have baptized you with water and he will baptize you with the holy Ghost And in the 19. of the Rev. 21. ver it is in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is word for word they were slain in the sword yet must it be translated they were slain with the sword not in the sword Notwithstanding I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptisme of men especially in the hotter climates hath been is and may lawfully be used yet there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging but only washing in the river But the question is whether no other baptizing is lawfull or whether dipping in rivers be so necessarie to baptisme 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 yet were they not dipt into it tables and beds are said in the originall to be baptized that is washed yet not dipt The Israelites in the wildernesse were baptized with the cloud yet not dipt into it the children of Zebedee were to be baptized with the baptisme of blood wherewith our Saviour was baptized yet neither he nor they were dipt into blood Lastly all the fathers speak of the baptisme of tears wherewith all penitents are washed yet there is no dipping in such a baptisme As for the representation of the death and resurrection that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptisme but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration and cleansing us from our sins However in the manner of baptisme as it is administred in the church of England there is a resemblance of death and the resurrection For though the child he not alwayes dipped into the water as the rubrick prescribeth save only in case of necessitie which would be dangerous in cold weather especially if the child be weak and sickly yet the Minister dippeth his hand into the water and plucketh it out when he baptizeth the infant The second error of the Anabaptists which A. R. strenuously propugneth is their decrying down paedo baptisme and with-holding Christs lambs from being bathed in the sacred Font. This foul error or rather heresie for it is condemned for such both by the primitive and the reformed churches he endeavoureth to blanch in part if not to quite clear from all aspersion and justifie by four arguments which I will propound in his own words that he may not say I shoot his arrows without their heads the first I find p. 27. PART I. The administration of baptisme which hath no expresse command in Scripture and which overthrows or prevents that administration of baptisme which is expressely commanded in Scripture is a meer device of mans brain and no baptisme of Christ. But the administration of baptisme upon infants hath no expresse command in Scripture and it overthrows or prevents the administration of baptisme upon disciples or beleevers which is expressely commanded in Scripture Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 16. Ioh. 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 38. and 8. 37. Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is a meer device of mans brain and no baptisme of Christ. This argument stands as it were upon two legs and both of them are lame the one is that nothing may be done in the worship of God without expresse command in Scripture This is an ignorant and erroneous assertion For first there is no expresse precept in Scripture for beleeving and acknowledging in terminis three Persons in the unitie of the deitie and yet Athanasius faith in his Creed that whosoever beleeveth not and worshipeth not the Trinitie in unitie and unitie in Trinitie shall perish everlastingly Secondly there is no expresse command in Scripture to confesse the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son tanquam distinctis personis yet it is not only an article of religion in the church of England but also set down in the confession of the Anabaptists lately printed Thirdly there is no expresse precept for the abrogating of the Jewish sabbath and religious observing the Christian yet no Anabaptists hold themselvs bound to keep holy the Saturday or Jewish sabbath neither have they yet to my knowledge oppugned the observation of the Lords day Fourthly there is no expresse precept in Scripture for womens receiving the sacrament of the Lords Supper For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup is a common name to both sexes yet the Apostle useth the masculine article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so there is no expresse command but for men yet no sectaries upon record no not the Anabaptists themselvs exclude women from the holy Communion Fifthly there is no expresse precept for re-baptizing those who in their infancie were baptized by a lawfull minister according to the form prescribed by our Saviour in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost nay rather there is an expresse prohibition in the words of the Apostle one faith one baptisme and in that clause of the Nicen Creed I beleeve one baptisme for the remission of sins yet re-baptizing is a prime article of the faith of this sect from whence they take their very name of Anabaptists that is re-baptizers If A. R. here will stretch expresse precept to any thing that is commanded in Scripture either immediatly or mediatly either in particular or in generall either in plain or direct tearms or in the true sense of the text so I grant all the four former orthodox tenets may be proved by Scripture And so also I have before proved the lawfulnesse of baptizing children though there be no expresse Scripture for it intormini◠The other leg also upon which his argument standeth is as lame as the former For the baptisme of infants no way over-throws or prevents the baptizing of any disciples or beleevers instructed in the mysteries of salvation of whom the texts alledged are meant but there-baptizing of such who were before baptized in their infancie which re-baptizing is no where commanded in Scriptures and as if all nations were converted to the Christian faith there needed no more conversion so if all were admitted to the church by baptisme in their infancie they should need no other admission by re-baptizing them but there will be alwayes some to be converted till the fulnesse of the Iews and Gentiles also is come in and till then there will be use of that precept of our Saviour Mat. 28. Go teach all nations baptizing them the second Argument of his against paedo-baptisme PART 2. The second I find p. 20. If they ground the baptizing children from
the institution of circumcision then they ought to observe it in everie thing and baptize males only and that precisely on the eighth day ANSWER This argument is fallacious and childish called in the schools fallacia accidentis as when a Sophister argueth on this wise If thou didst eat that which thou boughtest in the market thou didst eat raw flesh but thou confessest thou didst eat what thou bought'st therefore by thine own confession thou didst eat raw flesh The argument is captious and fallacious wherein the Sophister subtily argueth from the subject to the accident from the substance to the circumstance it is true he ate what he bought in substance or kind were it flesh or fish but not in what qualitie or condition he bought it for he bought it raw he are it rost or boyl'd in like manner M. Bradbourn fallaciously argued before the High Commission for the observation of the Saturday or Jewish sabbath What the Iews were commanded in the â—ourth commandement that we Christians are bound to perform But the Iews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the Creation therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day In this syllogisme as the former there is fallacia accidentis For the Sophister as I noted before argueth from the substance to the circumstance from the same day specie to the same day numero in the week It is true we Christians are bound by vertue of that command to appoynt a certain day for the publike service of God and no lesse then one in seven or a seventh day every week yet are we not bound precisely to keep that seventh day viz. from the Creation which they did The Quartodecimani used a like Sophisme if our Easter succeed the Jewish passe-over then we ought to keep the fourteenth day precisely as the Iews do But our Christian Easter doth succeed the Jewish passe-over therefore Christians ought to keep their feast of Easter precisely on the fourth day of the month whether it fell on the first day of the week or not In like manner A. R. argueth If baptisme succeed circumcision then all children ought to be baptized on the eighth day this will not follow no more then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where they were circumcised The answer is very easie the one sacrament is to succeed the other in substance but not in each circumstance their circumcision was expressely confined to the males and to the eighth day so is not baptisme Only it will follow that because circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof or could receive the sacrament without danger therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may And this is agreeable to the resolution of S. Cypr. 1400. years ago in his Epistle to Fidus and of a Councell held at Africk in his dayes The third argument I find p. 25. None may be warrantably baptized untill they do manifest and declare their faith by profession thereof this is apparant by the doctrine and practise First of Iohn Mat. 3. 6. 89. Mar. 1. 4. Secondly of Christ and his Apostles Ioh. 3. 22. compared with the 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 20. 41. and 8. 36. 37. and thirdly by the tenor of the commission Mat. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 15. 16. ANSWER Though the sinews of this Argument have been cut before and the texts alledged answered yet for the further satisfaction of the reader I further adde First that none are required to manifest and declare their faith before baptisme but such who have been taught and have use both of reason and speech For the rule of the schools nemo tenetur ad impossibile holdeth in all sacramentall acts as well as others neither can they hence infer that children therefore ought not to be baptized because they can make no declaration of their faith no more then it will follow that children ought not to eat because they cannot labour for their living For though the Apostles rule be generall Let him not eat that will not labour yet all agree it must be understood of such as are able to labour so likewise all the texts of Scripture which require confession of faith must be understood of such who have the use of reason and of the tongue wherewith they may confesse Secondly children make profession of their faith and repentance both at their baptisme by their sureties and if they live to years of discretion in their own persons PART 2. The last argument I find p. 30. The administration of baptisme which over-throws the vese nature of the covenant of grace and whole Gospell of Christ is Anti-christian and abominable But the administration of baptisme upon infants doth so because it stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenat by naturall generation only or by the meer profession of faith in the parents or sureties without faith in their own persons whereby faith is made void and the promise which is the Gospell and object of faith is also made of none effect and so the preaching thereof becomes uselesse and vain also Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is Anti-christian and abominable ANSWER Here is thunder without lightning thundering in the conclusion the baptisme of infants is anti-christian abominable but no lightning in the premises no proof at all that the christening children overthroweth the nature of the covenant of grace the whole Gospell of Christ. For that which is built upon the covenant of grace to wit I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and is nothing else but the setling to the seal of the covenant of grace upon pre-supposition of faith present or future in the person of him that is baptized can be no over-throwing of that covenant but a confirmation and establishing it rather If we taught that children were heirs of the covenant by the law then as the Apostle teacheth us we should make faith void and the promise of none effect But now sith we teach that Abraham the father of the faithfull and all his seed are heirs of the kingdom of heaven not through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith we confirm the covenant of faith and in the christening of children accomplish the promise Act. 2. 39. The promise is to you and your children and to those that are afar off and to as many as the Lord shall call by the ministerie of the Gospell into his church Yea but saith he the administration of baptisme upon infants stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenant by naturall generation only or by the meer profession of faith in their parents and sureties without faith in their persons This is a false charge we teach no such thing but that children have interest in the covenant by vertue of Gods promise above mentioned and not without faith in their own persons as without may signifie the
given this power to the church yet some particular men in the church ought to execute this power of ordination The issue of the conference was first the Knights Ladies and Gentlemen gave the Doctor great thanks secondly three of the Anabaptists went away discontented the fourth seemed in part satisfied desired a second meeting but the next day conferring with the rest of that sect he altered his resolution and neither he nor any of that sect ever since that day troubled the Doctor or any other Minister in the Borough with any second chalenge Finis Additions to the former Conference IN the conference above mentioned D. F. promised to prove the baptisme of children 1. By scripture 2. By consent of the universall church And 3. by evident reason And the arguments drawn from the first head he prosecuted but was not permitted at that time to urge the arguments drawn from the second and third heads yet because they were desired by some persons of note it was thought fit they should be added to the former Next to the arguments drawn from expresse testimony of scripture for the baptisme of children we have a most forcible argument drawn from the consent of the universall church testified by their constant practise of admitting children to baptisme even from the Apostles dayes unto this present This argument if it be well weighed is of very great moment and may convince the conscience of any ingenuous Christian. For no Christian doubteth but that the Apostles were inspired by the holy Ghost and Christ promised his spirit to lead his church into all truth which promise he hath hitherto made good in such sort that it cannot be proved that ever the whole church of Christ unversally erred it is true particular churches have erred and may erre and generall councels which the schools tearm the representative church are subject to error and have sometimes decreed heresie and false-hood for truth but the formall church as they speak that is all the assemblies of Christians in the world cannot be impeached with error at any time whence I thus frame my argument That which the Apostles in their dayes began and the whole christian church scattered over the face of the whole earth hath continued in all ages and all countries where christianity hath been and is professed cannot be an erroneous practise But the catholike christian church in all places and ages even from the Apostles times hath admitted the children of faithfull parents to holy baptisme Ergo the practise of christening children cannot be erroneous or unwarrantable as the Anabaptists teach The major or first proposition is already sufficiently proved the minor or second proposition is proved by the testimony of Origen for the Greek church and S. Austin for the Latine and the Ecclesiasticall stories in all ages Origen in his Commentarie upon the sixt chapter of St. Paul to the Romans having alledged the words of the prophet David Psal. 51. 5. I was born in iniquity and in sin hath my mother conceived me addeth proper hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit parvulis dare baptismum for this reason namely because all are conceived in sin the church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to administer baptisme to little infants And St. Austine l. 10. de genesi ad literam c. 23. Consuetudo matris ecclesie in baptizandis parvulis non spernenda est nec omnino credenda esset nisi Apostolica esset traditio the custome of our mother the church in baptizing infants is no way to be sleighted or rejected neither were it at all to be beleeved if it were not an Apostolicall tradition As for the continuance continuance of it the hystorie of all ages of the church confirms it neither can there be brought an instance in any Christian church in the world that denyed baptisme to children til this sect arose in Germany since the reformation began there in the dayes of Henry the eight After the testimonies of scriptures and the practise of the catholike church we have a third proof drawn from evidence of Reason against which if it be excepted that the eye of reason in matter of faith is but dim and therefore that such arguments are no way convincing I answer that it is true that such arguments drawn from reason as have no other ground but philosophicall axioms or sensible experiments are of little force in matter of faith which is above reason but such reasons as have ground and foundation in scripture and are firmly built upon those foundations are of exceeding great force and such are those I purpose to alledge First where the disease is there ought the remedy to be applied But the disease to wit originall sin is in children as well as men For all have sinned in Adam Rom. 5. 12. and are by nature the children of wrath Ephesi 2. 3. Ergo the remedy which is baptisme ought to be applied to children as well as men Secondly those who are comprised within the covenant of grace ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme For to them appertain both the promises of the new testament and the seal thereof which is baptisme But the children of the faithfull are comprised within the covenant of grace Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee for an everlasting covenant Ergo children ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme Thirdly no means of salvation ought to be denyed to the children of the faithfull whereof they are capable But baptisme is an outward means of salvation whereof children are capable under the gospel as well as the children of the Jews were capable of circumcision under the law Ergo baptisme ought not to be denied to children Fourthly all those who receive the thing signified by baptisme ought to receive the outward sign It is the argument of St. Peter Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we But the children of the faithfull receive the thing signified by baptisme to wit regeneration and remission of sins Ergo they ought to receive the sign to wit the baptisme of water The proposition or major is proved alreadie the assumption or minor is thus proved Christ bad children come to him and he blessed them and said of such is the kingdom of God Mar. 10. 16. and that their Angels continually behold his Fathers face in heaven Mat. 18. 10. and unlesse the Anabaptists will grant that children are regenerated and receive remission of sins they must needs hold that all children are damned which is a most uncharitable and damnable assertion The ANABAPTISTS Objection Yea but the Anabaptists object Mat. 28. 18. Go teach all nations baptizing them Whence they would infer that none are to be baptized but those to whom the gospel hath before bin preached consequently that children ought not to be
Apostles without a precept doth not necessarily binde the Church as may be proved by many instances for Christ washed his disciples feet before his supper and he administred it at night and to twelve men onely and no women yet we are not bound so to do In the Apostles dayes widows were maintained to serve the Church at the publike charge yet we are not bound to have such Likewise the first Christians sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men and lived together and had all things common Acts 2. 44. yet are not we obliged so to do Secondly The reason is not alike at the beginning Christians had no Churches nor Fonts in them and therefore they were constrained to Baptize in such places where were store of waters besides the climat of Iudea is far better then ours and men in riper yeers that were converted to the Christian Faith were Baptized in great multitudes and they might without any danger go into the Rivers and be Baptized after such a manner but now the Gospel having been long planted in these parts we have seldome any Baptized but children who cannot without danger to their health be Dipt and plunged over head and ears in the Font or Rivers especially if they be infirm children and the season very cold and the air sharp and piercing Lastly They urge the custome of many ancient Churches in which a three-fold Dipping was used and if they Dipt those that were Baptized three times it should seem they thought Dipping very necessary But we answere First that what those Ancients did they had no precept for it and if they follow some of the Ancients in Dipping the Baptized why do they not follow the example of all the ancient Churches in Christening children Secondly Those ancient Churches which used the trina immeâ—sio they speak of did it for this end To expresse the three Persons which may as well be done by thrice sprinkling or washing the Baptized as well as thrice Dipping But the truth is that neither is requisite because the Trinity is sufficiently expressed in the very form of Baptisme when the Minister saith I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost Thirdly We answer with the Apostle That though some of the Ancients had such a custome for a time yet now we have no such custome neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11. 16. ARTICLE II. Concerning the baptizing of children ANABAPTIST NOne ought to be Baptized but those that professe repentance and faith and consequently no children ought to be Christened THE REFUTATION The children of such parents as professe Christian religion and are members of the visible church sith they are comprised within Gods covenant made to the faithfull children of Abraham and their seed may and ought to receive the seal of that covenant which was Circumcision under the law but now is Baptisme which I prove ARGUMENT I. That which extends to all nations belongeth to children as well as men for children are a great part if not the half of all nations But Christs command of Baptizing extendeth to all nations Matth. 28. 19. Go therefore teach all nations baptizing them and Mark 15. 16. Preach the Gospel to every creature he that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Ergo Christs command of Baptizing belongeth to children and they ought to be baptized as well as men ANABAPTISTS ANSWER Christs command extends onely to such as are capable of teaching and instruction which children in their infancy are not for Christ saith Teach all uations baptizing them REPLY First the words of onr Saviour are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is make disciples and though children in their non-age cannot be taught yet they may be made Christs disciples by being admitted into his school their parents giving their names to Christ both for themselves and their families And in Christs precept teaching doth not goe before but follow Baptizing ver 20. teaching them to observe all things c. which is punctually observed in the children of the faithfull who after they are Baptized when they come to yeers of discretion are taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded Secondly Though children in their infancy are not capable of teaching or instruction because therein they must be active both by apprehending what is delivered to them and assenting to the truth thereof yet are they capable of Baptisme wherein they are meerly passive being washed in the Name of the Trinity prayed for and blessed and received into Christs congregation this may fitly be illustrated by Circumcision which by the command of God was to be administred to children at the eighth day though then they were no way capable of teaching or instruction in the Spirituall meaning of that outward signe made in their flesh and our Argument drawn from the analogie of Baptisme and Circumcision may be truly called in regard of the Anabaptists pons asinorum a bridge which these asses could never passe over for to this day they could never not hereafter will be able to yeeld a reason why the children of the faithfull under the Gospel are not as capable of Baptisme as they under the Law of Circumcision If they alleadge that these cannot be taught being but sucklings neither could they If they alleadge that these know not what is done unto them nor have any sense at all of the Sacrament neither had they save that they felt the pain of the knife as these do the coldnesse of the water and often shed tears at their Christening as the others did at their Circumcising If it be further said That they were of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh it may be truly rejoyned that these are of the seed of Abraham according to promise and his children as he is the father of the faithfull and so they have the better title of the two Thirdly It is no way safe to defer Baptisme till riper yeers for by this means millions of children might go out of this world without the ordinary means of their salvation which were an unsufferable if not a damnable abuse for though we like not of that rigid opinion of the schools ascribed to S. Augustine who in that regard was stiled durus pater infantum that children dying unbaptized are necessarily damned yet we must take heed of declining to the other extream in denying Baptisme to be the ordinary means of salvation for them and thereby slighting our Lords precept It is true God is not tied to his own Ordinance he may and in charitie we beleeve doth save thousands of the children of the faithfull who are still-born or dye before baptisme neither will he punish the child for that which it is no way guiltie of yet Gods ordinance ties us and the parents and governours are guiltie of a hainous crime before God who in contempt of Christs command or
like that it be a certain and constant one from which the Pastors of the Church may in no wise depart or varie ARGUMENT V. Those prayers which all in the kingdome are perpetually bound to use ought to be approved by the whole church or kingdome for such prayers especially ought to be made in faith and care taken that nothing be in them repugnant to sound doctrine But such prayers cannot be ex tempore ejaculations or sudden conceptions of every private Pastors brain opinion or fansie Ergo they must be penned forms examined by Gods word and publiquely printed that all may know what they are and may confidently goe along with the Minister and without any scruple of conscience say Amen to the prayers which they cannot doe to such unwarranted immethodicall inconsequent nay hereticall schismaticall and seditious prayers as many of our ex tempore Enthusiasts deliver especially on fast-dayes with infinitie of tautologies and vain repetitions to the great scorn and scandall of our religion ARGUMENT VI. There ought to be publique prayers not only on the Lords day but on the week-dayes also upon speciall occasion in every church or congregation of the saints for prayer is the Christians dayly sacrifice from which those houses of God ought to take their denomination domus mea domus orationis vocabitur my house shall be called the house of prayer domus orationis non orationum not a house of sermons though such there to be made nor a house of sacraments though there to be administred nor a house of Psalmes though there to be sung but a house of prayer as the principall and chief and most necessarie dutie there to be performed prayer may be without the other the other cannot be without it But such prayers can be no other in most churches then set forms devised by the learned of the Clergie and approved by the State for there is not one Minister or Curate of a hundred especially in countrey villages or parochiall churches who hath any tolerable gift of conceived as they tearm them or ex tempore prayers Ergo there ought to be set forms of prayer used in publique congregations ARGUMENT VII No man prayeth as he ought who poureth not out his whole soul before God praying as well with an entire intention as affection But this a man cannot doe who maketh a prolix ex tempore prayer in a publique congregation by reason that he must at the same time both think upon what he speaketh and invent also what he is to speak in order and with good coherence unlesse he will pray absurdly and inconsequently Ergo no man prayeth as he ought who comes not with a set or premeditated form of prayer into a publique congregation ARGUMENT VIII Not to speak of sudden ejaculations which necessitie forceth or excuseth nor of prayers in extasies and raptures in which an elevated soul is rather passive then active In all ordinarie prayers which we are to offer to God in the usuall and constant course of our Ministerie we must be carefull to shun all temeritie and rashnesse and watch in prayer with all diligence The pure oyle Olive of the Sanctuarie was to be beaten by Gods appointment Exod. 27. 20. and the Virgins were to trim their lights Mat. 25. 7. before they went out to meet the Bride-groome and God himself rejected the blind and the lame for sacrifices None presumeth to put up a petition to the king which is not carefully perused before and shall we lesse reverence the King of heaven then an earthly prince But temeritie and rashnesse cannot be avoided by such who speak to God quicquid in buccam venerit and presume to deliver that in a publique assembly which they never thought on before Ergo all such ex tempore prayers ought to be forborn in publique and the set forms of the Church retained or some in stead of them composed with publique approbation Anabaptists Objections In excepting against all set or stinted â—orms of prayer aspis a vipera sumit venenum according to the Latin proverb the asp borroweth poyson from the viper that is the Anabaptists from the Brownists who may rightly be tearmed a generation of vipers because they after the manner of vipers make way to their separation or going out from the Body of their Mother the Church of England by eating and rearing her bowels Out of their own store the Anabaptists furnish themselves with arguments against all set forms of prayer in generall but they are beholding to the Brownists for all such objections as they make against the publique forms of prayer used in the Church of England in particular For the more distinct handling of the objections being somewhat of a different nature and for the ease of the reader that he may more readily find a particular and punctuall solution to any such speciall objections as most stick with him I will first propound their main arguments against set forms in generall and both answer them and retort them and then particularly scan what they seem materially to object against the Service-book established by law in the Church of England OBJECTIONS against set forms of Prayer in generall OBJECT 1. No worship devised by man is acceptable to God Set forms of prayer are a worship devised by man Ergo set forms of prayer are not acceptable to God ANSWER First a worship of God devised by man may be taken in a double sense either for a worship wholly devised by man without any precept or president in scripture and such a worship is not agreeable unto God but condemned in his word under the name of will-worship or for a worship in substance prescribed by God but in some circumstance manner or help thereunto devised or composed by man and such may be and is acceptable unto God as for example reading scripture is a religious act prescribed by God yet the translation of the originall into the mother-tongue divisions of the text into chapters and verses diverse readings interlinearie glosses together with the contents and fitting them to the times and seasons are from man Preaching is a worship of God yet the choyse of such a text dividing it into parts and handling the parts in such a method raysing doctrines and applying Uses from them are from man or acts wherein the Preacher maketh use of his invention art and judgement Catechizing is a dutie enjoyned by God yet to use such a form of words or method in Catechizing by questions and answers as also the dividing the Catechisme into 52. Sections answerable to the Sundayes in the year as we see in Calvins and other Catechismes is a device and invention of man In like manner prayer is a dutie enjoyned by God and a part of his substantiall worship but the set forms are devised by man yet according to generall rules prescribed in scripture Secondly not only prayer it self but even set forms of prayer have both precept and example in Gods
of the Gospel both by the Law of God and by the Law of nature vers 7. Who goeth a warfare on his own charge who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock and vers 13. Doe ye not know that those that minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they that wait at the Altar be partakers with the Altar even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel He saith not God permitteth or alloweth of it but ordaineth and commandeth it And lest these two strings should not be strong enough to keepe the bow still bent he addeth a third to wit an Apostolical injunction let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things Moreover when we read that Abraham and Iacob gave tithes I demand by what Law whether by the Law of nature or the Leviticall or Evangelicall not by vertue of the Leviticall for that Law was not then enacted and by that Law Levi was to receive not pay tithes Yet Levi himselfe in Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech if they paid it by the Law of nature that bindeth all men if by the Evangelicall Law it bindeth all Christians to pay their tithes towards the maintenance of Melchisedechs Priesthood which endureth for ever And Saint Austine fearfully upon this ground threatneth all those who refuse willingly to pay their tithes that God would reduce them to a tithe and blast all the nine parts of their estate Thirdly I except against the thirty ninth Article viz. that baptisme is an ordinance of the new Testament given by Christ to be dispensed only upon persons professing Faith or that are disciples or taught who upon a profession of Faith ought to be baptized Here they lispe not but speak out plaine their Anabaptisticall doctrine whereby they exclude all the children of the faithfull from the sacrament of entrance into the Church and the only outward meanes of their salvation in that state but the best of their proofes fall short the word only which only can prove this their assertion is not found in any of the texts alledged in the margent nor can the sense of it be collected from thence For though it is most true and evident in the letter of those texts that all Nations that are to be converted and all men in them of yeers of discretion that have been taught the principles of Religion ought to make profession of their Faith before they are baptized as all that came to mens estate among the Jews or proselytes ought both to know and to give their assent to the covenant before they received the seal thereof to wit circumcision yet no such thing was or could be required of children who notwithstanding were circumcised the eight day so by the judgement of all the Christian Churches in the world the children of beleevers who are comprised in the letter of the covenant may receive the seal thereof to wit baptisme though they cannot make profession of their Faith by themselves for the present but others make it for them and in their stead the affirmative is true that all that make profession of their Faith and testifie their unfained repentance are to be baptized but the negative is most false that none are to be baptized who have not before made such profession of their Faith when by reason of their infancie they are not capable to be taught But this hereticall assertion is at large resu'ed by manifold Arguments drawne from Scripture Fathers and reason and all their cavils and evasions exploded Article 2. to which I refer the Reader Fourthly I except against the fortieth Article viz. The way and manner of dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water it being a signe must answer the things signified which are these 1. The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ 2. That interest the Saints have in the death buriall and resurrection of Christ 3. Together with a confirmation of our Faith that as certainly as the body is buried under water and riseth again so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of the resurrection to reigne with Christ. This Article is wholly sowred with the new leaven of Anabaptisme I say the new leaven for it cannot be proved that any of the ancient Anabaptists maintained any such position there being three wayes of baptizing either by dipping or washing or sprinkling to which the Scripture alludeth in sundry places the Sacrament is rightly administred by any of the three and whatsoever is here alleadged for dipping we approve of so far as it excludeth not the other two Dipping may be and hath been used in some places trina immersio a threefold dipping but there is no necessity of it it is not essentiall to Baptisme neither doe the Texts in the margent conclude any such thing It is true Iohn baptized Christ in Iordan and Philip baptized the Eunuch in the river but the Text saith not that either the Eunuch or Christ himselfe or any baptized by Iohn or his Disciples or any of Christs Disciples were dipped plunged or dowsed over head and eares as this Article implyeth and our Anabaptists now practise Againe the bare example of Christ and his Apostles without a precept doth not bind the Church and precept there is none for dipping it is certaine Christ and his Apostles celebrated the Communion after Supper and in unleavened bread and with such a gesture as was then in use among the Jewes yet because there is no precept in the Gospell for these things no Christian Church at this day precisely observeth those circumstances and therefore dato non concesso that Christ and Saint Iohn or their Disciples used dipping in Baptisme it will not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner Besides it ought to be noted that in the beginning Christians had no Churches nor Fonts in them and there being many hundreds nay thousands often to be baptized together there was a kind of necessity that this Sacrament should be administred in rivers or such places where were store of waters as there were in Enon neare Salem where John baptized But now the Church hath better provided there being Christian Oratories every where and Fonts in them most convenient for this purpose whereunto I shall need to adde here no more having fully handled this point both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the discussion of the first Article Fiftly I except against the 41. Article viz. The persons designed by Christ to dispence this ordinance the Scripture hold forth to be a preaching Disciple it being no where tyed to a particular Church Officer or Person If the eye be