Pennance Extream Vnction Orders of which there are seven viz. Priests Deacons Sub-deacons Acolytes Exorcists Lectors or Readers Ostiaries or Door-keepers and Matrimony God is to be invocated and Religiously worshipped Yea and the Images of God also Crosses Crucifixes Altars Angels Saints with their Reliques and Images Christ is the Head of the Church And the Pope also Christ is our Mediator and Advocate So are the Angels and Saints likewise Christ was conceived without original sin And the Virgin Mary also Christ was once sacrificed on the Cross for the Redemption of the world Christ is dayly offered up in Mass a propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of quick and dead We are saved by the merits of Christ And also by the merits of the Saints We are justified by Faith And by hope love fear of God good works which merit Salvation All the words and actions which Scripture records to be used by Christ in the celebration of the Supper are to be used by us also The sacred Hoast must also be elevated adored reserved carried in solemn procession Christ is truly present in the Eucharist Christ is corporally present by Transubstantiation and may be received into the mouths of wicked men yea of Rats and Mice There are two places for the Souls of such as depart hence And two besides viz. Purgatory and Limbus Infantum The three Creeds commonly called the Creed of the Apostles of the Nicene Councel and of Athanasius are to be received and beleeved And Pope Pius his Creed also or his additions to the Nicene Creed are also to be received and beleeved These and the like positive Points of the Reformed Religion whereof I omit sundry are truly and properly Catholique for in them not only Papists but in a manner all Christians in the world concur with us but in your Additions you stand single and have multitudes of Christians in the Eastern and Western Churches dissenting from you 2. Peruse the Book of nine and thirty Articles the Homilies Leiturgy and Catechisms or the late Directory Confession of Faith or Catechisms larger or shorter and find if you can the Doctrine of our Church contrary to any one Article of those several Creeds which in the first six hundred years were Badges of Catholique Profession or produce any one of those Articles to which we do not willingly subscribe 3. Though the ancient Church did undoubtedly beleeve and profess all that was necessary to Salvation yet there is not one Creed of General or National Counced particular Church or Father within a thousand or twelve hundred years after Christ in which the Articles of Pope Pius his Creed were imposed as now they are for Articles of Faith necessary to be beleeved unto Salvation 4. The Church of God as might be proved by Scriptures or Fathers if it were not acknowledged by your own Authors cannot make a new Article of Faith nor any addition to the Creed save by way of Explication of that which was formerly upon Scripture grounds beleeved and professed But these additions of yours were not beleeved if you should say that they were beleeved implicitely this suppose it true would take away the Visibility of the Profession thereof by the Ancient Caâ—holique and Apostolique Church 5. None of your side hitherto hath or hereafter can produce any one visible Church which in the Apostolique and in all succeeding Ages did approve and use Communion in one kind Private Mass Prayer in an unknown Tongue Image-worship Pardons Indulgences which beleeved the Popes Infallibility his Superiority over General Councels his temporal Authority over Kings and Emperors to depose them and dispose of their Dominions the necessity of auricular Confession the determinate number of seven Sacraments Purgatory and the Popes Power to deliver Souls from thence which forbade Lay-men without a special dispensation to read the Scriptures or Priests to marry c. 6. Nay you cannot name any one person in each several Age out of whose words or writings notwithstanding there were sundry Creeds Confessions of Faith Catechisms Sermons or Homilies Summaries of Christian Doctrine the aforesaid particular Points of Popery may be collected descending from the age of Christ to the days of Luther 7. Nay you cannot name any one Father or Catholique Writer for twelve hundred years after Christ that did hold all those Tenets which are now taught by the Romish Church and authorized by the Trent Councel 8. None of your side hath or can prove that any of the Primitive Martyrs or Confessors suffered Death Banishment Torment Confiscation c. for the Popish Religion or any particular thereof in which they differ from the Church of England as Papal Supremacy Communion in one kind Image-worship c. 9. You cannot shew that any one Article of your Faith in which we dissent from you is Catholique according to Vincentius Lirinensis his Rules viz. which was Ancient in his time and in respect of the Arrian Heresie which he calls novellum dogma a novel tenet and that which you know that not unus aut duo tantum sed omnes c. not only one or two but all though living in several times and places have with one consent openly frequently constantly held written and taught 10. None of your side dare for shame affirm that Communion in both kinds Prayer in a known Tongue communion of Priest with people Lay-mens reading of the Scriptures Worship of God without Images Invocation of God without mediation of Saints or Angels and other the aforesaid affirmative and positive Doctrines were invented by Luther or that they are not in themselves so lawful and agreeable to the Scriptures and practise of the first six centuries of years as Communion in one kind Prayer in an unknown Tongue c. 11. There are few or no Points denyed or affirmed against us by you in which you vary not amongst your selves and if any of you will distinctly set down avoyding general and ambiguous terms what he thinketh to be the truth in any Question or Exposition of Scripture controverted betwixt us I verily beleeve I can name him another Papist new or old that saith the contrary Bellarmine doth obiter discover to the world above three hundred several Opinions of Papists and those only in and about the Points controverted between you and us and Navane mentions about sixty Dissentions of your Doctors in one only Point to wit Confession 12. I shall hold till herein I be convinced of Error by instance to the contrary that whatsoever titles are by the ancient Fathers given to the Eucharist whereby you would prove Transubstantiation Adoration Sacrifice c. the same phrases or some equivalent to them may be found in the Fathers concerning Baptism in which you confess there is neither Transubstantiation nor Sacrifice 13. Also that those glorious things which were spoken by them of the Bishops of Rome may be parallel'd by such as read them throughly with the like honorable mention of other Patriarchs and Bishops 14. Also
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having confessed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confessing their sins and it is not said they were baptized because they had repented but rather on the contrary that John's Baptism was a Baptism unto Repentance v. 11. This you know is consistent enough with Infant-Baptism As for Acts 2.38 it is probable that repentance to which notwithstanding their being pricked in their hearts v. 37. the Apostle exhorts was in them only in fieri before their Baptism for immediately after this Exhortation they were baptized and there could not be time to question three thousand in one day after Sermon which consisting of many main points must needs be long and three of the twelve hours of the day being spent before it begun v. 15. so as to make strict enquiry into and to take distinct notice of the repentance of each of them Of Mat. 28.19 Acts 2.38 and Mat. 3.6 more hereafter Suppose your Texts do shew that the Samaritans §. 3. the Eunuch the Jaylor the Corinthians and others which were then adult and formerly either of the Jewish or Heathenish Religion did believe or profess faith and repentance and were baptized that is nothing to Paedobaptists who never held that a Jew or Heathen should be baptized without profession of faith But grant further That actual Believers or Professors are indeed the primary and immediate subject of Baptism and in their own right and their children are but the secundary subject and may not be baptized but by a capacity derived unto them and at that time Christian Churches were but in gathering not gathered The foundation was not to be layd in Infants not in Infants only And the sacred story relating the manner of founding Churches hath not so much occasion to speak of the Baptism of Infants the secundary subject as of actual believers the primary God created the first man and woman of a perfect age though all their posterity were born Infants At first men of age were circumcised Gen. 17.24 with 14.14 and again after some intermission of that Ordinance Josh 5.4 And if any Nation had been Proselyted their men of age must first have been taught or discipled and have made profession of faith before they should have been circumcised though in the setled condition of the Jewish Church Child-circumcision was most in use If Believers and Penitents ought to be baptized will it thence follow that none but they only are to be baptized The rule is A proprio primo modo ad proprium secundo modo non valet argumentum All Crows are black therefore none but only Crows are black is no good argument If it were granted that Infant-Baptism cannot be proved by those Texts yet it will not follow that it cannot be proved by any other Texts Womens admission to the Supper though it cannot be proved by Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luk. 22. Christ admitting only men may notwithstanding be proved by other Scriptures Your notion That none are to be baptized but such as they were whose Baptism is mentioned Acts 8.12 37. 16.34 c. is by some further improved saying All those were such Believers as had been in person Jews or Heathens and therefore such only are to be baptized and those that have Christian Parents and were educated in Christianity from their childhood are not at least not by virtue of any of those Texts to be baptized at all neither in Infancy nor when they make Profession As they in their case so also you in your case are to blame to insert into your Answer the word only which you find in none of your Texts Our Scripture-grounds for Infant-Baptism you shall hear anon Chap. 10. ANABAPT CAT. Q. hat grounds have you against Infant-Baptism A. Many but chiefly Christs Commission Mat. 28.19 where the subjects of Baptism are those that are made Disciples and this Commission is to last to the Worlds end v. 20. and reacheth to every creature that is to partake of Baptism Mark 16.15 16. MAtth. 28.19 is not the first Commission for baptizing Examinat Cap. 2. §. 1. no more then for preaching John Baptist Mat. 3. and Christs Disciples Joh. 4.1 2. did baptize before this and had commission for it Joh. 1.33 Mat. 21.25 26. which Christ confirmed by his being baptized by John Mat. 3.13 Yea we have express Examples in Jewish Records of a Baptism See Mr Selden Dr Hammond Dr Lightfoot Mr Ainsworth Mr Tombes which was a Rite of initiation into the Jewish Church a concomitant of Circumcision if not ancienter So Jacob admitting the preserved Sechemites into communion all of age being women bad them be washed or baptized or cleansed by washing Gen. 35.2 which is the reason why a Jewish Proselyte is in Arrianus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a baptized person Hence the Jews did not question John's Baptism as a new and unusual Rite they were already well acquainted with it but his Authority to administer it Grotius on Mat. 3.6 conceives it was begun upon occasion and to preserve the memory of the purging of the World by the Deluge and that Peter 1 Pet. 3.21 signifies so much calling Baptism the Antitype and figure of it And the Infants of the Jews were thus admitted as well as the Proselyte for one Ordinance was for both Numb 15.15 And thus the Hebrew Doctors assert notwithstanding Mr T. to the contrary pretends that the Proselytes only were baptized because they were unclean That Israel as well as others entred into Covenant Males by three things viz. Circumcision Baptism and Offering Females only by the two last Now as Christ abolishing the Passover took the postcoenium or common custom used at the Passover of the Master of the Family his breaking a piece of bread and distributing it and a cup of wine amongst the company to be materials of the Lords Supper so he abolishing Circumcision and Offering advanced this ancient usual unquestionable concomitant of Circumcision and of initiation of Males Females Infants or others into the Church to be a Sacrament of the New Testament the use whereof and the persons to whom it should be administred being then ordinarily and commonly known the Scripture did not need to record the commission or warrant given to John or that the Jews had long before for their baptizing It was enough that there is not the least hint in the Word that Baptism when advanced to be a divine Sacrament of the New Testament should not be applyed to Infants as it was before Indeed when the Apostles Commission was to be enlarged to all Nations this being a new thing and rarely known or believed it was needful that it should be set down in terminis as it here is And yet this Gospel was not written till about eight years after the Ascension of Christ and other Gospels were writ some years after this the Jewish Church all this while being guided by the Old Testament and observing the Jewish lawful Rites and Customs and this of baptizing
16. cum Gen. 6.1 2. So Ishmael cast out and the Ishmaelites Gal. 4 30. Gen. 21.10 14. Psal 83.6 which last place mentions the Edomites also which were the posterity of Abraham yea all the twelve Tribes which were the seed of Abraham were cast off at the last and yet their being begotten after the flâ—sh and being circumcised in the flesh was an help not an hindrance to their being begotten of the Promise or to Circumcision in the Spirit Jacob was of Isaac and Rebecca after the flesh and yet also the heir of Promise And as then some were born only after the flesh as Ishmael Esau and some were also born after the spirit as Isaac Jacob So the Apostle looking not only to the Parallel but to the History saith So it is now some even in the time of the Gospel are born of Christian Parents only after the flesh and some also after the spirit and these do persecute one another Gal. 4.29 This difference may discover it self in riper years but in Infancy it is as undiscoverable now as then 3. It was not necessary that they should be the carnal seed of Abraham that were in Covenant-relation and initiated into the Church for Abraham was as to this not only the father of the Jews but of many Nations and upon this account his name was changed Gen. 17.4.5 Proselytes being Gentiles as well as we and not of his carnal seed nor many so much as of his family yet they were the seed of Abraham by believing as wel as we are now and they were not only initiated into the Church but those of them that were of Abrahams family were the foundationals and first members of the Church as constituted in Abrahams family his 318 trained servants besides others were not all if any of his carnal seed 4. As for the Infants of Believers which you separate from their Parents of which see before Chap. 3. § 3. and make them a fourth seed you know that Proselytes became Abrahams seed only by believing as you say we Gentiles now do and yet their children were accounted Abrahams seed though they be none of the three which you mention and as such were initiated into the Church Gen. 17.12 23. Exod. 12.48 49. In the same sence that Abraham was a father to a Proselyte or believing Gentile and his seed then he is a father to a Christian Gentile and his seed now for his Paternity abides the same nor can you shew a better warrant for his Paternity over the one then over the other nor have the Gentiles lost any priviledg by the coming of Christ which they had before The Scripture saith The Brethren now are the children of the Promise as Isaac was Gal. 4.28 Now Isaac was the seed of Abraham and in the Promise as an Infant of believing Parents before he was an actual Believer and his Infants waâ— within the Covenant and accordingly initiated into the Church Abraham might say God is my God and the God of my Infant seed and so might the Gentile proselyted say also and why may not a Christian who is blessed with faith-ful Abraham Gal. 3.9 say so too especially seeing Jesus Christ the Minister of Circumcision did not abrogate but confirm the Promises made unto the fathers and that the Gentiles might glorifie God for his Mercy c. Rom. 15.8 9. God alluding to the outward Circumcision of his people and their seed promiseth to circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed Deut. 30.6 and this promise is Gospel and a parcel of the Covenant of Grace as appears by Deut. 30.6 10 11 12. with Rom. 10.6 7 8. and this circumcision of the heart is commended Rom. 2.28 29. and is signified and sealed in Baptism Colos 2.11 12. It is observed that Gen. 17.7 speaks not of Abraham and his seed which you say are actual Believers abstractedly taken but of his seed in their generations which words necessarily imply and include as the Parents generating so the Children generated Lastly Abraham is not only called the father of particular Believers but the father of Nations professing the true faith as well as of the Jewish Nation Every Nation receiving the true Faith as they did and in which there is a National Agreement in Doctrine Worship Discipline as was in the Nation of the Jews is an holy Nation a peculiar people to the Lord even Egypt and Assyria with Israel and may call Abraham father Isai 19.21 Gen. 17.5 When the Gentiles were graffed into that stock from which the Jews were broken off and did partake of the root and fatness of the Olive tree Rom. 11.17 and Abraham began to be the father of many Nations Rom. 4.16 17. Regenerate Infants are Abrahams spiritual seed by Mr. T. his confession and he professeth that he would baptize them if he could know them I am sure no one dare say of this or that particular Infant that it is not regenerate yea we are bound to judg they are such till something appear to the contrary ANABAPT CAT. Q. But are not the children of godly persons visibly in the Covenant of Grace A. No the Covenant of Grace is an invisible thing and we cannot know who are in it nor have we grounds to judg persons are in it till we see some profession of holy life of faith and repentance which Infants cannot make NOt to speâ—k of such as are only intentionally in the Covenant of Grace as children yet unborn may be Examinat Cap. 8. § 1. Deut. 29.15 Those that are Actually in the Covenant of Grace are of two sorts Some are externally in it as Ishmael Judas Simon Magus and so all such as own God to be their God and themselves to be his people as the Jewish Church did and every true Christian Church doth though but externally are said to be within the Covenant Your self say that profession of faith and repentance are grounds to judg some persons to be in the Covenant of Grace There is external being in Christ Joh. 15.2 Vocation Mat. 22.14 Sanctification Heb. 10.29 and purging from sin 2 Pet. 1.9 But some are also internally and savingly in the Covenant of Grace as Isaac Jacob while Infants and when adult also Zacheus Lydia and her houshold the Jaylor and all his This distinction is grounded upon Rom. 9.4 6 7 8. We may know who is in the Covenant of Grace externally but the Covenant of Grace in the second sence is invisible and none could know who were in it in the time of the Jews though Infants were then visibly in it and initiated as such or amongst Christians If the invisibleness of the Covenant of Grace and our not knowing who are in it doth exclude Infants it doth also exclude adult Professors from admission into the Church for the signs of their being savingly in the Covenant of Grace are but conjectural hopeful and probable not certain and infallible none can be sure that he that makes profession at a
consisting of Females as well as Males were called the Circumcision in opposition of the Gentiles which were called Vncircumcision Gal. 2.7 8 9. Again It was not administred to reprobates as such not to every Male but to the Males of the Church externally in Covenant some whereof possibly were Reprobates So Simon Magus Judas Ananias and Sapphirah were baptized and yet it is at least likely that they were Reprobates Circumcision did belong to the Believer as well as Baptism doth those that were strangers to the Jewish Church could not be admitted but they must be Proselytes not of the gate only but of righteousness they must disclaim Paganism and profess the Jewish Religion A stranger continuing in his unbelief was not circumcised not did partake in the Passover Exod. 12.48 And by proportion that Text prohibiteth all such Jews as should forsake the faith See before Chap. 7. As for the change of the Church and Ordinances notwithstanding it the Lords-Day may succeed the Jewish Sabbath and those same persons which were bound to keep the Jewish Sabbath are tied to observe the Lords Day viz. servants and children as well as Parents and Masters though the persons be not so distinctly set down in the New Testament as in the Old Paul did use arguments from Analogy from the purging out of the old leaven at the Passover to the casting out of the incestuous from the Supper 1 Cor. 5. from the maintenance of the Priests to the maintenance of Ministers 1 Cor. 9.13 To argue à genere ad speciem affirmativè is not good reasoning The Church was changed therefore it was changed in this particular The Church might be changed and yet not in this the Sacrament may be changed and not the subject what belonged to the Jewish Church as a Church belongs to the Christian Church also that which belonged to it as Jewish was altered as High-Priest Temple Sacrifices Ceremonies c. Infants Church-membership did not belong to the Church as Iewish not was it a Ceremony or Type if you think it was shew what it was a type of and what was the antitype that hath succeeded it and prove it so you can There was a Church before there was an High-Priest Temple c. in the Families of Adam Noah and Sem which was alive in the time of Isaac Melchizedek surely had subjects and people which were the Church as well as he was a King and a Priest of the most high God This Church might continue long not be united to the Church in Abrahams family for ought we know whatsoever the extent of the Church was Domestical Congregational or National Infants are reckoned of the same Church with their Parents the Church before Christ and after Christ is the same Church as an Heir While in nonage and when adult is the same person The Jews that believed were never unchurched the Tree was not broken down but some branches broken off some additionals to the Church ceased the Church it self ceased not the partition Wall Was broken down and Iews and Gentiles made one Church Eph. 2.14 3.6 And when the wall was down were their Infants turned out of the Church at one door as the Gentiles came in at another was the Church so changed that it lost so many materials and was the Covenant of Grace changed too did it lose so many out of it Visible Professors and their Infants are alike in every age and there is nothing in them inconsistent with propriety in God or interest in the Covenant or the Seal thereof in one age more then in another Baptism is the seal of the Covenant now and may be administred to visible Professors and their children now as Circumcision was then if there should be any difference Reason would tell us considering the painfulness and peril of Circumcision Gen. 34.25 and the easiness of Baptism That only grown men should have been circumcised and Infants baptized rather then contrary ANABAPY CAT. Q. Whether may not Infants of Believers be baptized by virtue of Covenant-holiness A. No for Baptism is not a sign or seal of any such outward holiness which may befall Reprobates as Well as Elect but it is a sign of Death Burial and Resurrection Which the Believerthath with Christ 2. There is no command for baptizing such if the Gentiles Were so holy BAptism is a sign and seal of Christs Death Examinat Cap. 10. § 1. Burial and Resurrection and of the truth and faithfulness of those exceeding great and precious Promises bundled up in the Covenant of Grace which are in Christ Yea and Amen a Cor. 1.20 but it is not an absolute sign or seal of the baptized's Death Burial Resurrection With Christ of his putting on of Christ of grace already Wrought in him as you assert in your Answer to the second and third question but only conditional Acts 16.30 31. if he believe as the Romans did Rom. 6.3.4 with 5.1.2 A Christian gathers the assurance of his Justification and Salvation by this or such a like Syllogism He that believeth is justified and shall be saved I believe therefore I am justified and shall be saved The Major or former Proposition Baptism doth absolutely and universally seal but not so the Minor or second Proposition viz. I believe If Baptism should seal to all baptized ones as suppose Simon Magus Judas c. the truth of their Faith and their saving interest in Jesus Christ then should God set his Seal for Baptism is Gods Seal not the Churches to a lye and falshood or at least command Ministers so to do when they are bound by the Rules of Christ to baptize such as are not inwardly holy as Simon Magus c. Children of Believers sect 2. 1 Cor. 7.14 are said to be Saints or holy whereby is not meant that they were legitimate only for so had they been if both the Parents had been Infidels and children are not holy because they are not bastards nor only sanctified to the use of the Parents as the unblieving yoke-fellow though not holy in se nor sanctifying is sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow the Holy Ghost neither here nor elsewhere speaking of any thing to be sanctified to unbelievers but they are holy a distinct phrase from being sanctified to another as birds and beasts may be and this holiness proceeds from the believing yoke-fellow which is the reason why he saith your children viz the children of you Christian yoke-fellows the Infidel yoke fellows writ not to Paul are holy which seeing it cannot be meant of internal and saving holiness for all children of the Church are not such though we are bound to judg the best till the contrary appear it must needs therefore be meant of outward federal holiness which is the privlledg of the children of believing Parents above the children of Pagans the Jews having had the like priviledg before See Gal. 2. 15. which I conceive runs parallel with this Or if but one of the
nor example nor good warrant for your contrary opinions and practices what clearer command can we shew for that then for Infant-Baptism Women were not admitted to both the Sacraments of the Old Testament Christ did not admit women no not his own Mother to the Supper There is express uncontroverted mention in the New Testament of women being baptized but not so of women communicating If you alledg that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name common to women as well as mâ—n ought to communicate 1 Cor. 11.28 it is early evaded by saying that the Apostle confines it to the Male by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28 29. and the same word is used of Circumcision of which the Male only was capable Joh 7.22 General terms of Disciples Church-members persons in Covenant will carry it for Infants Baptism as well as womens communicating If you alledg That such and such Assemblies in which there were women did break bread you know it may be yea it is doubted by some sober spirits whether that breaking of bread was Sacramental or no and it may be said that the company is said to do it because the Males did it as the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised and called Circumcision though the Females thereof were not circumcised If you should tell us of housholds admited to the Supper though I know not any such instance in Scripture I might as well say there was no women there or they were excluded as you say there was no Infants in such or such an houshold or if there were they were excluded Lastly If men should bend their strength that way they might as plausibly except against your admission of women usually the forwardest part of your Societies to the Supper as you do or I believe can do against Paedobaptism Oh that our good God would in mercy to this distracted Church and to the deluded Souls therein remove prejudice out of our hearts ANABAPT CAT. Q. Whether do you think Baptism administred in Infancy to be a lawful Baptism and sufficient A. To me it is not for I think it to be a Profanation of an Ordinance for these Reasons 1. Because it is taught by the precepts of men Isai 29.13 not by God Jerem. 7.22 23. YOu hold Exam. Chap. 11. it seems that it is neither lawful nor sufficient and in plain English it is null voyd no Baptism at all But consider I pray you could you prove the nullity of Infant-Baptism as you have a great mind to do what sad consequences would ensue 1. That the people of God for the space of 1600 years using Paedobaptism were destitute of one if not by consequence of both the Sacraments 2. That the Churches in England Scotland France Denmark Sweden Germany Geneva Holland New England c. which have usually no other Baptism but Child-Baptism are no Churches the members thereof being not so much as Christians outwardly nor Sacramentally initiated into the Church in doing whereof you dishonor God and do Satan great service Gods work being to disciple and enchirch the Nations of the World Matt. 28.19 Mark 16.16 2 Cor. 5.19 and Satan's to undesciple and Heâ—thenize the Church either in realty or in reputation for the advancement of his own Kingdom 3. That these and all others must for ever as the case stands want the Sacrament of Baptism except a special and particular warrant come from Heaven as to John Baptist for the setting up of this Ordinance for no man who is both unseparated to the work of the Ministry and unbaptized his Paedobaptism being a nullity and ununited to the Church of Christ can warrantably baptize himself or any other any more then Saul might sacrifice Vzzah stay the Ark Vzziah offer Incense a Midwife Turk Jew or Pagan administer the Sacraments of Christs Church for if Paedobaptism be a nullity because of default in the subject this also will be a nullity for want of commission for you can shew neither precept president nor good warrant for the Word for any man that is unbaptized having no special Commission from God to baptize himself or to baptize any other or for any man to accept of Baptism from such an one which is indeed no Baptism at all John as he had commission from God for his baptizing so he affirms that a man can receive nothing viz. no authority to baptize as he did except it be given him from Heaven John 3. 26 27. as if he would professedly caution the Church against such courses 4. That the Societies of the Independents and Separatists notwithstanding their separation from us do yet except they also turn Anabaptists live within one of the strongest holds of Antichrist are guilty of observing traditions and precepts of men of will-worship of profanation of Gods holy Ordinance of filling the Church with rotten members of confounding the Church and the World together yea say some of you they have the mark of the Beast in their soreheads and by consequence are in the high way to eternal damnation And what worse can you say of any Your Texts prove that God hates hypocrisie and over much regard of the commandments of men and that God did command Obedience rather then Sacrisice as 1 Sam. 15.22 for God did command Sacrifices and Offerings Levit. chap. 1. 2.3 c. What is this to Paedobaptism Will you acknowledg that God hath commanded it to us as he did burnt-offerings and sacrifices to the Jews we our selves say no more for it But if your Texts do forbid all humane inventions in the Worship of God Paedobaptism is yet safe enough for it hath been proved in the foregoing Chapter to have as good warrant from the Word as some other by your self acknowledged Ordinances of God have and better then your opposite Opinion and Practicas ANABAPT CAT. A. Paedobaptism is done in a Wrong manner by sprinkling in stead of Dipping THis exception you begin your Catechisun with telling us that Baptism signifies Dipping Examinat Chap. 12. By Dipping is never signified Sprinkling whence you would infer That Baptism should be by Dipping only and that it is done in a Wrong manner When it is done by Sprinkling wherein you much mistake For. 1. Should the original signification of other Scriptures words be so much squeezed then because the holy Communion is callâ—d a Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 the word signifying a whole meal and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 14. Ephes 5. signifies not simply to sing but to sing to a musical Instrument and the original words for the gesture at the Supper signifie lying or leaning on a bed you might with as good reason collect That the holy Communion should be a whole meal That there should be instrumental musick in Churches as well as vocal That men ought to lie or lean on beds at the receiving of the Supper or else the Ordinances are dons in a Wrong manner 2 The word Baptism by
least it is the profanation of the Ordinance Who you are I know not but the general Opinion of your party is that any Disciple especially a teaching Disciple may baptize See Confession of the seven Churches Art 41. And doth Ordination by a Bishop and other Ministers make voyd such Discipleship and make him that he cannot be so much as a private Christian yea make his Baptism Antichristian We receive from God the Old Testament by the hands of the Jews and the whole Bible by the hands of Papists most Scriptures have some time or other been abused must we therefore disuse them If a Bishop should baptize one at full age making profession of faith and repentance yea suppose a Jesuite pretending to be a gifted Brother or a teaching Disciple as it is lawful for the Jesuites to say or do any thing that may tend to the weakening the true Reformed Religion and should dip many would his dipping be null and voyd and to be reiterated This I dare say Whatsoever is rational or religious cannot be made irrational or irreligious whosoever useth or hath used it And if multitudes of persons should cast away all that they have received by the Bishops and Ministers ordained by them they should with those things irrecoverably cast their Souls into Hell When Antichrist most reigned and raged and the woman fled into the Wilderness God did preserve some Fundamental Doctrines and the essence of Baptism and the essence of a true Ministry dispensing it and they that is her Pastors did feed her there Revel 12.6 14. 4. There are now more Antichrists then ever were before in our or in any other Reformed Church and worse Antichrists by how much Fundamental Errors in Doctrine are greater abominations then Errors only in Discipline All Heretiques in Scripture-language are Antichrist 1 Epist John The Errors Heresies Blasphemies Treacheries Hypocrisies Perjuries sacrilegious seditious Actions Divisions and Subdivisions bitter and bloody Contentions Rebaptizations Ordinations by the people and other meer humane inventions of these Times do justifie the Bishops and all Episcopal men that have kept themselves free from these and the like crimes from being so Antichristian as we do really dishonor the true Reformed Religion delight the truly Antichristian Faction and make way for our reducing not only to Prelacy but to that which all sober men count incomparably more dangerous to Popery yea to the worst edition of it Spanish Jesuited Inquisition-Popery ANABAPT CAT. Paedobaptism is done upon a wrong subject who is not in Christs commission Matt. 28.19 nor Mark 16.16 Believers and Repentants being the subjects therein EXAMINAT You here beg the question what you here alledg hath been answered Chap. 1. and Chap. 2. ANABAPT CAT. All the certainty I can have of such a Baptism is only conjectural not infallible whereas the outward sign of a Sacrament must be visible and infallible as the thing signified is this Infant-Baptism I take only in trust from others THe Infants blessed by Christ could in their riper age have no certainty of their being so blessed by him Examinat Chap. 14. nor had the Jewish Infants any certainty of their Circumcision for the foreskin of circumcised Infants might be and sometimes was so drawn up that when they came to age they could not discern their Circumcision To this Paul alludes 1 Cor. 7.18 If the flesh-mark was alway discernable yet it could not teach them whether a friend or foe had done it whether for sacred or civil ends whether duly or unduly without instruction and information by word or writing and such instruction may assure us of our right Baptism though it was administred in Infancy You may have such assurance of your Baptism as the Priests by the Registers had of their pedigree Ezra 2.62 as Paul had that he was circumcised the eighth day that he was of the stock of Israel an Hebrew of the Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin Phil. 3.5 Yea you may have as much or more certainty that you were baptized as that such an one was your father such a woman your mother yet sure if you will call that only a conjectural and not infallible testimony you will test so much upon it as to call him your father and her your mother that are testified and reputed to be so and without scruple of conscience honor them as you are bound by the fifth Commandment and also keep that which is generally computed to be the first day of the week or the Lords-Day though you take it but on trust from others Possibly he that is baptized at full age may not infallibly know that he was baptized some have forgotten through sickness the greatest concernments yea their own names must they thereupon be rebaptized Possibly a man or woman as you are dipping them under the water may be so damped that they may not hear or not heed the words used by the Administrator whether he baptize or bless or curse must they be dipped again till they do hear and heed that they may infallibly know themselves to be baptized If a man should herein be deceived and think he was baptized in his Infancy when he was not the Error is not very dangerous Faith in Christ may supply the defect of Baptism and he not neglecting or contemning Baptism nor knowing that he wants it may reap benefit by his supposed Baptism as if it were reâ—l As for his resolution of the case grounded on the suppose unlawfulness of Paedobaptism whether a Christian may with good conscience be present at it I judg it unnecessary for me to discuss it having I hope cleared the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism yet I confess I cannot approve sundry things in it though Paedobaptism were confessed to be unlawful SOME OBSERVATIONS Both Old and New Concerning the pretended Visibility Universality Antiquity Infallibility Unity and Purity of the present Roman Church and Religion Sent to a Gentleman upon his Revolt to Popery and now Published with some few Additions for the Churches good SIR 1. YOu do all confess the affirmative and positive Doctrines of the Church of England and other Reformed Churches to be true and Catholique and to have had visible Professors in all Ages only you superadd certain other Doctrines which you say are necessary to be beleeved unto Salvation For evidence whereof observe 1. Our Churches Doctrine All the Books of the Old and New Testament mentioned in the 39 Articles and in the late Confession of Faith to be holy and Canonical are for such to be received 2. Your Churches Additions The Books of Tobit Judeth Wisdom Maccabees and the rest commonly called Apocrypha are also Canonical The Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners Traditions of the Church are of equal Authority with the Scriptures The Originals Hebrew and Greek are Authentical The Vulgar Edition is most pure and Authentical There are two Sacraments of the New Testament Baptism and the Lords Supper There are also five more viz. Confirmation