Author and all the party conclude that the Seed to whom the Covenant belongs is the Spiritual and not the Carnal Not being born after the flesh but believing that makes us children of the promise To this exception of his in which their greatest confidence lies I reply Repl. 1. It is built on a most gross corrupting and abusing the Scriptures Let us then diligently consider those two places in the Galatians And afterwards that in the Romans First touching that in the former place the words are verse 16. He saith not to Seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Beza upon the Text saith obscurus locus est it is a place not easily understood a dark Scripture and indeed too dark and intricate for Antipaedobaptists so boldly to ground their opinion upon so directly contrary to the sence of many plain places The question is what doth the Apostle mean here by Christ By Christ cannot be meant Christ solely personal for then no Believer should be accounted for the Seed but only Christ who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham And he and none else should be concerned in the promises But it is to be understood of Christ mystical as Beza there notes Apostolus eo nomine non solum caput sed membra cum suo capite designans the Apostle by the word Christ denoting both Head and Members Capnt Corpus unus est Christus the Head and the Body make up one mystical Christ the word Christ being to be taken collectively in this place so we have it 1 Cor. 12.12 to which Beza refers And if this be the sence of it as what else can rationally then as Mr. Sydenbam notes this Text will make rather for us than against us for if we exclude all Infants from being of the Body of Christ we must in so doing unavoidably exclude them from Salvation for he is Saviour to no more than he is head of which is his Body As for the words in the nine and twentieth verse that will afford the Antipedobaptists little relief the words are If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to promise from whence saith the aforesaid Author they argue the Apostle here describes who are the Seed so that now no children born of believing parents can be the Seed for they must be Christs according to that v. 16. We are all the children of God through Faith in Christ Jesus But let such understand what Beza saith on the place namely that the Claramontanus Bible hath the words thus and he thinks more right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you be one in Christ then are ye Abrahams Seed which comports well with the former verse There is neither Jew nor Greek neither bond nor free c. but ye are all one in Christ Jesus and if ye be all one then Abrahams Seed From which 1. It is clear that the Design of the Apostle is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile and to hodl forth their unity in Christ and that this is the very scope of the place Beza shews fully in his Annotations upon it and that now there is no distinction betwivt them as formerly But the Gentiles are become Abrahams Seed as well as the natural and believing Jews Quod unius Seminis nomine collectivo significatur as before in the sixteenth verse which is pointed out to us by the collective name of one Seed 2. The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abrahams Seed as the Subject of the outward priviledges and administrations of Ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abrahams Seed and Heirs of promise but such as are Christs one in him with Abraham for if this should be the distinction of Seed as the subject of outward Ordinances it would be as much against professing Believers as Infants for the proposition from this Text as our Opposites draw it is thus none but those who are Christs are Abrahams Seed and none are Christs but real Believers and therefore none but they must be baptized But how weak is this 1. Because if none but such are Abrahams Seed and consequently none but such the subjects of Baptism then visible Believers are not the subjects of Baptism for they may not be Christs no more than Infants 2. None must be baptized at all upon this account for who knows who is Christs according to Election and saving Faith To say we have charitable grounds to believe visible professors are Christs till we see the contrary is not to the question as stated nor as it lies in the Text the Text saith If ye be Christs then ye are Abrahams Seed they say none are in Christ but real Believers See Chapter the fifth of the first part of the Authors Treatise and none must be baptized but the spiritual Seed and that will require not only a judgment of charity but infallibility to determine And besides the Apostle is describing here what the real and spiritual Seed are as having an inward right to Christ and not what the apparent Seed of Abraham was for he speaks to the Galathians who were visible professors and Believers then in appearance and he puts them upon a trial of themselves whether they were Christs or no. I have been the larger in quoting something from Beza but more from Mr. Sydenham who speaks abundance of reason that you may see how wretchedly this Text is abused by our Opposites And how far wide it is from the purpose for which they usually bring it Now for that other place Ram. 9.7 8. They that are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed What do they gather from hence Why that Infants because children of the flesh are not under the promise this indeed is well argued for this is to make the Apostle contradict himself in the same breath for the Text saith In Isaac shall thy Seed be called Now that was a child of Abrahams flesh and yet a child of promise too And from hence issueth three undeniable Propositions as Mr. Sydenham noteth 1. That Abrahams spiritual Seed were as much his fleshly Seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been his spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually professs Abrahams faith 3. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal Seed in opposition to his spiritual Seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from his flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal Seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham It must be therefore understood 1. Of those of Abrahams Seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel such as Ishmael and such of whom the Apostle speaks of Rom. 9.1.2.3 his Brethren and Kinsmen after the flesh
confidence expect to meet with better measure from them than to be condemned for an overweening conceit of my own sufficiency to undertake the Work of a Conciliator I only humbly submit what I have to say to their judicious godly Consideration Whether it be not their duty to entertain and keep up Fellowship and Communion in all other Ordinances wherein they are agreed notwithstanding this their difference about Baptism which to me seems clear for several Reasons as First Because they are Members of the same Body of which Christ is the Head Rom. 12.4 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one Members of another the import of which is that all Believers stand to Christ in the same relation that the natural Body doth stand to the natural Head and that they all stand in relation one to another as the Members of the natural Body do stand one to another To the same purpose is that 1 Cor. 12.12 where from the 4th to the 7th verse the Apostle shews That there are diversities of Gifts and differences of Administrations and diversities of Operations but all come from the same Spirit Lord and God and are given for this end that they may be for the profiting of the whole And that we might more plainly apprehend him he further tells us that as in the natural Body there are divers Members joined and each Member hath its several office for the good of all so is Christ saith he that is Christ collectively and mystically Christ and all his Members and then he adds vers 13. That by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body Christum intellige cum Ecclesia suâ conjunctim et quatenùs est corporis mystici caput Beza in loc whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free which cannot be meant of Water-Baptism saith Mr. Jesse an eminent godly Antipaedobaptist in regard all the Body of Christ Jews and Gentiles bond and free partook not of that Sacrament of Christ instituted for the Gospel-Administration and are made to drink into the same Spirit which is also to be understood metaphorically and spiritually Potionati sumus saith Piscator and so prove our selves to be of one and the same Corporation of Believers Like to this is that Eph. 4.16 from whom the whole Body fitly joyned and compacted together c. From what hath been said there follow these five Corrollaries 1. Vnity of the Body in the Church floweth from Unity to the Head first the Members are united to the Head and then to one another and with the Head 2. This Spiritual Union and Conjunction with the Lord Jesus is the foundation of all their Communion with one another 3. As in the Natural Body all the Members do not only meet in the Head as the Lines in the Center but have real Union one with another so in this Mystical and Spiritual Body all Believers have not only each for his own part Union and Conjunction with Christ but also a real Union and Conjunction with each other which is the ground of all offices of Love and reciprocal Fellowship and Communion wherein they stand obliged amongst themselves 4. Union to the whole the Catholick or Universal Church or Body of Christ gives right to Communion with any particular Church of Christ in the World and there is no Believer as Mr. Marshal observes in any part of the World but where-ever he comes might demand upon the profession of his Faith and his voluntary subjection to the Gospel his right in the Ordinances to hear and pray and receive the Sacrament with them 5. To deny Communion to any who give evidence that they are of the same Body is to be guilty of a great Schism in the Body and most opposit to the design of God's Grace in compacting all his People into one Body which was 1. That there should be no Schism in the Body 2. That therefore the Members should have the like care of one another They therefore who in contrariety hereto stand at a distance one from another and refuse Communion do that which is not practicable from Scripture for it is unnatural and destructive to the Body and not only so but fouly scandalous to the Christian Religion for as the Lord Verulam speaks Lord Bacon's Essayes like a Divine as well as a Philosopher Schism is one of the greatest Scandals yea more than corruption of Manners For as in the Natural Body a Wound or Solution of Continuity is worse than a Corrupt Humour so in the Spiritual So that nothing doth so much keep men out of the Church and drive men out of the Church as breach of Unity This then is the first Argument they are both visibly Members of Christ's Body and therefore should have Communion one with another 2. Because both parties agree in the main Fundamentals of Religion and Union in the great things of Religion should oblige them to bear with one another in lesser matters Phil. 3.15 16. If in any things ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even that to you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same thing Here 's an excellent direction to preserve Unity amongst God's People notwithstanding difference in judgment and for composing and healing of differences when they arise 1. Christians are to consider whereunto they have already attained and how far they do agree Whether there be not a mutual Consent in the Principles and Fundamentals of Religion for if this be wanting all Union is but a daubing with untempeted mortar and a Conspiracy against Christ but when there is a Consent in Fundamentals and the Marks of Godliness upon Persons Wisdom and Charity should teach us to condescend unto and forbear one another but alas how much is this wanting may we not sigh out that doleful sentence Heu pro quantillo pacem perdidimus for what poor inconsiderable things do we jar and differ 2. To walk by the same Rule or to put in practice those Truths wherein they do agree They agree in Prayer in Hearing in the Lord's Supper let them walk together in these The best way to attain Unity in Judgment is to maintain it in Obedience and jointly to walk together in the Ordinances and Duties wherein Christians do agree 3. To mind the same thing that is I conceive to propose the same ends in Religion Nothing causeth more difference than poor narrow selfish-ends If Professors had all one common end viz. to be really Godly and to advance the Glory of God in the World there would be an end of these bickerings St. Paul hath an eye to this Phil. 2.1 2. There he useth most pathetical Arguments to Love and Union and for to further it he presseth the Philippians to be like-minded and let nothing saith he be done through strife or vain-glory v. 2 3. and in the 4th vers look not every man at his own things c. that is at his own
before such as might witness that he gave him that name in his Circumcision as the Lord appointed viz. Maher-shalal-hash-baz Which whether saith he it was a thing really done or only represented to the Prophet in a vision is not material for it seemeth however it was a practice then in use in those times And from hence it is conceived that ancient custom as ancient indeed as Tertullians days of having God-fathers and God-mothers as we call them in Baptism Some persons specially appointed to witness the Baptism of such a person which use is still continued amongst us with this injunction that they mind the child of that faith into which it was baptized and that they take care that it be instructed and brought up in the knowledge of Christ yet now it is in most places become a mere formality and an occasion only of feasting But we return to the matter From those Witnesses or their Parents did the children of the Jews receive the Testimony of their Circumcision and they might give the more credit to it because they saw the same practised upon others dayly And even such a Testimony have children now from Parents or Sureties besides the Testimony of the whole congregation and the Records that are kept thereof in a Book kept for that purpose according to the custom of the Church of England CHAP. IV. Wherein the Author attempts to prove that the Ceremony of Baptism is Immersion and not Sprinkling which is an other Rite he saith introduced contrary to the signification of the Word and Nature of the Ordinance c. SInce the Author hath thought meet to appear thus as a Witness against Infant-Baptism it had been well if he had followed the good old Rule injoyned Witnesses that is to speak the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth and for want of which he hath given such a partial and lame account hitherto We are now come to a main point upon which they place very much confidence viz. the signification of the Word Baptism and the Author undertakes to prove that the Manner and Ceremony thereof ought to be by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body and not by Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face or Head 1. From the proper and genuine signification of the Word which according to the Greek Lexicons and the most eminent Criticks he saith imports nothing less than to Dip Plung or cover all over And that Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek tongue as we have any tell us in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo immergo obruo Item tingo quod fit immergendo that is to dip plunge overwhelm put-under cover-over to dye in Colour which is done by plunging Answer To this we Oppose Dr. Featly in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 37. who saith that Hesychius and Stephanus and Scapula and Budaeus the great Masters of the Greek Tongue make good by many instances and allegations out of Classick Writers that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth no more than Ablution or Washing which may be done without Dipping Now what a case is the illiterate Reader in who shall he believe the Author or the Learned Dr. For my part being not willing to take up the matter upon trust I was the more curious to examine the Criticks First I consulted with Stephanus and he saith the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only mergo immergo to dip or plung but also abluo lavo to wet or wash and in the same place in his Lexicon he brings in Cyprian who flourished about 1500 years since translating the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tingentes following therein his Master Tertullian Corpus tingere sparsâ aquâ Ovid. 4. Fast p. 558. and saith Stephens Tingere apud prophanos Authores idem est quod aspergere the Word tingere among Heathen-Writers signifies Sprinkling as he shews out of Ovid and Cicero For Passor the Author tells us Nec enim Herculi nocere Deianira voluit quum ei tunicam sanguine Centauri tinctam dedit Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 98. he Translates the Word by Immersion Dipping Submersion but he hath left out Ablution or Washing which Passor there adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is Immergo Abluo either to dip or to Wash After him comes Vossius who is most expresly against the Author's Opinion The Word saith Vossius signifies to Wash and Washing is not only by dipping as he hints but by pouring out of Water or sprinkling it on the Body and represents the washing of the Soul according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you and therefore it seems Baptism may be celebrated either way by Dipping or Sprinkling Then for our own Country-men Mr. Leigh Rogers Taylor Mede Hammond 't is tedious to examine them all We will only bring one of them to the test which is Mr. Leigh who is instar omnium for profound knowledg in the Greek and Hebrew This Man the Author glories in Mr. Leigh saith he in his Critica Sacra tells us it s proper and native signification is to Dip into Water or to plung under Water and that the proper signification was such a Dipping or Plunging as Dyers use for dying of Cloathes True Mr. Leigh says this but he saith more and 't is disingenuously done of the Author thus to pick out what serves his turn and leave the Reader in the dark as to the rest When-as Mr. Leigh saith in the very beginning as soon as he names the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that although it be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Dip or Plung and signifies primarily such a kind of Washing as is used in Buks where linnen is Plunged and Dipt yet it is taken more largely for any kind of Washing or Cleansing even where there is no Dipping at all and he quotes these Scriptures for it Matth. 3.20 22. Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They Baptized themselves it is rendred Washed themselves and so did eat So Mark 10.38 Luke 3.16 Act. 1.5 and 11.16 1 Cor. 10.2 It is put generally for Washing saith Mr. Leigh as Luke 11.38 Heb. 9.10 Christ no-where requireth Dipping but only Baptizing as he quotes out of Dr. Featly Thou seeest Reader how little he hath gotten by these Authors I shall add a few more of great renown in the Church who are opposite to the conceit of Baptizing to signify only Dipping The first is Cyprian Baptizare etiam morbis laborantes in lectis solitos Cyp. in Epist ad Magnum L. 4. Epist 7. indicat pro Baptismo probat sic Baptizatum Cornelius Novatum scribit apud Euseb L. 6. Cap. 43. qui sic autem Baptiz ablantur inquit Vossius non immergebantur nec perfundebantur sed aquâ solâ aspergebantur c. Vossius de Baptismo p. 358. who in his Epistle ad Magnum L. 4. Epist 7.