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
were circumcised under the law they ought to be baptized under the Gospell For sith they are comprised in the covenant why should not they as well receive the seal thereof set to it in the new law as well as the children of the Jews received the seal set thereunto by the old Secondly I have produced before both command for baptizing of children Argument 1. and example of it Argument 3. and promise also unto it Argument 5. The command of baptizing all Nations Mat. 28. 29. the examples of baptizing whole families Act. 16. 15. 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. and the promise made to us and our seed Act. 2. 39. evidently extend to children They argue from Scripture affirmatively our Lord Jesus Christ in that great charter Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. saith Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature he that shall beleeve and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not beleeve shall be damned From these texts they would infer that none ought to be baptized but such who are first taught and instructed in the principles of Christian faith and consequently that no children ought to be baptized because they are not capable of teaching That the placing the word teaching before baptizing in that text doth no more conclude that teaching must alwayes precede baptisme then the setting repentance before faith in those words Repeâ—t ye and beleeve the Gospell Mark 1. 15. and setting water before the spirit Ioh. 3. 5. except a man be born of water and the spirit necessarily infer that repentance goeth before faith which yet is but a fruit of faith or that the outward baptisme with water goeth before the inward baptisme of the spirit whereas the contrarie is clearly proved out of that speech of Peter to Cornelius Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Secondly if there be any force in this argument drawn from the order of the words it maketh against them for thus we wound them with their dudgeon-dagger Christ saith baptize them in the name of the Father teaching them to observe all things baptizing therefore must go before teaching especially in children who may be baptized before they can be taught Thirdly they mis-translate the words for Christ saith not go teach all nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things neither is there a tautologie in our blessed Saviours words for his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. go make disciples among all nations baptizing them and teaching them Now though children cannot be taught before they are baptized yet they may be after a â—orâ— made Christs disciples by their parents or god-fathers offering them unto God and undertaking for them that they shall be brought up in the Christian religion Fourthly Christ speaketh here of the plantation of the Christi an faith and the conversion of whole nations in which alwayes the preaching of the word goeth before the administration of the sacrament First men are taught to repent of their sins and beleeve the Articles of the Christian faith and after they have made confession of the one and profession of the other then they are to be received into the church by baptisme This course was taken by the Apostles in the beginning and must at this day be taken by those who are sent into Turkie or the East and West Indies to convert Pagans or Mahumetans or unbeleeving Iews to the Gospell They are to baptize none before they have taught them the principles of Christian religion but after the Gospell is planted and the parents are beleeverâ— and received into the church by baptisme their children are first to be baptized and afterwards taught so soon as they are capable of teaching They argue from examples after this manner such are to be baptized who with the Iews in Ierusalem Mat. 3. 6. confesse their sins who with the Proselytes Act. 2. 41. gladly receive the word who with the Samaritans Act. 8. 6. give heed to the word preached who with those of Cornelius familie Act. 10. 44. receive the holy Ghost by the hearing of the word who with Lydia have their hearts opened to attend the things that are spoken by the Apostles Act. 16. 14. who with the Gaoler hear the word preached and seek after the means of salvation Act. 16. 30. But children can neither confesse their sins nor attend to the word preached nor actually beleeve nor desire baptisme they therefore ought not to be baptized But we answer all that can solidly be concluded from these examples is but this in the affirmative all such who were so qualified as these were viz. hearers of the Gospell penitent sinners and true beleevers unfainedly desiring the means of their salvation ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme which we freely grant but they cannot conclude from these examples negatively that none other ought to be Christened No more then it will follow that those of Cornelius his family received the gift of the holy Ghost and spake with divers tongues before they were baptized with water therefore none but such who have received such gifts of the holy Ghost may and ought to be baptized To confesse sins and actually professe faith makes a man more capable of baptisme yet dumb men who can do neither if they have a good testmonie of their life and conversation and by signs make it appear they unfainedly desire the sacraments may receive them Secondly if there be any force at all in an argument drawn from examples affirmatively it must be from examples in the like kind as from men to men from children to children not from women to men or from men to children or from children to men For it will not follow women in the Apostles times were covered in the church therefore men ought to be so or men may speak in the church therefore women may or children are usually fed with milk and not strong meat therefore men in ripers years ought to use such dyet no more will it follow men in riper years who are capable of instruction ought to hear the word to give their assent thereunto and enter into a strict covenant with God to lead a new life before they have accesse to the Font. Therefore the like duties are required of children who have not yet the use of reason nor knowledge of good or evill By this reason they might starve children because the law is he that will not labour let him not eat It holds in men but no way in children who are not able to labour in any calling by reason of the infirmitie of their joynts and want of reason and understanding Baptisme is a seal of the righteousnesse of faith
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
lives to the law of God they are also purged from the guilt of their sinnes and Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto them though they have no sense or feeling thereof till God worketh powerfully upon their hearts by the preaching of the word and they apprehend Christs merits by an actuall faith As a flower in the winter lyes hid under ground in the root which at the spring shooteth forth the leaves thereof so in children that are baptized there remaines that root of sanctifying grace in their hearts which in riper yeares putteth forth the leaves thereof by a holy profession and bringeth forth fruit by a godly conversation They argue à pari if the sacrament of baptisme be to be administred to children then also the sacrament of the Lords supper for both are seales of the same covenant But the supper is not to be administred unto infants therefore neither is baptisme But we answer that the inference is not good for though both are seales of the covenant of grace yet there is a three-fold disparitie in them which looseneth the sinewes of the argument First baptisme is the seale of our new birth but the Lords supper of our growth in grace and ghostly strength baptisme is a sacrament of initiation the Lords supper of perfection Now it will not follow that because a punie or novice may or ought to be admitted to the lowest form in the school of Christ therefore he may and ought to be set in the highest the Lords supper is strong meat and not milk and therefore no fit meat for sucklings Secondly the sacrament of the Lords supper was instituted for the commemoration of Christs death As oft as ye eat of this bread and drink of this cup saith the Apostle ye shall declare the Lords death till he come But children neither can apprehend nor shew forth Christs death therefore that sacrament is not ordained for them Thirdly before the receiving the Lords Supper every one is required to examine himselfe which children cannot do But before baptisme there is no such examination required Though if any in riper years be converted to the Christian faith it is most requisite that he be examined by the minister who baptiseth him and that he be able to give a good account of his faith but every one who is fit to be baptized is not presently to be addmitted to the Lords Table without precedent preparation and a more strict examination of himself both concerning his growth in faith and sinceritie of repentance and unfained charitie with an earnest desire of that heavenly repast They argue from Christs example who was not baptized till he was thirtie years of age But we answer that Christs example alone without a precept doth not bind us For Christ neither instituted nor administred the holy Supper till the day before his death and then he both administred and received it after Supper and that with his Apostles only yet we are not bound either to defer our receiving to the day before our death or to administer the Eucharist after Supper or to participate only with such a number and those Priests or Ministers of the Gospell Secondly Christ in his infancie was circumcised circumcision then being in force neither was baptisme then instituted but now circumcision is abrogated and baptisme succeeds in the place thereof Thirdly though Christ were not baptized in his infancie for the reasons above alledged yet was he baptized if I may so speak in the infancie of baptisme it self For as soon as Iohn began to baptize Christ came unto him and required baptisme of him When the fulnesse of time was come in which God had appoynted to manifest him to the world and appoynt him our teacher by a voice from heaven This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear him According to whose example we ought not to defer our baptisme but upon the first opportunitie offered unto us receive that seal of our new-birth in Christ and admission into his church I conclude the answer to this argument with an observation of Gastius that Christ because he was Lord both of the people in the old testament and of them in the new therefore he would receive the sacraments of both and was both circumcised in his infancie and baptized also as soon as baptisme was in force Since the examination and confutation of this second Article of the Anabaptists there came to my hands a small pamphlet dedicated to the house of Commons intituled The vindicathâ—u of the royall commission of king Iesus wherein the author Francis Cornwell master of Arts and sometimes student of Emanuell Colledge in Cambridge frameth many arguments against the ordinance of the church in baptizing infants Of which I may truly say as Martiall doth of Caecilius who made disverse dishes of one and the self same kind of course root Atreus Caecilius cucurbitarum Sic illas quasi filias Thyestae In partes lacerat secatque mille Gustu protinus has edes in ipso Has prima feret alterave mensa Has coenae tibi tertia reponit Huicseras Epidipnidas parabit Hoc lautum vocat hoc putat venustum Unum poâ—ere ferculis tot assem Thou cheatest my stomack with varietie of dishes in all which there is but one sorie root drest after a diverse manner in all of them not a half-pennie worth of good and solid meat So this new Anabaptisticall Proselyte endeavours to cheat the judgement of the reader with varietie of syllogismes and enthymems in which there is but one or two arguments at most propounded in divers forms and in all of them not the weight of one solid reason the summe effect of his whole book is contained in the title-page wherein he affirmeth that the christening of children doth universally oppose the commission granted by king Iesus Mat. 28. 19. 20. Mark 16. 15. 16. and that paedobaptisme is a popish tradition brought into the church by Innocentius the third upon these two notes he runs in division through his whole book The first hath no colour of probabilitie and the latter is a grosse ignorant untruth if the baptisme of infants oppose the coÌ„mission granted by Christ Mat. 28. either it opposeth it in words or in sense not in words for there is no mention at all of children in either of those texts much lesse any prohibition of baptizing them neither doth it oppose it in sense For the meaning of our Saviour there apparently is that his Apostles and their Successors should go and convert all Nations and plant Christian churches in them first teaching them the Gospel and principles of Christian Religion and after administring the sacraments unto them which they have done accordingly first teaching the parents and baptizing them and after their children into their faith But the objection from these texts is fully answered and retorted in the end of the conference and in the solution of the first argument brought by