dictate The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe they being commanded both together And for the Lords Supper how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was done in the night and vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he had supped I leave to your Assembly to consâ—der Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other And for that which you intimate as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as well as for entrance I take to be but a dictate like the rest which upon exact examination will not hold it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely But you have yet one more Instance and thus you speake The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds as for the substance of it as much as ever it bound the Jewes there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his own choosing Now untill Christs time God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose the Lord having chosen this the fouâ—th Commandement binds us to this as it did the Jewes to the former so in like manner I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme What I conceive about the Lords day I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it which I shall not now repeate Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes binding us as well as the Jewes you forget the marke at which you shoote the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments or ours according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word You see now your maxime which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned one blow more will doe it You piece things together thus When God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham wee claime our part in it as the childâ—en of Abraham and whâ—t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee all stand charged with as well as Abraham Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to have our hearts circumcised to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct our children and bring them up for God and not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment All these things God commanded to Abraham and charges upon all the children of the Covenant though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament And therefore consequently that Command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship which was then in force binds the seed of Abraham now to traine up their children in â—onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham the spirituall part of the Covenant and the persons claiming to be beleevers I grant this passage to be truth for these duties are morall duties and binde at all times but that which follows I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme You say And the sâ—me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment This is your undeniable consequence inferred from a Judaizing principle without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion Whereas â— have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle and for the Conclusion what construction can be made of it but this that the Command of God to Circumcise binds us still for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites binds Christian men contrary to Art 7. of the Church of England Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day as they did But you say it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding The opposite Member was expresly and in Terminis in termes Is this then your meaning that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis but virtually that is implicitely and by Interpretation Tell us then I beseech you by what rule of Divinitie Logick Grammar or Rhetoricke is a man to conceive this Command Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day That is let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants male and female of Beleevers all over or on the face You call this undeniable Consequence if so it 's either Demonstrative from the cause or effect or definition or propertie or the like or it 's onely Topicall and then not undeniable you say 't is by cleare consequence you may as well say this is good consequence Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Thou art Peter and upon this rocke Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or with Baronius Arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it you may enjoy your conceit Nos non sumus adeò sagaces wee are not so quick-witted I passe to the next Command which
studium in eo autem homine falli cupio nihil quam immoderatam rei gloriaeque sitim deprehendisse visus sum ipse mihi And Osiander at the yerae 1528. saith only of him he was Homâ— fanaticus et crassus Anabaptista But I leave him to his Judge to whom he stands or falls onely I marvaile I reade no worse specially in Osiander said of one that is accounted a leader in so hated a sect YOu goe on Since that time multitudes in Germany have imbraced his opinion who because they opposed paedobaptisme were forced to reiterate their owne baptisme and thence were called Anabaptists Afore I proceed because it goes so currant that rebaptization is not only an errour but also an heresie let me beg of you one good argument to prove it unlawfull in se or intrinsecally I meane without respect to scandall or the like cause by accident for a man that hath beene baptized rightly to be baptized againe One baptisme Eph. 4 5. is not to me all one as once baptizing no more then one faith once beleiving We are regenerated by baptisme and a man is borne but once But are we not borne againe by the Word and must that be but once preached Is not sinne mortified the Church sanctified by baptisme and are not these often And for example if there were as good for paedobaptisme as that Act. 19.5 6. for rebaptizing the controversie were at an end with me But if heresie must be determined by the votes of men Smectymnuus may be judged an Arian and the opposers of Pasche Hereticks this by the way though not besides the matter YOu goe on And soone proved a dangerous and turbulent sect not only working a world of mischeife about Munster and other parts of Germany but have with this opinion drunke in abundance of other dangerous heresies and blasphemies and quickly grew into such divisions and subdivisions among themselves that Bullinger notes that they were growne to no lesse then 14. Sects in his time which is indeed the common lot of all Sectaries To all which I only answer thus that much of this is true I make no question though perhaps vehemency of opposition hath made matters more or worse then they were as it is wont to be in such cases and I finde that Gualter in his Apology for Zuinglius saith of them veritatis studiosi videri vellent and Cassander speakes favourably of some of them But it is no marvaile that when men grow into sects such things happen especially when the reformation of an abuse is denyed men by an orderly Synodicall way and the persons that seeke it declaimed against accused and accursed and persecuted as Schismaticks and Heretiques and unlearned and factious men joyne with a discontented party for sinister ends so that the men that hold an opinion have no regular Ministery nor orderly meetings to debate or conclude of things amongst themselves and to agree upon a confession of their doctrine to be by all avouched But have not the like if not the same things happened in other matters Did not the like troubles happen in Q. Elizabeths dayes in seeking to remove Episcopacy Ceremonies Did not some of them grow a dangerous and turbulâ—nt Sect was not the practise of Hacket and his companions like that of Iohn a Leyden at Munster Did not divisions and other miscarriages and persecutions bring the Non-conformists of England as low as the Anabaptists Did not Whitgift long agoe compare the Anabaptists principles with the Nonconformists of England and Hooker in his preface to his bookes of Ecclesiasticall policy their proceedings manners pretences togetheâ— and yet Episcopacy is now found an abuse and so may in time be Paedo-baptisme Indeed these miscarriagâ—s were argumentative if they did arise from the nature of the doctrine taught but when they come only from the weakenes or rashnes or malignity of the assertors or from the violence of opposers we must not jumble things togethâ—r but by sifting the matter to the bran sever the nature of the dâ—ctrine from the quality and actions of the teachers else we shall as soone loose truth as finde it Now whether the nature of the Doctrine that denies Paedobaptisme inferre any such turbulent effects I shall consider in examining that which followes And because this opinion and divers others which depend upon it begins unhappily to take place and spread among our selves in this Kingdome You do not expresse what those opinions are which depend upon it Mr. Richard Vines in his Sermon on Eph. 4.14 pag. 13. Having sayd what heresie ever came abroade without Verbum Domini in the mouth of it and then after the Arians plea he saith the Anabaptists from Matth. 28.19 Goe yee therfore and disciple all nations and when we shal be thriven to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature he will undermine Magistracy by that Rom. 12.19 Avenge not your selves But how knowes Mr. Vines this I do not take Mr. Vines for a Prophet to inferre this by reason The Anabaptist urgeth Matth. 28.19 against paedobaptisme Ergo he will urge Rom. 12.19 against Magistracy is in my slender apprehension a baculo ad angulum I doe not feare to averie and doubt not but to be able to make it good that the principle by which he proves paedobaptisme from the reason equity of the rule of circumcision doth by just consequence undermine I will not say all Magistracy but much of the Magistracy and Lawes of the Kingdome of England as they are at this day Perhaps he may say the Anabaptists heretofore have opposed Magistracy I reply Have none of the adversaries of the Anabaptists undermined Magistracy Since the actions of Muncer and Munster I finde not either in writing or action any opposition but the Battenburgick after mentioned which what they were I know not made by the Anabaptists against the Magistrates or Magistracy I cannot but thinke it necessary to insert the words of Cassander a Papist in his Epistle to the Duke of Gulicke and Cleve Hujus quem dixi Memnonis cui nunc hic Theodoricus successit sectatores fere sunt omnes qui per haec Belgicae inferioris Germaniae loca huic Anabaptisticae heresi affines deprehenduntur in quibus magna ex parte pii cujusdam animi argumenta cernas qui imperito quodam zelo incitati errore potius quam animi malitia a vero divinarum literarum sensu et concordi totius Ecclesiae consensu descrverunt Quod ex eo perspici potest quod Monasteriensibus et hinc consequutis Batenburgicis a Iohanne Batenburgo post cladem Monasteriensem excitatis furoribus Novam quandam restitutionem regni Christi quod in deletione impiorum per vim externaâ— positum sit meditantibus acerrime semper restiterunt et in sola cruce Regni Christi instaurationem et propagationem consistere docuerunt quo fit ut qui hujusmodi sunt Commiseratione potius et emendatione quam
2. styl'd by Mr. Selden A witty and very learned book where he saith I know not what warrant there is for that divinity so mâ—gisterially imposed upon us by some that the Jews had but two Sacraments Circumcision and the Passeover and that it should thence follow by inevitable consequence that the Lords Supper must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answer only to the Jewish Passeover sure I am the Jews had many more for not to instance in that of Paul 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. nor to examine all the other Sacramentall ceremonies which they had that were almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies these feasts upon the sacrifices which we have all this while insisted on were nothing else but true and proper sacraments joyned with sacrifices I adde that according to the received definitions of a sacrament all the sacrifices that were propitiatory were Sacraments that is visible sealing signes of invisible grace in Christ appointed by God to that end Secondly you suppose that of those commâ—nds and institutions of God some did belong to the substance of the covenant some were accidentall to them This last expression is very ambiguous whether you mean by them the Jewes or the Sacraments which seems most likely or whether you would as the law of opposion requires say accidentall to the Covenant Again you here contradistinguish the substance of the covenant and that which is accidentall to it which I construe in the same sense that you distinguish between the substance of the covenant and the administration of it pag. 10. Conceiving by your explication that you call the substance of the Covenant that which is invariable and that which is accidentall that which is variable Substance doth not agree to Covenant which is an action in proper sense but in Schooleâ— it is usuall to distinguish between the substance of the act and the circumstances of it the essence and the accidents but I do not remember that Logicians do oppose the accidents of an act to the substance of it and so your expression of the substance of the covenant and that which is accidentall is not in my apprehension after the usuall speech of the Schooles and therefore I cannot well tell what sense to make of it If them referre to the Jewes then it is said something of the Sacraments was accidentall to the Jewes but I know not how to make any handsome sense of this If you referre them to the Sacraments you make something commanded by God accidentall to the Sacraments which may be yeelded you in this sense that there might something have the essence of a Sacrament without such accidents as it might be true Circumcision though it were not the eighth day it might be a true Passeover though not on the right night Yet in this sense it cannot be yeelded that it was so accidentall that it might be omitted without sin any more then the thing it self For it was as well a sin not to circumcise the eighth day or not to keep the Passeover on the night appointed by God as not to do these acts at all since a command was broken in one as well as the other For these reasons I cannot well tell how to deny or grant that which you suppose that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews were accidentall to them But that which is supposed that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant meaning of the covenant of Grace I can in no wise assent unto it For if either you mean by substance the essence of the covenant I utterly deny that any of the Sacraments of the Jews were of the essence of the covenant Gods Covenant was and might be without them If you mean by substance that which in no case might be varied I deny it in that sense also Nothing of the sacraments of the Jews was morall and invariable And it is most true that as the sacrifices so Sacraments according to the common distinction were belonging to the administration of the covenant for the time but never of the substance of the covenant for that consists only in the things you expresse for the substance pag. 10. And for the maxime which you fâ—ther on all our Divines which I can hardly believe any one of our Divines have delivered as you have done I utterly deny it to wit that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant as being contradictory to those words Art 7. of the Church of England Although the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian men and on the contrary I affirm that they are all abrogated substâ—nce and circumstance whole and part and I thus prove it First those things bind us not which had their complement in Christ but all the Sacraments of the Jews had their complement in Chtist Ergo. The Major is the force of the Apostles prohibition and the reason of it Col. 2.16 17. the Minor is delivered 1 Cor. 5.7 Col. 2.17 Heb. 9.9 Heb. 10.1 And Beza in Annot. in Col. 2.14 Hoc respectu ut Euangelicae gratiae adhuc exhibendae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ceremoniis finis erat impositus ipsius Christi id est veritatis quam antea adumbrarant exhibitione by the exhibition of Christ himself that is the truth which before they shadowed there was an end put to ceremonies in this respect as being seals of Euangelicall grace yet to be exhibited Secondly those things bind not us now which were taken away by Christs death this I suppose you will not deny lest you evacuate the effect of Christs death But Christ hath by his death abolished all the sacraments of the Jews comprehended under the law of commands in ordinances or rites Ephes. 2.15 Col. 2.14 therefore they bind not Thirdly those commands which were only to continue till faith came those bind not now faith is come But the commands of the Sacraments of the Jews were such therefore they bind not now The Major and Minor are delivered Gal. 3.23 24 25. Gal. 4.1 2 3 4. Act. 15.9 10. Fourthly those commands bind us not which were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles but all the Sacraments of the Jewes in whole and in part were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles therefore they bind us not The Major and Minor are delivered Ephes. 2.14 Fifthly those commands which were unprofitable and weak rudiments of the world contrary to Christ beggerly rudiments these bind not a Christian now but such are the Jews sacraments Heb. 7.18 Col. 2.8.20 Gal. 4.3.9 therefore they bind not Sixthly those commands that belonged to another Priesthood then Christs bind not Christians but the Jews sacraments belonged to another Priesthood then Christs therefore they bind not The Major and Minor are both delivered Heb.