and Christ saith A man must be borne of water and then of the Spirit Iohn 3.5 and John the Baptist said I baptize you with water but he comes after that baptizeth with the holy Ghost Mat. 3.11 but Master Tombes saith To baptize infants is to baptize those whom the Lord hath not apointed to be baptized and yet he grants that infants may be baptized with the holy Ghost and might be baptized if they were knowne to us from that Text Acts 10.47 But saith he To baptize infants because Christ commands to Baptize all Nations is very faulty First in casting away that restriction which Christ hath put Secondly in determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptized and so it is no priviledge to beleevers and their children But as common to Infidels as to their children I answer Here he denies the command of Christ to be a Rule and would make a restriction where Christ makes none and then he makes a false conclusion as if he ever said or did intend to baptize the children of Infidels before their Parents be taught the Covenant and so by baptisme were admitted into the Christian Church but yet in other places he saith himselfe that beleevers children have no priviledge above the children of Infidels but because he slights this generall command to all Nations which includes all sorts of Mankinde because he hath not a speciall command for Infants onely I may say to him as Christ said to the Pharisees when they said to sweare by the Temple was nothing but he that swore by the gold of it was a debtor so the command to Baptize all Nations is nothing unlesse it were for infants onely when as the Temple sanctifies the gold Mat. 23.16.17 and the whole Nation includes infants but he must have them Disciples first because it was reported that Christ made and baptized Disciples John 4.2 when as he grants it to be a false report therefore nothing can safely be drawne from it but I shall give a further answer to this and Captaine Hobsons third agreement together Againe suppose we grant that men of yeares who are converted from false religions to the true Christian Religion that such must be taught the Covenant being capable of Teaching before they have the token of it given to them thus it was with Abraham and with many Heathens when they were converted to the Jewes religion but when they were admitted their infants had a right to it without any teaching going before and when they were capable they taught them the Covenant as they were commanded Deut. 4.10.13 and so they taught them the meaning of the Passeover Exod. 12.26.27 then why may not Christian infants be taught the Covenant after they have received the token of it as well as Jewish infants Againe as they were meere passives when they received the token of the Covenant so are our infants the worke is done upon them therefore they may be baptized Secondly they Object That if they must repent before they be baptized then infants may not be baptized but the first is true Acts 2.38 ergo so is the second I answ It is true in men of yeares that are converted from Heathens to the Christian Religion but it is neither required of Jewish infants before Circumcision nor of Christian infants before Baptisme for as they Circumcised their infants so John baptized them before or unto repentance Mat. 3.11 therefore Christian infanta ought to be baptized but what if the Saduces and Pharisees and the bloody Murtherers of Christ be called upon to repent before either John or Peter will admit them to baptisme will it follow that infants of Christians must doe so actually before they be admitted to Baptisme the one of these was a generation of Vipers having the leaven of false doctrine that must be purged out Mat. 16.13 else like Vipers it would eate out the heart and life of Christian Religion Mat. 3.7 and the other was the leaven of prophannesse which like savage Beasts would trample Religion under their feet then this also must be purged out 1 Cor. 5.7.13 then as both must be purged out so they must be both kept out But will it follow that infants must repent of Murthers and Heresies before they be admitted to Baptisme let them that would have them to repent of those foule sinnes prove them guilty of them or else they are very unjust to debarre them of the Priviledges of the Church and actually Excommunicate them without any tryall or just proofe against them and till then we must hold that they ought to be baptized Thirdly they Object If none must be Baptized but such as are called then Infants of Christians may not be Baptized But the first is true Act 1.39 ergo so is the second I Answ It is true to those afarre off they must be called to the Christian Religion but it is not true to Christians already called nor required of their Infants any more then it was of Jewish Infants for by vertue of their call their Children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 and ought to be baptised Fourthly they Object That if none must be baptized but those that confesse their sinnes then Infants must not be baptized But the first is true Mat. 3.6 ergo so is the second I answ This also is true in men of yeares who are converted from Heathenisme to the Christian Religion so it was when any were converted to the Jewish Religion but what is this to Infants either Jewes or Christians Againe when multitudes came to John to be baptized of him some few of them might confesse the sinnes of all as being the mouth of the people to God as any Minister is in his Congregation then this hinders not but theirs and our Infants may be baptized Fifthly they Object if none must be baptized but such as beleeve then Infants may not be baptized But the first is true Mark 16.16 Acts 8.36 37. ergo so is the second I Answ If none but such as we know doe truely beleeve must be baptized then we must baptize none at all because we know no mans heart and Faith is that new name written which none knowes but he that receives it Revel 2.7 Againe if none must be baptised but true beleevers and we cannot know them we may soone mistake and set the token of the Covenant upon Reprobates and refuse to give it to the Elect. Againe Christ said Those little ones that he tooke in his Armes did beleeve in him see Mat. 16.6 compared with Luke 9.26 and their hearts may as well be knowne to us as the hearts of men of yeares for we know the hearts of none Again that faith that was required was but to beleeve that Christ was the Son of God and that the Christian Religion was the true Religion but Infants of Christians have taken up no false Religion then it need not be required that they should beleeve the true being brought up in none other Againe to baptize
confession but saith Paul of those children that they were uncleane then but now saith he they are holy because one of the Parents is become a christian now those children are not heathens but christians so then if the same children which before were uncleane and now are holy by the conversion of one of the Parents it must needs be such a holinesse to distinguish them from Infidels to be of the true christian Church then he that denies this truth must needes draw this conclusion that the same children which before Paul came there were bastards but now one of the Parents is converted to the christian Religion those children that were bastards and uncleane are now holy and no bastards Againe shall we be such fools as to think because the husband is a Christian that his christianity will so sanctifie his wife that shee cannot have a bastard or will her being a christian so sanctifie her husband that he cannot have a bastard if this were true then how comes it to passe that we have so many bastards in Engl. when both the husband the wife professe themselves to be christians and yet sometimes both of them are so prophane as to have bastards then I say that holinesse spoken of by Paul is that mark of distinction to be knowne from Turks and Infidels to be of the visible Church of Christ and therefore have a true right to baptisme and so to all other Ordinances and priviledges of the christian Church although infancy or sicknesse may hinder them from some of them yet it cannot from baptisme being onely passive the work is done upon them and no action required of them therefore they may and ought to be baptized Ninthly they object against my fifth ground saying that command of God ceased which did command to set the token of the Covenant upon Jewish Infants when Christ came and changed that token of circumcision into baptisme But I say the command remaines although the token be changed as for instance God commanded the children of Israel to keepe holy the seventh day for it was the Sabbath of the Lord their God but this command remaines although by Christ the day was changed and so for other commands to Israel thou shalt have no other gods but me thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven image nor bow downe unto it nor take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine but although the Church of the Jewes be cut off and the christian Church grafted in we may not say these commands were repeald when the Church was changed and so conclude that Christians may have other gods and bow downe to them and worship them and take the name of Israels God in vaine because the command was not made to us but to them nor keep no Sabbath because the command was made to them and not to us nor set the token of the Covenant on our children because it was to them and not to us because our Church and Sabbath and token of the Covenant was all changed then unlesse you be minded to cast off God the Sabbath the Sacraments the true Religion let your children be baptized Tenthly they object saying those that have a right to one of the Sacraments have a right to both but Infants have no right to the Lords Supper because they cannot examine themselves nor remember the death of Christ nor discerne his body in the Sacrament then Infants may not be baptized I answ Those impediments that hinder them from receiving the Lords Supper are no impediments to hinder them from Baptisme because nothing is required in the baptized Infants they are meerly passive the work is done upon them when as the Lords supper requires many actions as to take eat doe this in men of age and understanding Againe I doubt not but Infants have a right to both Sacraments and all other Ordinances although by naturall infirmities they are for the present disabled from some of them as by sicknesse or infancy yet this hinders not nor disables any from Baptisme therefore Infants ought to be baptized although baptisme is not of absolute necessity where it cannot be had yet this contempt of it is damnable but in times of persecution or in a journey it may be deferred as Israel did in the Wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5.5 but they might not doe so in Canaan for if they doe it may be their children when they come to age would despise that Ordinance and then they are to be cut off from Israel because they have broken the Covenant Gen. 17.14 and how doe these men know but their children will despise the covenant when they come to age Nay I dare say it is the onely way to make them despise it when they come to age for it is said all the people that heard Christ and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptisme of John that is with water Mat. 3.11 but the Pharises and Lawyers rejected the Councell of God being not baptized of John Luke 7.29.30 And it were a just judgement of God upon such Parents that will not set that marke of distinction to sever their children from Turks by baptisme that they should never be severed from corrupted nature to the state of grace then to avoid this let them be baptized Eleventhly they object that if Christ who saith learne of me was not baptized till he was 30 yeers old then Infants must not be baptized Luke 3.23 But the first is true ergo so is the second I answ It is true that Christ bad us learne of him to be humble and meek Mat. 11.28 but he did not bid us learne of him to be 30 yeers old before that we be baptized and if we learne that we must neither be more nor lesse but just of his age Againe he was both circumcized and baptized but he did not bid us learne both Againe at thirty yeeres old he put an end to the Jewish Religion and could not be baptized before neither could he set up Christian Religion till he had put downe the Jewish Religion But I would not have the Anabaptists to tarry till they be thirty yeers old before they become Christians and say they learned to doe so of Christ Againe at the same time others were baptized at severall ages some more some lesse then the age of Christ then the matter lay in this whether they were converted from false Religions to the true Religion although they were not converted from the state of corrupted nature to the state of grace they baptized them we read of none that ever were denied to be baptized but the Pharises and Sadduces who came to John to be baptized but he refused to baptize them because they would not leave their sects and scismes they would be Pharises and Sadduces still therefore he cals them A generation of Vipers Mat. 3.7 because such would eat out the bowels of the christian Church this might be an item to all the sects and scismes amongst us who are no better then Vipers both to Church and State but when any was admitted to Baptisme if they did but beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God and his was the true Religion
none but those that doe truly beleeve were the direct way to cast out the token of the Covenant altogether because we cannot truly know them then wee ought not to neglect this duty to baptize Infants Sixthly They say if none ought to be baptized but such as make profession of justifying faith then Infants ought not to be baptized but Infants cannot make such profession And saith Master Tombes Neither John the Baptist nor the Apostles would baptize any without some shewes of faith and repentance And although he grants that Infants may have a right to Heaven yet they must not be baptized till that appeare But I say their hearts will never be knowne to us then they had as good say they shall never be baptized as to say they shall not be baptized till they know their hearts Againe would not the Apostles baptize any unlesse they professe a lye that in the presence of Christ who knew their hearts and then might they lawfully be baptized when they had professed a lye in the presence of Christ for they baptized alwaies in his presence before his death John 3.22.26.42 that they might be his Disciples and not theirs And would Christ have all those to professe that they had true justifying faith when as he knew their hearts and would not trust them John 2. v. 23 24. What horrible blasphemy is this No they were required but to beleeve that Christ was the Sonne of God and his Religion was the true Religion and then they had right to Baptisme in the approbation of Christ and his Apostles and their parents profession might be imputed to the child because they have power to bring them up in that Religion they professe as well as the Jewes had power to bring up their Infants in their Religion neither had their Infants any other profession but that of their parents then christian Infants may as well be baptized as Jewish Infants were circumcised Seventhly They object against my second ground saying The gift of the Holy Ghost there promised Act. 2.39 is not the sanctifying Gift but the gift of Tongues and miracles to cast out Divels and to cure all manner of diseases Mark 16.17 I answ John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers wombe Luk. 1.15 to shew that as he was fit for Baptisme from the wombe so he should judge of others Neither could that be the gift of tongues nor the gift of miracles as soon as he was born but the gift of sanctification which Jeremiah had before he was borne Jer. 1.5 Then if Infants may be so baptized with the Holy Ghost wee may not deny them the outward forme of Baptisme But saith Master Tombes That promise is to Jewes that were called of the sending of Christ from these Texts Act. 3.25.26.13.32.33 This we grant But then he saith Mention is made of a Promise not as of it selfe yeelding right to Baptisme without repentance but as a motive to those that repent and are baptized But to this we grant that Baptisme without repentance is of no value But when we heare the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost is promised to christian Infants and they have power to bring them up in the christian Religion then I would know why such may not be baptized having no false Religion to repent of and the promise of the inward Baptisme thus sure their parents that have power to bring them up in the true Religion have also power to set the marke of a christian upon them to be knowne from Turks and Infidels But then he saith That Promise was made to Jewish Infants and therefore not to christian Infants but this is a meere cavill against the Text and not worth answering Eighthly They object against my third ground saying That the holynesse which children have from their parents is nothing else but this those parents have a sanctified use of them for unto the pure all things are pure Tit. 1.15 I answer If all things be pure unto them then other mens children yea Infidels children are pure unto them yea the stones and Beasts of the Field are at peace with them Job 5.23 yea they have a sanctified use both of the evill of sinne and the evill of punishment for all things shall worke together for their good that love God Rom. 3.28 but this benefit comes not by marrying of beleevers but by our marriage with Christ but this had beene to small purpose for Paul to say That beleevers have a sanctified use of their children when as he had not onely said before they have a sanctified use of them but of all things else then the meaning is this they have such a holinesse as the Jewes had to distinguish them from other Nations to be of the church of God a holy Nation so Infants of christians are distinguished from Turks and Infidels to be of the visible church as well as the Jewish Infants by this marke of distinction now they are holy therefore they ought to be baptized But Master Tombes saith That holinesse spoken by Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 is nothing else but this they are legitimate that is they are not bastards To this I answer That the Corinthians were Gentiles or Heathens before Paul preached amongst them and by his preaching some times he converted a wife to the christian Religion and could not convert the husband and sometimes the husband and not the wife but if either of them was converted from their dumbe Idols wherein they were led 1 Cor. 12.2 to the christian faith now saith Paul your children are holy It seemes when either of them was converted the great question to the Apostle was this Whether their children had a right to the Ordinance of Baptisme and so to all other priviledges of the christian church To this a secret answer is implyed That they had a right to all the Ordinances and priviledges of the christian church for now saith Paul your children are holy that is they are distinguished now from Heathens and Infidels children so that now one of the parents is become a christian it cannot be said now that they are Infidels children but when both the parents were converted to the christian Religion then the matter was out of question so that then they need not aske whether their children should enjoy the priviledges of the christian church this being the true genuine meaning of the Text Now let us see what truth is in Master Tombes interpretation of it saying Now they are legittimate now they are not bastards but can any rationall man think this that if a mans wife was converted to the christian Religion that then shee would come to the Apostles to aske them whether or not their children were bastards could any man living tell that better then shee her selfe if shee were a whore then they were bastards but not else Againe them that were lawfully married before Paul came amongst them and had children they were not bastards by Master Tombes owne
upon them to baptize them that they may be known from Turks and Heathens Now if parents had not this power then no Kingdom could ever receive the Gospel and be a holy Nation as the Jew 's was and so their priviledge would exceed the priviledge of all Christian Kingdoms for there will be children to the end of the world for till then they will marry and be given in marriage till the last day Then as Abraham and the Jews received their Religion for themselves and their children so must Christians and set the token of the Covenant upon them as they did But then for the other conversion which makes them fit for the other Sacrament the Lords Supper it is not in the power of the parents although they can bring them up in the Christian Religion yet they cannot convert them from the state of corruption to the state of grace and although they be able to discern when they conform to the true Religion yet they cannot see into their souls whether there be true Faith in them that new name written none knows but he that hath it then although it be said Teach and baptize all Nations yet it is not said Teach and give the Lords Supper to all Nations for it is not in the power of man to teach effectually the heart of another nor to know when they are so taught none but himself knows whether he discern the Lords Body or whether he seed by Faith or remember the Death of Christ or whether he have truely examined himself therefore the worthinesse or unworthinesse lies upon himself and the charge also Let every man examine himself and so let him eat Neither must any baptized Christian be kept from the Lords Supper unlesse he by the leaven of errour seek to undermine the truth of Christian Religion or by prophanesse trample the Christian profession underfoot Matth. 16.12 1 Cor. 5.12 13. 2 Cor. 2.5 6. Gal. 5.9 10. and then it must be done in a legall way not by the Minister alone nor by the Congregation alone but by the Eldership the offence being scandalous So then the first conversion being in the power of the parents and potentially in the children already they may and ought to be baptized But then he saith The Baptism of infants cannot be a Baptism of Faith and Repentance and therefore it is not the Baptism of Christ. But in regard he hath no proof for it I refer him to my answer to the second and third Objection and conclude that Baptism of infants is not excluded from the Commission of Christ and it is a Baptism unto Faith and Repentance and therefore they ought to be baptized His fourth Argument He saith Baptism of infants doth cause inconveniences in the Church first because we make them Members of the Church before they be called of God which is contrary to these Scriptures 1 Cor. 1.1 and 2 Cor. 1.1 I answer Though the Corinthians were sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be Saints yet all in the Church were not such for there was heresies and prophanesse the incestuous person was not cast out and the Lords Supper was prophaned and more carnall men then spirituall and many divisions some of Paul and some of Apollo Then Were these all Saints No. He writes in the judgement of charity and directs his Epistle chiefly to such as were Saints indeed so then in the judgement of charity we should think the best of those in the Church that use the means to attain salvation and so you may judge of infants who are brought up in the true Religion And although Heathens must have a call to Christianity yet when Christians are called their children need not to tarry for such a call because they have no false Religion to be called from Neither was it any inconvenience to the Jews that their infants had the token of the Covenant upon them before their calling but rather a grace and glory to their Church and a benefit to those infants to engage them to obedience of that Covenant when they came to age of which they had received a token So all the people and the Publicans justified Christ when they heard him being baptized of John when as the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him Luke 7.29 30. Then as we would have them justifie Christ and not to reject his Counsell let them be baptized But he saith Another inconvenience it is to have our infants baptized because it will intaile priviledges to us in reference to generation But to these priviledges he saith They must be sanctified quoting that place I answered already 2 Cor. 1.1 Yet I say they are sanctified or set apart from Turks and Heathens for the Christian Church else were they unclean but now they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 then they ought to be baptized But he hath a third inconvenience and that is If infants be baptized it will make a separation and distraction in Christs conjunction and that is to baptize such as they will not give the Lords Supper nor admit them nor others to break Bread Christ would have them to do both and they will admit such as cannot do both But he hath no reason why some may not do some duties when they are disabled to do others and therefore I refer him to my answer to the tenth Objection and hither too for all his inconveniences I see no good Argument to keep infants of Christians from Baptism Fifthly He saith The baptizing of infants doth directly crosse the proceedings both in the time of the Law and in the time of the Gospel and therefore it ought not to be done for they did all both under the Law and in the time of the Gospel by a rule else Lot might have pleaded the same priviledge with Abraham being a Beleever as well as he and Ishmael who was no Beleever in God yet he was circumcised I answer The promise to Abraham was that his seed in Isaac should be the visible Church who onely should have the token of the Covenant and this excludes Lot from this priviledge and for Ishmael he being one of his Family by vertue of another command was circumcised when the Lord would have Abraham to make his own house an example or a patern for all his posterity to circumcise in his house Gen. 17.12 13. But saith the Lord I will establish my Covenant with Isaac ver 21. Onely Strangers had this benefit by living amongst them So then by the like reason our children although as bad as Ishmael may be baptized when as some true Beleevers amongst the Turks may not be baptized except they come to us and make an open profession of the Christian Religion then they may have this benefit amongst us But have not we a rule for what we do when as the command of Christ is our direction who commands all Nations to be taught and baptized and if he command it he will
I say although they should become Papists or prophane drunkards or swearers or adulterers and should be excommunicated for such wickednesse yet still they having a right to the Ordinances as a Free-man hath of a Corporation although for the present he be in prison and cannot make use of it till he hath compounded with his adversarice and this man given satisfaction to the Church therefore his children ought to be baptized unlesse the Parents turn Turks and so renounce Christ and christian Religion yet if but one of them should doe this their children are holy and ought to be baptized notwithstanding all other failings whatsoever Twelfthly thee object if none must be baptized and so receive the token of the Covenant but such as have the Covenant then Infants 〈◊〉 not be baptized but they say the first is true because they are uncapable to receive the covenant therefore they ought not to be baptized which is the token of the covenant Here I might answer that christian Infants are as capable both to receive the covenant and the token of it as the Jewish Infants were but it is not true to say they onely that have the covenant must have the signes and tokens of it for the male children of the Jewes all had the token of the covenant both the elect and reprobates without any difference and women which were in the covenant of grace as well as men yet the signe and token of it was set onely on men though reprobates rather then on women though never so faithfull for the token of the covenant is not given as a personall benefit to all that have it but it is given for the good of Gods people who ought to rejoyce and be thankfull for it where-ever they see it God made a covenant with Adam but the token of it was set on trees and God made a covenant with Noah but the token of it was set in the clouds so God might have set the token of the covenant of grace in the clouds or on trees or onely on wicked men if he had so pleased then shall we quarrell with God and say we will have the token of the covenant set onely on such as have the covenant as if the rain-bow should be set on all men since Noahs flood no let us do as faithfull women did in the Church of the Jewes who could rejoyce and be thankfull for the token of the covenant of grace although it was not set on them but on men onely and many of them reprobates you we doe not find that ever they murmured against God because they had not the token of the covenant upon them as well as men then I conclude notwithstanding these objections that christian Infants ought to be baptized But Master Tombes hath some more places of Scripture to examine the first is Gen. 17.7 from which we prove that God did establish his everlasting Covenant to Abraham and verse 21. he established that everlasting covenant also with Isaac and being established thus to Abraham and Isaac then it was also confirmed unto Jacob for an everlasting covenant Psal 105 10. But this covenant was made with Christ from all eternity so Prov. 8.23 1 Pet. 1.20 Titus 1.2 now circumcision was a token of that everlasting covenant Gen. 17.10 11. and not a token that they should enjoy the land of Canaan and so it sutes with baptisme which is also a token of that everlasting covenant which God the Father made with God the Son from all eternity but Master Tombes saith that Covenant to which circumcision had relation being established to Abraham that he saith was a mixed covenant and therfore not the same with ours I answ All temporall promises both to Abrahams posterity and also to us are but the over-flowing of those promises contained in that eversting covenant for godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 seek the righteousnesse of Christ and all these things shall be added unto you Matth. 6.33 so then we have as many promises of outward things as the Jewes had but then to encrease his doubting he saith Abraham's seed is many wayes to be taken I answ The seed to whom the covenant was made was but one and that was Christ Gal. 3.16 and to all the elect when they are grafted into Christ by faith as we enter into the first Adams covenant when we come to have his image of nature so we come into the second Adams covenant when we come to have his image of grace now circumcision was the token of this covenant to the Jewes as baptisme is to Christians but I shall speak more fully of this in answer to Captaine Hobsons first argument Secondly Master Tombes saith to encrease his doubtings that if baptism succeed circumcision then none but males ought to be baptized because none but males were circumcised and John Baptist did baptize before circumcision of right ceased therefore it doth not succeed circumcision although they both signifie the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11.6.3 1 Pet. 3.21 and the same sanctification of the heart Col. 2.11 12. But saith he they differ in some things first circumcision did signifie that Christ should come of Isaac Gen. 17.21 but baptisme doth signifie his death and resurrection I answ although they are both tokens of the same covenant yet they may in some things differ in their signification and yet agree well together thus circumcision more lively signified mortification and the death of sinne in the crucifying and death of Christ and of justifying the sinner by the blood of Christ and baptisme more cleerly signifies the buriall of sinne in the buriall of Christ and rising from the death of sinne to the life of grace by the resurrection of Christ and washing away our sinnes by the spirit of Christ he being under water and arose out of the water and as water washeth away the filth of our bodies so the blood of Christ washeth away our sinnes but to say circumcision was a token that Christ should come of Isaac Master Tombes contradicts it himselfe saying John baptized before circumcision should of right cease and yet Christ was borne thirty yeeres before which hangs together like harpe and harrow and Paul circumcised Timothy after Christs assention see Acts 16.3 and after he had preached of his resurrection many times but this had been notoriously wicked if circumcision had signified that Christ was yet for to come of Isaac secondly he saith circumcision signified that the Israelites were seperated from all Nations but I say no for if any would turne to the Jewes Religion they should be circumcized let them be of what Nation they would so then it was onely a note of distinction of their Religion from all
Plural Number then there is more Baptismes then one but Paul speaks of Baptismes in the plural number Hebr. 6.2 therefore there is more then one I answer It is like Paul speaks of the outward and inward Baptisme and the gift of miracles and cals them altogether Baptismes in the plural number or it may be he puts the sufferings of Christians and washing their corps after death which are called Baptismes because the very next thing Paul speaketh of is the resurection howsoever if Paul here speaks of divers kinds of baptismes which it is most likely he doth then this Text will not warrant a second baptisme with water but Paul here speakes of the Doctrine of Baptisme and not of the forme therefore it makes nothing for the outward forme to re-baptize them againe with water Now as I was desired I shall give a brief Answer to Captaine Hobsons five Arguments First saies he the Baptisme of Infants doth directly deny Christ to be come in the flesh because it keepes on foot that which was before Christ and ended by Christ as come in the flesh That is saith he the Covenant God made with Abraham which ran in the flesh and was intailed to Generation Gen. 17.7 12. to this Covenant saith he Circumcision had reference now those naturall branches are cut off Rom. 11.20 21. and now there are no Seed or Sonnes of Abraham but beleevers Gal. 3.9.14.22.28.29 now the Promise is not a carnall but a spirituall John 3.5 I answ To say the Covenant which Circumcision had reverence to was a Carnall Covenant shewes but a carnall understanding of it for it is called an everlasting Covenant many times in that Chapter Gen. 17. neither was this Covenant of Grace made with Abraham but saith the Lord I will establish my Covenant with thee and thy seed every man childe shall be circumcised and this shall be a token of the Covenant and this token shall be in your flesh for that everlasting Covenant and my Covenant shall be established with Isaac Then the Covenant was no more made with Abraham then it was with Isaac but established to both by that token of Circumcision so then that circumcision was not a token of a carnall covenant but a token of that eternall Covenant made between God the Father and Christ his Sonne in our nature from all eternity For saith Christ I was set up from everlasting before the world was Pro. 8.23 he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1.20 God made promises to Christ before the world began Titus 1.2 so then this eternall Covenant was not manifested by a token of it from the beginning of the world till Abraham had it because till then no whole Nation was called into the visible Church but if Abraham and his posterity had onely a token that they should enjoy the Land of Canaan it had been but Esaus blessing Againe to say that eternall Covenant was made to Abraham is to make him our Redeemer for then he must performe the conditions of it for all the Elect but poore man he had failings as well as other men and not able to satisfie for his owne sinnes much lesse for the sinnes of all the Elect so then that covenant was made with his seed and saith Paul that seed was Christ Gal. 3.16 Againe marke the conclusion of Master Hobson who said Abraham received a token but of a carnall covenant but if that were true Abraham is damned and then by and by he saith the Seed and Sons of Abraham must be beleevers Gal. 3.7.9.14.22.28.29 then sure he received the token of that everlasting Covenant But how are we Gentiles the Seed and Sons of Abraham I answer By receiving the signe and token of that everlasting covenant as a seale to our faith as he did Rom. 4.11 and we are his children by receiving the same faith in Christ as he had but we are not Abrahams children as Christ is our everlasting Father who stood as a generall Person representing all the Elect and receiving a covenant for them and able to fulfill the conditions of it and to satisfie Gods Justice for the breach of Adams covenant and able to worke faith in us to enter into his covenant But when Abraham is named we must understand him as an Embassadour representing Christ the King of his Church with whom alone the new covenant was made as the first was made with Adam and all we come under it when we take upon us his naturall Image so the second covenant was made with Christ and the Elect come under it when they receive his spirituall Image so then the tokens of the covenant were before Christ came in the Flesh and Christ did not come to take away the token of the covenant but to change them from Circumcision to Baptisme and to enlarge them to all Nations and to Females as well as Males Acts 8.12 then the keeping on foot this token of the covenant which Christ instituted after his comming in the flesh doth not deny his comming in the flesh neither is this to hold circumcision which was the token before his comming in the flesh then this Argument falls to nothing whereby he would prove Infants Baptisme to deny the comming of Christ in the flesh But then he saith the Pharisees and Saduces pleading that they were Abrahams Seed and would be Baptized and yet John would not till they repent and beleeve Mat. 3.7.8.9 I answer If they had repented of their Sects and Schismes he would have Baptized them for no ignorant Person was refused by him although they had not heard whether there was any Holy Ghost yet John baptized them unto repentance and bid them beleeve and such were made Disciples Acts 19.12 34. but John knew that such Sectaries would be but as Vipers to the true Religion therefore he would not baptize them unlesse they would leave their Heresie and Schisme Then it was not because they were of the Seed of Abraham that he refused it but because they would not leave their Heresies and Schismes this cannot keepe Infants from Baptisme which have no Sects nor Schismes to repent of But he hath another Argument to prove that the baptizing of Infants directly denies the comming of Christ in the flesh and that is this He saith it takes from Christ his Propheticall and Kingly Offices which the Holy Ghost gave him as come in the Flesh I answ Christ had those Offices before he came in the flesh he was King and Priest to the Church of the Jewes although not so manifest as to the christian Church but how the baptizing of infants should rob Christ of those Offices is a Paradox to all wise men But he saith because it makes the Old Testament to expound the New but what of this Christ eates with sinners and some were offended at it and he sends them to the Old Testament saying Learne what that meaneth 〈◊〉 will have mercy and not sacrifice Mat. 9.13 but did Christ
baptize half their body without their help and without any word of Institution from them and then they come afterwards and baptize the other half in the name of the Trinity But if this be their manner they contradict their own Tenet and condemn themselves in so doing And what shameful thing it is for them to report that they plunge the baptized into the Water when as they wade in themselves And so while they judge us for baptizing one part for all they condemn themselves for doing the same thing Rom. 2.1 From these grounds we may safely conclude That sprinkling the baptized is more agreeing to the minde of Christ then to plunge the baptized into the water But to these Arguments Master Patience said some thing although to small purpose First saith he I take dipping to be the command of Christ because Master Daniel Rogers doth say That the Greek word doth signifie washing by plunging and he saith Sprinkling is rinsing and not to baptize as Master Blackwood doth prove from Greek Authors but I then replyed saying Are you a Teacher in Israel and know not these things John 3.10 Have you the care of souls committed unto you and do you feel them by hearsay because you are not able to interpret the Word your self What is this But the blinde leads the blinds till both fall into the ditch And what comfort will it be to you at the day of Judgement having seduced many souls in giving them poyson instead of wholesome food for you to say then that men told you it was good for them when as Christ never told you so And if we should go by hearsay we might bring multitudes of Orthodox Divines and Churches that well understand the Language in which Christ spake unto his Church to witnesse That the word Baptize signifies as well Sprinkling as Plunging Secondly But then he said Baptism signified Burial and putting on whole Christ on whole man But this I grant For in sprinkling the baptized are under water as well as in plunging for the Minister holds the water over the baptized and so the baptized is wholly under it when as in plunging them into the water it may be some part of them was not wholly under it And besides when the Minister holds the water over them it is all one as to put them under it when as it may be the Anabaptists wade in and put themselves half under flat against their own Tenet And then they grant that the putting the other half into the water is a putting on whole Christ Then by the same Argument by sprinkling one part Christ may be wholly put on as well as by their practise and the Jews by circumcising one part they were circumcised all over and so put on whole Christ Again although it be said Baptism saves it is not by the outward washing because every part of the body was washed but rather by the answer of a good conscience But this is not done by Burial but rather by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Peter 3.21 Thirdly Then he said that John Dipped in Jordan but I may as well say he Sprinkled in Jordan for he saith I indeed baptize with water Matth. 3.11 But the word with is not always in there there was with the Angel a multitude Luke 1.13 I hope you will not say they were in the Angel and if I were with you I hope you would not say that I were in you So then to baptize with water may be by sprinkling the baptized and not by plunging them into the water and to put in for with is as bad a mistake as that of the Prelates who would bow at the Name of Jesus instead of In the Name of Jesus from that place Phil. 2.10 So you will baptize with the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost instead of in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Because to baptize with water you will have it all one as to be baptized in the water by plunging the baptized under or into the water Fourthly Then he said If Christ command to dip then sprinkling is but a gresse invention of man but then he did not prove that Christ did onely command to dip and not to sprinkle but to baptize which signifies both Then we may sprinkle the baptized with as good if not better warrant then they may plunge them into the water Fifthly Suppose they say Christ came out of the water Matth. 3 16. And it is said Philip and the Eunuch went both into the water Acts 8 3â— Hence they conclude That the Baptized ought to be plunged into the water I answer If they waded into the water then they were not plunged into it Neither is it said that either Christ or the Eunuch were plunged into the water neither doth their going into the water hinder but they may be sprinkled for in those hot Countreys they went bare-foot and it is likely they went in some distance from the side that they might come at clear water and then both John and Philip might sprinkle them In the Name of the Trinity And I think the Anabaptists have nothing to say from Scripture or Reason against it I shall here conclude with one Quere which is this If our Ministers be lawfully sent and authorized from Christ and the Presbytery to Preach and Baptize and they do administer this Ordinance of Baptism in the right Form In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and with the right Matter being Water and on the right Parties being either men of yeers when they are converted to the Christian Religion or to Infants born of Christians and to the right end which is to distinguish them from Turks and Infidels and as an engagement to us all to go on in obedience of the true Christian Religion And lastly That Christ should ratifie that outward Form of Baptism according as John the Baptist foretold and baptized them with the Holy Ghost I would know this of the Anabaptists how they dare to renounce this outward Form of Baptism thus rightly administred in our Church and ratified by the Holy Ghost and all because it was done upon them when they were Infants therefore the very Baptism of the Holy Ghost despised or it may be because they were not plunged into the water Therefore the outward Form and the inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost is despised of them when as they may see the vanity of plunging by 〈◊〉 forementioned Arguments against it But will they cast away 〈◊〉 outward and inward Seal and Token of the Covenant when 〈◊〉 by persons lawfully called to do it who do it in the right Form on the right Parties with the right Matter and to the right end and all 〈◊〉 confirmed by the Holy Ghost as by a faithful witnesse that cannot â—e But will they dispise the Baptism of the Holy Ghost because it was doâ—â— upon Infants or because they were sprinkled and not plunged into the water And so like Witches renounce the Covenant of Grace and 〈◊〉 away both the outward and inward Seals of it when they enter into Covenant with the Divel so these people it is to be feared many of them do commit that unpardonable sin when they turn Anabaptists despising and trampling under feet the Spirit of God whereby they should be Sâ—â—led to the day of Redemption For commonly they go on in a final 〈◊〉 and not one of Ten thousand ever returns yea many of them in these days are ran so far from God that they do not beleeve that there is either God or Devil Heaven or Hell Church of Grace or Glory Thus they are now faln to notorious Atheism calling themselves Seckers of the forementioned things which for the present they have lost FINIS