Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A31641
|
Master Bakewells sea of absurdities concerning sprinkling calmely driven back / by Peter Chamberlen, 12 April, 1650.
|
Chamberlen, Peter, 1601-1683.
|
1650
(1650)
|
Wing C1898; ESTC R38996
|
10,275
|
16
|
MASTER BAKEWELLS SEA OF ABSURDITIES CONCERNING SPRINKLING CALMELY Driven back by Peter Chamberlen 12. April 1650. London Printed by J. C. And are to be sold by Giles Calvert at the Black-spread-Eagle at the West end of Pauls 1650. Mr. Bakewells Sea of Absurdities concerning SPRINKLING calmely driven back by Peter Chamberlen 12 April 1650. MR Bakewell There was a Letter with your name subscribed brought to Ely house the 24. of March last as I heard and the same was afterwards delivered unto me whereupon I sent 4 times to your house to have returned you an Answer and either you were not at home as the Messenger told me or else you would not be at home so that on the last Lords day 7. April present which you call the Sabbath or Palm Sunday which was the first time I was at Ely house since the Letter I gave a publick Answer in the place where it was sent Therefore you wrong your Friends in possessing them that you had defied Israel and none durst answer you as your Preamble imports Nor do you well to charge me with a promise I never made For you neither could tell whether I made any promise you nor your Messenger not having spoken with me nor could you so much as know whether I had received your Letter it neither being delivered unto me nor to any in my presence nor yet left at my house Nor truly were you so civill as to send me a Copy of what you printed and I had not known thereof if another had not given me one You say further that you were requested by some Friends to publish your Letter I partly believe you are but the Catts Paw by your dabling in Greek p. 6. last line which probably you understood not and by my Reverend Friend Mr. Downan's vouchsafing you an Imprimatur and your own confession here of your Friends Request yet I cannot but a little wonder at it What That your Ministers should allow a Lay-man to take upon him their Function and to answer what they durst not They knew perhaps none so bold Well Mr. Bakewell I shall not be so proud as because you may be censured by your own party out of your Element under which notion perhaps taking me they permit you to do what you do therefore not to grant you an humble and loving Answer however you are pleased to judge me proud of heart and taking upon me the Title of Tyrus c. Truly I am sorry I cannot so behave my self as to have prevented you from any such rash censure and do but you teach me greater humility wherein the truth of Christ may not suffer and I shall be glad to learn of you that meeknesse and humility wherein you follow Christ before me Which nevertheless in this you seeme not to do in presuming to answer for Dr. Gouge as supposing your self the abler man or abler then any of your sprinkling Ministers I must passe by many impertinencies and touch upon the most material passages of the Letter that I may avoid the words of rayling and onely return an Answer in love You except against my asking a question of Dr. Gouge because he is ancient Of whom should men enquire but of the ancient should not dayes speak and multitude of yeares teach wisdome Job 32.7 Of whom should we enquire but of those that take upon them the Office should not the Priests lips preserve knowledge Malach 2.7 Why man I sent not to fight with Dr. Gouge and so long the older the better nor did I confine the question to him but that others were also lovingly intreated to his assistance Yet having sufficiently censured and chid me you will not give me leave to state mine own Question but pretend to know my meaning better then my self My Question was WHETHER THE SPRINKLING OF INFANTS BE OF GOD OR OF MAN It is the same question which Christ propounded to the Pharisees concerning the Baptisme of John Mat. 21.25 You have made a Question of your own WHETHER SPRINKLING THE BAPTIZED BE OF GOD OR MAN BE THEY INFANTS OR OF FULLAGE do you mean by Baptized Sprinkled as in your 6 page and last line you intimate Then you Tautologize and will sound thus in plain English Whether sprinkling the Sprinkled be of God or Man or would you have those that are baptized already to be sprinkled also I pray consult with your Teachers a little before you either state my Question or state it in that manner In the mean time I will suppose you speak sense and that at all adventures you affirm that THE SPRINKLING OF INFANTS IS OF GOD AND NOT OF MANS INVENTION which is quite contrary to what Dr. Gouge affirmed to some For I have been informed by Mr. Edw. Barber and have it under his hand since you printed your Letter that at 2 severall times both upon his being sent unto him by the Bishops and one Marke Whitlock to be satisfied for taking the Oath ex officio Dr. Gouge did acknowledge not onely Sprinkling but that baptizing of Infants was a tradition of the Church and used it as one Argument to take that Oath But to your Arguments 1. Arg. You would prove that Sprinkling of Infants is of God because the Lord foretold that in the times of the Gospel his people should be sprinkled with clean water Ezek. 36.25 Mr. Bakewell it had been well if you had desired your Teachers to help you to make a Syllogisme of it whereof they that will undertake to dispute ought not to be ignorant but because you may chance not know what belongs to it aske them whether by SPRINKLING here be meant BAPTISME Or whether by CLEAN WATER be meant ELEMENTARY WATER Or whether by the words UPON YOU which you interpret his people be meant LITTLE INFANTS Or whether by THEN be meant the TIME OF THE GOSPEL with THE GENTILES as you likewise render it Or whether this SPRINKLING allude not rather to the SPRINKLING UNDER THE LAW Levit. 14.7 Numb 8.7 which they understood distinct from those many Baptismes mentioned in Heb. 9.10 which were amongst them and did not understand Johns or Christs Baptisme which as yet was not And whether the PURE WATER be not rather the HOLY GHOST in the Language of our Saviour John 7.39 And whether the time THEN and the People You be not rather the glorious times of the CALLING OF THE JEWES I believe these mistakes will rather put them upon a more strict way of keeping the staffe in their own hands and not suffer Lay-ignorance though never so zealous Talketive or Devout to betray their Cause For when you or any else have said all you can upon this place IT IS A PROMISE OF WHAT GOD WILL DO IT IS NOT A COMMAND OF WHAT MAN MUST DO Then you say Mr. Bakewell that the water in BAPTISME is A SIGNE OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but where doth the Scripture say so They had under the Law the SPRINKLING OF WATER Levit. 14.17 Numb 8.7