ordinarily to dip naked yea to produce but one instance of any women oâ— maids that ever he saw dipt naked in all his daies and I le abate him much of that I now accuse him of in the court of my conscience but if he say as indeed he does in effect that he never saw any dipt at all whilst p. 134. he saies that all that ever he saw baptized had water powred on them how can he say Epertus loquor it is his experience he having never so much as seen such a thing unlesse it were upon the brazen fac't front of Featleyes book where he fasly feignedly and filthily describes men and women dipping in that fashion or else upon the Titlepage of Ephraim Pagit who there paltrily pictures out this people practising thus and there I believe he hath experienced it or if he only hath it from the the mouthes of such as heard it from the mouthes of others who never saw it but receive it by tradition as well as he and that originally too from the mouthes of some that made it and in such a manner very likely it was first bruted for I am perswaded there was never such a thing done of late in England unless by some Arch Knave and Arrant Whore in way of mockage to the Gospel which is rather a glory then a shame to Christ his truth then let Mr. Ba. bear the blame of his blind blaspheming the people of the everliving God Or if he know indeed that such a thing as baptizing maids and women naked hath been done in serious wise by any persons I further challenge him to make some proof of it and to print the names of such men as have done it and such maids and women that have suffered themselves to be dipped naked and the names of such credible eye witnesses as will testify it as in the sight of God which if he can though I shall not give place to him thereupon so as to be satisfyed therby for his overlashing in asserting it to be our practise to dip naked or for condemning and denominating a whole party much more their cause by the defects abuses of some persons whom the cause disclaimes for then there was 12. devils because one among the twelve and then what an Augaean stable is your Church of England by many members of which notorious roguery is committed every houre Yet I shall satisfy him
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
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
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
fifteen hands that subscribe to those Questions not one of them did find occasion to subscribe his dissent to this for whereas t is supposed and proposed so publiquely for truth by the Enquirers that Heb. 6.2 speaks not of any one laying on of hands onely but plurally as of the doctrine of baptisms its most palpably apparent to such as are not a sleep in their reading of that text that it speaks in the singular number of one laying on of hands alone and not of layings on of hands as it must have been expressed for so you are fain to expresse it your selves when you speak plurally of it in your fifth question had he meant more kinds of imposition of hands then one for though hands be the plurall number yet laying on which is the phrase you speak to or else you speak nihil ad Rhombum is a substantive of the singular number both in the English and in the Greek and suppose the spirit had spoken plurally of more imposions of hands then one must that that was Act. 8 17-19.6 on baptized believers be ever the more excluded or the more incuded rather in all likelyhood among the rest and because the Apostle does not speak particularly enough nor distinguish nor expresse plainly enough what he means by shewing the end purpose and event of the imposition here spoken of therefore belike he meant that no body should ever own this principle at all but the truth is he speaks of no more impositions then one Therefore to conclude with the Enquirers question propounded thus to themselves we desire to know what safety it is for any man to conclude that question to be worthy of an answer that is so falsely grounded as this of the Enquirers is and to conclude that Heb. 6.2 is meant of more layings on of hands when it expresly speaks but of one And so dear Friends whom I love too well to spare speaking plainly to you in a case wherein upon occasion of your putting on too too rashly in print little lesse then against it a precious truth of Christ lyes at stake between us since you are pleased to urge and importune us so earnestly at the close of your questions by the opportunity that you have thereby put into our hands to justify our practise viz. laying on of hands upon all baptized believers as we love the glory of God and the promoting of that which we so highly esteem and hold to be truth as we will declare our love to the truth by countenancing men who diligently make search after it as we tender the union and communion of the Churches c. that we would discharge our duty and try if we could make it appear by the word of God which I confesse with you is able to instruct us in all things and therefore though much might be said from the constant practise of the Churches in and bordering upon the primitive times to the further clearing up of the truth in this point yea men far better studied that way then I am who yet see sufficiently to my satisfaction tell us that all Antiquity teacheth laying on of hands after baptism yea and some that never practised neither it nor true baptism yet I wave all such Arguments as of no weight without the word Since also you promise us that if we so do then you shall acknowledg the truth thereof to the glory of God and your own shame in being ignorant so long and speedily imbrace it if God so assist you by his word professing you will to that purpose expect our faithfull care to be expessed with chearfullnesse without making delaies in a matter of so great importance which may unite and establish us in one mind hereupon I could not in conscience but take so much notice of your questions they meeting me also just in the mouth whilest I was musing to say some little but not a quarter so much as here is to evince the noncessation of this service as well as that of baptism as to give this transient answer as I travel along being bound also as you hint to me to give to every one that asketh it a reason of the hope that 's in me with meeknesse and fear so desiring the Lords blessing upon it towards you and upon you in your examination of it and as you have light your execution according to it that such excaecation as the Ranter who is run out of the reach of reason hath by little and little queried himself into may never overtake you I remain both yours and every ones servant for Christs sake Thus much concerning the continuation of that practise of laying on of hands now as to the present use of the ordinances of breaking of bread and church-fellowship I shal speak but briefly to that forasmuch as these are services the continuance of which to the end is denied doctrinally by none for ought I know but the Ranter that is run up above all saving that the Rigid Presbyterians though in words they own the supper yet in works do deny it for many if not most of them live in the neglect of that administration of the supper in their parishes some four some five some six seven eight years without any use of it at all as if there were no such matter as that now in being for others I mean a certain mixt sort of Independents that are rife in these dayes they own and practise it and Church fellowship too more then enough unlesse more orderly in respect of that Antecedency to these of all the principles of the doctrine of Christ which ought to be now as it was in the primitive times which times they pretend to reform by taking in Omnium generum an Omnigatherum of persons men and women whom they take to be believers into fellowship in one visible body in breaking of bread and prayers some whereof having renounced their Rantism as null are truly baptized some as yet but meerly Rantized yet supposing themselves sufficiently baptized because of that which can be of no use to them as a sign for they remember it not some hanging in the air between both not satisfied whether they were truly baptized in infancy yea or no some doubting whether any water baptism at all be needful to be used in these times some convinc't that they ought to be baptized but not yet finding any Administrator that fits their fancies some resolved to be baptized but Christ who expects it from them must wait their leasure none reproving their procrastination nor saying to them as Ananias to Paul and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord or as Peter to the Iews repent and be baptized Some resolving never to be baptized but roundly renouncing all water baptism as nothing concerning them yet leaving them at liberty to act according to their light that have a mind to submit to it and who see
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
I shall be saved No condemnation to them that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit so dying but I walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Ergo so doing so dying there 's no condemnation to me and so consequently still I shall be saved Rom. 8.1 * witnesse a paper newly extant subscribed with 15. hands and sent to my self in particular by one of the subscribers while I am just beginning this very treatise of Anti-ranterism which occasions a more distinct handling of this point of laying on of hands then I otherwise intended stiled Questions about laying on of hands with the grounds why they are demanded lovingly propounded to all those churches of Iesus Christ in London or elsewhere or to any one member of the body of our Lord who pleadeth or preacheth for the necessity or usefulnesse of laying on of hands to be practised by all baptized believers The 2d query of which is on this wise viz. We desire to be directed by them unto some place of Scripture if they know of any where our Lord Iesus Christ or any of his Apostles or disciples preached this doctrine viz. that all baptized believers ought to practise or submit unto laying on of hands * Heb. 5.12.6.1 2. Act. 19 6. Act. 8.12.15.16 17. Act. 2.40 42. * because many blame and reprove baptized believers because they do not practise submit to or come under laying on of hands Therefore we desire to know of them if they can tell of any of the servants of Christ that ever did reprove or blame any sort of people whether baptized or not because laying on of hands was not practised or submitted to by them * As if women were not under the promise of the holy spirit repenting believing and being baptized as well as men when as Peter saies Acts â— 39 to the whole multitude of women as well as men repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the holy spirit for the promise is to you and to your children and them that are a far off even as many as the Lord shall call as if John Baptist also did not speak promiscuously to the multitudes of both men and women and to the women as well as the men whom he baptized when he said I indeed baptize you with water but she shall baptize you with the holy spirit and if baptized believing women be under a promise of being baptizd with the spirit as well as men pro. 1.23 then why they should not have hands laid on them and be prayed for that they may receive it as well as the other according to the promise he is a wiser man then I am that knowes any reason Viz. seeing that many draw inferences and deductions as they call them from Heb 6.2 to maintain one laying on of hands onely and none of them upon the forementioned considerations neither in the end purpose or event Therefore we desire to know whether you judge it a command of our Lord Christ that any mans inference or deduction should be of a binding form in point of faith and obedience and because we have seen some of our dearly beloved brethren in the Lord to the grief of our hearts much offended at us because we believe not the inferences or deductions as they call them Heb. 6.2 Therefore we desire to know of them what they will refer us to as the sure rule to try inferences or deductions by because the best of men are liable to mistakes * witness his reproving and threatning of lost labour to those that so do Mat. 15.9 x John 5 30.8.16.17.12â— 49.50.14.31 * Act. 1.1.2 3.10.33 * Act. 2.42 1 Cor. 14.37 Eph. 2.20 Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.2 Jude 17. * For there was a certain form of Christs doctrine delivered by the Apostles to persons as from him which they were to obey and after obedience unto which and not before they were counted unto Christ as now his servants which till they had obeyed they were counted none of his but unto sin as its servants standing in several particulars whereof its most evident that water baptism was one for obedience in baptism and obedience to that form of doctrine delivered are both urged as arguments and ingagements to the Romans now to reckon on themselves or from thenceforth i. e. their obedience thereunto as in foro dei hominum et ecclesiae Christs servants that had formally owned him and whether the rest viz faith repentance laying on of hands belief of a resurrection and judgement which are Heb. 6. all called the foundation which was at first to be laid altogether with baptism called by the name of the form of doctrine Rom. 6.17 which was at first to be obeyed by every beginner in Christs school is worth our serious considerations * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 6.1 * so the Enquirers seem to me to do while they teach men that as yet have not that they need or ought not to submit to prayer and laying the holy spirit and unteach such again as have been targht it till they disown that first principle of the doctrine of Christ after they had once even practically owned it * who would â—ain be our own carvers and either have such visible gifts as some call them as he was pleased to give them or else we will be blind and not see not believe though we see it that he gives any gifts of his spirit now at all * John 14.17 28. Gal. 5. 17. John 16.13 R m. 8.13 1 Cor. 2.12 1 Cor. 12.7 Eph. 4.11 Eph. 4.30 a Eph. 1.13 b Act. 2.39.40 c Prov. 1.23 Joh. 7.38 39. Luke 11.13 Act 5.35 * Iohn did no miracle but all the the things which Iohn spake of this man are true Joh. 10.41 Iohn 7.48 Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe Iohn 20.29 Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed but blessed are they that have not seen and yet believed Herod hoped to have seen some miracle done by Christ but he would not so much as answer him Luke 23.8.9 He did not many mighty work there because of their unbelief Mat. 13.5 Lord why could not we cast him out Iesus said because of your unbelief â— Joh. 1.16 â—â—f his fulaes we have â—ll received grace for grace Iohn 16.7.13 2. Cor. 13.14 the communion of the spirit be with you all Gal. 5.22 2 Cor. 5.5 God who hath given us the earnest of his spirit Ephes. 1.33.14 in whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance c. whereby you are sealed to the day of redemption Ephes. 4.30 * if any doubt it as some do and say prophesy is a gift of speaking infallibly by revelation from God as t is spoken of 1 Cor. 14.1 the 2.3.4.5 verses of the same chapter confute him where prophecy as it is determined to be a far more eminent and profitable gift and greater and more
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