c Ver. 22. for it was Gods Arke and not theirs but sacralegiously taken by them d Ver. 10.11 c. and put in their idolatrous high place for the honour of Dagan their God e Cap. 5. 1.2 yet it was not effectuall to save them from enemies but rather to destroy them f Ver. 3.4 5 6 7 9.10.12 yet notwithstanding after it was brought back again the people of God enquired of God by it and had an answer from him which was effectuall for the delivering of all Israel whether they were Jews or Prosolites of Palestina or any other Nation And though the Israelites in their apostasie deceived both themselves and others by retaining still an outward profession of God and practising his outward ordinances yea and though they sacrificed unto devils yet circumcision was not worn out by them nor repeated when the Apostates returned but remained true circumcision both to young and old and they and their holy seed were pâ—rpetually to have a part and portion in all the holy things of God and alwayes as their children came to be capable they were to manifest actually the fruits of â—ods Spirit both faith and love and all other graces but if they afterward fell away and so embraced the apostate condition in which their fore-fathers formerly had been though repentance and regeneration might be preached unto them yet they had no part in Christs kingdome except they did repent and become new creatures again like the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth when he was renewed again by repentance And if any of the members in the visible Church though never so eminent commit sinne they both may and ought then to be admonished to repentance Therefore it is no sufficient argument to say that because the Ministers preach repentance c. to them that therefore the baptisme which they received is false Simon Magus after he had beleeved and therefore was in all visible account saved was upon committing of sinne admonished by Peter to repentance yet his baptisme was true and so Judas Iscariot though he was a Saint outwardly yet afterward he appeared to be a devill And so farre as the Church of England both have and will defend the doctrine of perseverance in the regenerate and members of Christ they are in the right though all the good deeds which they do either in point of justification or sanctification shalt not avail them in that estate for the Lord abhorreth their best actions as he did abhorre the best actions of the Apostate Israelites and therefore circumcision as it was acted by them was abhorred by him but when any of them returned he bound them not to be circumcised again but accepted of his own jewels * So Mr Spilsburie granteth that the vessels of the Lords house they were Gods ordinances that whiles they were in Babylon c. Dan. 5.2 3. but not in respect of the use and service the Babylonians applyed them unto c. Though in themselves simply considered they were Gods ordinaÌ„ce ordained by him to a holy use in which consideration saith he baptisme may be said to be Gods ordinance in the Church of Antichrist For this see his Treatise of Baptisme pa. 35. lin 20. to lin 27. though brought out of the sinke and grave of Apostasie And so whatsoever good these Antichristians do is evill as they do it but if God give any of them a sight of their sinne they are to repent of the evill of the manner but for the good thing they have received they ought not to throw it away but own it as Gods And surely a person may be esteemed to be regenerated and born again though in Gods secret decree he was never elected And yet these learned Divines as you terme them are not in such a great strait in defending this though it be against the Arminians for truth is more easie to be defended then errour Touching that all likelihood which you bring by entring into their heart because it is brought onely as a supposition as it is sleigâ—tly proved so it deserves to be sleightly passed over And your answer thereunto iâ— somewhat like it Pag. 5.7 being an answer to such a likelihood therefore it deserves no reply though in answer to these speeches of yours which you bring as suppositions or likelihoods you advise the authors thereof to leave off such jugling a Pag 7. l. 16. and give glory to God in acknowledging the truth But after all this you make a simple objection on their behalfe thus b Lin 21. 22. Infants are elected and therefore they may be baptised To which you answer c Lin. 23.24 that all Infants are not elected and therefore all infants ought not to be baptised To which I reply that as the objection is without distinction so is your answer thereunto and therefore except they were explained it were folly to answer either of them For a man may be in Gods secret election a Saint and yet an Idolater and so are the infants of idolatrous parents idolaters in regard of their visible estate yet we know not but that God hath elected divers of them and will in his due time manifest them But you make another weak objection for them for you say they will reply That in regard some infants are elected and none can say that this or that particular infant is not elected therefore Baptisme must be administred unto all because we may not deny the elect their priviledges for fear of giving to others that which belongs not to them And to this mad and foolish objection which you father upon others you make answer that if it be a warrantable ground for you to administer baptisme to all infants because that some particular infants are elected then by the same reason it will follow that baptisme may lawfully be administred to every man and woman in the world because amongst them also we may judge that some are elected But this say you contradicteth the order and rule of Christ Matth. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 and must be ranked amongst other of their sophismes before detected * P. 8 l. 6. 7. To which I reply That some infants are elected cannot be justly denied But to administer baptisme to all infants for fear of omitting it to any of the elect is to do evill that good may come thereof Moreover all the elect are not priviledged to have the outward ordinance of baptisme nor any of them till such time as they are manifested unto us to be visible Saints Again we know Judas Iscariot and Simon Magus were baptised though not elected Now the reason which is annexed to the objection is nonsense which is for fear of giving to others that which belongs not to them for in administring Baptisme to all they give unto others besides the elect that which belongeth not to them therefore such manner of reasoning will not stand I seldome have heard the like reasoning except it were
amongst those who deny Infants baptisme to be Gods holy institution Now in your answer to this you crosse your self in pag. 7. lin 9 10 11. where you say that God hath not said he will destroy any infants in hell and it would be censorious for any to judge that they shall be damned and yet you grant concerning persons of yeers that they are under the censure of damnation Therefore by your own ground you cannot so freely baptise all men and women as you can all infants and therefore it appears that what you build up with one hand you throw down with the other In the second part of your answer to this objection you grant for arguments sake that baptisme is to be administred upon the elect before they manifest faith in which affirmation you want a distinction and explanation for you ought to have made a distinction betweene faith inherent and faith professed that is you should have declared that faith may be inherent in some onely and professed in others Secondly that all that professe faith verbally have not faith really and all that have faith really do not professe it verbally or manifest it themselves actually Again you should have explained your self whether you meane by the elect all the elect or but some of them all which you have omitted wherefore I omit to answer you till you further explain your self But in the conclusion you affirm that its true faith onely manifested and made known by confession of the mouth that gives the elect admission to Baptisme To which I answer that though we cannot know invisibly because it is the onely office of the invisible Spirit to whom all things are visible yet we may judge of invisible things by visible demonstrations as the Saints before us have done so God leaving unto us a rule whereby to judge the infants of beleevers to be elected it is want of knowledge and charitie which maketh some persons that they cannot judge so of them nor put a difference between the infants of heathens and the infants of beleeving parents for the infants of beleevers in the time of the Law could not be circumcised according to Gods will without a confession but if their parents made a confession it was sufficient to bring both them and their infants to have right to circumcision and those infants were Jews that is confessors though they could not make a verball confession themselves actually and the like priviledge the infants of beleevers have now under the Gospel to have baptisme as the other had circumcision which is one and the same in effect But when any of the Jews apostated they lost the name and so these idolaters of Rome and England are as those Apostates then were and so is their off-spring And when we call the unbeleeving Hebrews by the name of Jews or Israelites it is but onely for distinction sake for as the dumbe Idols were called Gods and yet were no gods so those are no Jews which confesse not Christ * Rom. 9.6 and 2.28 but if any do imbrace Christ in puritie both they and their infants have right to baptisme as really as the infants of the beleeving Jews had right to circumcision they being in the covenant Else Christ should be lesse faithfull in his house then Moses For infants were by God counted worthy of the signe a Gen. 17.11 and seal b Rom. 4.11 of his righteousnesse both before c Gen. 17.7.9 10 11.14 Exod. 12.48 and under the Law d Jos 5.7 Luk. 1.59 and Christ coming into the world came not to take away any priviledge from any infant which formerly enjoyed the same but placed as great a one if not greater in the stead thereof he came not to take away the types from the infants of beleevers and bereave them both of substances and types but seeing baptisme is come in stead of circumcision as the infants of beleevers formerly had right to circumcision so the infants of beleevers now have right to baptisme Thus though you have passed from your first particular to your fifth from the end to the subject yet I have given you a direct answer unto both THe second particular Pag. 9. which you bring for disproof of the baptisme in the Church of England is the manner in which baptisme is there administred which manner you say is sprinkling or casting a little water upon the head or face of the child baptised wherein you say they shew themselves as contrary to Christ as in the former particular Forasmuch as the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water To which I â—nswer that there is little weight in this confused exception of yours as may plainly appear in observing the particulars for you lay it down ambiguously in saying the head or face of the child If you meane that because the face is a part of the head that they in baptising the face baptise the head in it I assent unto you but if by the head you meane the scull or hairy place of the head if you say they baptise that part by sprinkling or casting water thereon I doubt not but you are mistaken But you would have the whole man to be dipt all over in water and this institution you would father upon Christ But in this your own bare affirmation though not yours onely the Scripture will not beare you out But for confirmation of this your opinion of dipping every part you quote divers Scriptures as Matth. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Joh. 1.26 Act. 11.16 and you tell us they point out a baptisme in water but not a baptisme with water * Lin. 21. To which I answer that if they point not out baptisme with water then they point out a baptisme without water but I thought you had intended to speak here onely of the baptisme of water for so the Scriptures quoted do and if that be your meaning I pray you to shew if you can how these Scriptures or any other do point out such a baptisme in water and yet not with water To say it is the baptisme of water and yet not with water argueth an impossibilitie and is in the self same respect a flat contradiction yea and contrary to reason Indeed if you had not repeated it again a Lin. 24. and that in the same terms without alteration I might have thought it had been onely an oversight of yours But finding the same thing insisted upon again b Lin. 27. 29. and again c Pa. 10. lin 8. charitie it self would not permit me to judge otherwise but that your words seem to import that persons may receive the true baptisme of water in water and yet not with water For after you have quoted Matth. 3.11 Ego men baptizo humas en hudati I indeed baptize you in water Mar. 1.8 Eâ—o men â—baptisa humas en hudati I indeed have baptised you in water Also Joh. 1.26 Act. 11.16 you say
all these point out a baptisme in water but not a baptisme with water And whereas * Pag. 9. li. 22.23 the word en in Rev. 19.21 Kai hoi loipoi apoct athesanente romthaia signifieth with You answer that it never signifieth with after this word baptizo Another reason you alledge from Christs being baptised into the Jordan Pag. 9. Pag. 10. Therefore you conclude again that this word en as used after this word baptizo must signifie in and not with But you should take notice that if Christ received the baptisme of water he was baptised not onely when he was in Jordan but there was he baptised with the water of Jordan Wherefore it plainly appeareth that the word en in this place signifieth with and therefore you have not done well to say it doth not You alledge Greeke and Latine Authors to prove that the word en as used after this word baptizo must signifie in and not with Which thing is contrary to the Scriptures which speake of the baptisme of water neither can such an affirmation stand with reason but is contradictory to it self and therefore not to be beleeved But the dipping of the whole man all over in water is that you stand for but yet you have not proved it to be of Christs ordaining you deny both washing and sprinkling with water to be Gods ordinance and affirme dipping is the onely right way but seeing you denie the former how will you take or how have you taken up the latter if you hold it successively to the successours you must then go if you have not found or cannot find them which way then have you taken or which way wil you take it up But by one whom you judge to be an unbaptised person Moreover you tell us that the whole man must be dipped all over but you declare not unto us the way and manner thereof whether the subject must go into the water himself or whether he must be put in by another or onely led in or carried or if the party must go in whether he must be lifted up out of the water and so dipped down again or no or whether onely that part that is above the water must be dipt and that part under the water let alone or if the subject be dipped all but a part whether he must be dipped again in whole or in part or if there be any errour in your dipping in omission or commission whether it maketh a nullitie of your ordinance how your judgement standeth in these things I know not you stand for dipping yea and dipping the whole man all over in water not onely the feet but also the hands and head but what if some part or parts be missing is it not true baptisme But furthermore how shall this baptisme be done by a weak person especially in great and deep waters which thing you urge in your discourse how shall this dipping of every part be done in such rivers where the streame is readie to carrie them away especially when he who is the baptiser is weak of body and lifteth up the man or woman above the water these things are to be observed also But surely it is not good to presume above what is written in the Word of God either in justifying of our selves or condemning of others And if you do but well observe the manner how Philip baptised the Eunuch Act. 8.36.38 peradventure you may receive some light in this point whereby you may be disswaded from your totall dipping for it is said that Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water and there Philip baptised the Eunuch which doth plainly demonstrate unto us that going into the water is no part of baptisme because the baptisme was administred after their going into the water for if it had been a part of baptisme then the Eunuch baptised himself for he went into the water But the Scripture saith that they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptised him Neither is it said that Philip baptised himself which by the same reason we may conceive he did if going into the water were a part of baptisme but the Scripture noteth the going down into the water and the being baptised with the water as two distinct things Neither is it said that Philip baptised the Eunuchs feet or legs for the Eunuch was in the water before and at the time of his baptisme but it is said Philip baptised him to wit a part of him for the whole which part in reason must be conceived to be his face under which externall noble part is comprehended the whole man and all the senses of his body So the Scriptures in divers places teacheth us to understand that a part sometimes is to be taken for the whole so it was prophesied that the Son of man should be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth * Mat. 12.40 and yet he lay not there so long but rose before three dayes or three nights was totally expired as appeareth by Matth. 27.46 and 28.1 6 7. Mar. 15.42 and 16.2.9 Luk. 23.54 56. and 24.1 36. Joh. 19.42 and 20.1.14.19 All which doth teach us in some cases of great concernment as this was about Christs to understand that sometimes when the whole is spoken of but a part is meant For to confirm this you may see here that we have the words and testimonies of Angels Apostles Prophets and Saints yea and of Christ himself If then in some things of the greatest concernment we may and must take a part a Luk. 24. Mat. 17.23 for the whole b Mat. 12.40 sure then in some things of lesser moment we may and must take a part for the whole For it is not to be thought that God hath tyed to baptise every member of our body which shall be raised at the day of judgement that the Apostles so did baptise neither can you prove that the Apostles did so baptise except you meane that a part is to be taken for the whole as I have shewed before And seeing that Act. 8.38 39 concerning Philips baptising the Eunuch is brought by you c See his book pa. 11. lin 1. to prove as I suppose that Philip baptised every externall part of his body and that by way of dipping prove the thing I say if you can and then you will speak to some purpose in maintenance of your totall dipping If you cannot do it to what end then have you brought this Scripture which maketh against you Consider I pray you that Paul after the Lord had smitten him down d Act. 9.4 was without his sight but was led unto Damascus to the house of Judas and there remained in a weak condition not having his sight nor taking any food for the space of three dayes e Ver 8 9.11 his bodie being so enfeebled f Ver. 18.19 shall we think that it would not have been an
but the baptisme which is onely available to salvation is the answer of a good conscience toward God that is the baptisme indeed which saveth by the resurrection of Jesus Christ b 1 Pet. 3 21. Now he that hath his heart sprinkled with the blood of Christ he may fully assure himself that he shall be saved and so he is risen with Christ though he want the outward baptisme which you grant is nothing in comparison of Christ c In the second Treatise pa. 17. and so he having part in Christ who is the resurrection and the life d Joh. 11.25 he shall not be hurt with the second death Rev. 2.11 and 20.6 But this your dipping of the whole man all over in water you would have to hold forth not onely death and buriall but also a rising again and for this end you mention some words of the Apostle Paul Col. 2.12 Buried with him by baptisme wherein you are also risen with him c. Rom. 6.4.5 We are buried with him by baptisme into his death And if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death we shall also in the likenesse of his resurrection And in 1. Cor. 15.29 St. Paul amongst other arguments to prove the resurrection hath these words What shall they do which are baptised for dead if the dead rise not at all why then are they baptised for dead Answ The first Scripture Col. 2.12 speaketh of a resurrection then present and the other Scriptures Rom. 6.5 1. Cor. 15.29 speake of a resurrection to come Now in the resurrection at the day of judgement the blind shall receive their sight * Rev. 1.7 Job 19.24 25 26.27 though the eyes which are the instrument of their sight are perished and though a person have lost his legs or his armes or any externall member of his body that is not superfluous yet he being not thereby killed is according to his capabilitie still to beleeve that all those breaches shall be made up in the resurrection now if you should happen to baptise such a one by dipping which hath such defects in nature as the want of his legs armes or eyes c. will you say that that baptisme setteth forth unto him no more but onely the raising of those externall parts which you then dip then you will have it to set forth a blind or lame resurrection But if you will say the baptisme he receiveth at your hands setteth forth the resurrection of all the parts both those parts that are missing and those parts that are not those members that are baptised and those members that are not baptised then the case is evident that the eminents part or parts of the body being baptised the said baptisme setteth forth the same benefit unto the rest of the members for in the resurrection if one member be had in honour all shall be had in honour For further explaining of the matter I put this ordinarie case unto you and desire you to consider thereof Suppose a man come unto you to be baptised and wanteth one or both of his legs arms eyes or other externall members what now is to be done in this case Peradventure you will say that you cannot baptise those members that are not to be found So say I too But what then if those members were or are to be found must you needs seek for those to baptise them with him You will say No! that would be a senslesse thing to baptise that which hath no more life in it then a stone I also affirm the same But what is further to be done will you proceed and baptise this beleever or leave him unbaptised You will say He is a beleever though he want his eyes legges armes c. and therefore he must be baptised though he want those externall members Yea but then I ask you whether you do not conceive that your baptisme is a buriall and a rising again and whether you do not beleeve that it setteth forth unto the lame man the resurrection of all his members as well as if all his members had been baptised I suppose you will say Why not there is no reason can be given to the contrarie considering that those members shall be raised with the body at the resurrection But then I desire you to remember this and beare in mind what will follow namely that baptisme setteth forth the resurrection of those externall members which were never baptised and therefore that which you esteeme to be no baptisme or but a baptising in part setteth forth the resurrection of the whole bodie and so totally of all the members thereof and belonging thereunto so that the face or eminents part of a man being baptised though the rest of the members are not wet with water yet this baptisme holdeth forth the resurrection of the whole body I meane not onely a spirituall resurrection but a translation of the naturall body into a spirituall body and this is the resurrection the Apostle speaketh of when he saith What shall they do that are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not at all why then are they baptised for dead 1. Cor. 15 9. Your conclusion of this point * Pa. 12. which is grounded upon a supposition I reject because it openly contradicteth the Scripture 1 Cor. 10.2.1 Pet. 3.27 Matth. 20.22 Luke 12.50 Isa 14.15 For you say that he that is not dipped is not baptised and that all those that have the administration of baptisme by sprinkling or by any washing without dipping are unbaptised Which I denie and that from the grounds before alledged remember I pray you how you urge the greatnesse of the quantitie of the element to be of such necessitie to baptisme that except a person have so much wherein he may dip the whole man all over baptisme cannot be rightly administred upon him and so by your grounds not administred at all And this is one of the particulars by which you would disprove the baptisme in the Church of England Now though in the Church of England the manner of baptising is by sprinkling washing or powring the water upon the most eminent part of the subject which is there presented to be baptised yet in the Church of Rome and in some places of England and the dominions of Wales they have used and do use dipping of persons in the ordinance of baptisme which is a thing in respect of the manner pleasing unto you and therefore in this second particular not here excepted against by you for in striking at the manner you have in this touched nothing but onely their washing sprinkling or powring of water upon the partie whereon it is administred Your third ground or particular by which you labour * Pa. 12. at lin 26. to disprove the baptisme in the Church of England and make it to be of none effect is because of the Antichristian power authoritie and office of ministery by which it is administred and so
those whom God in his revealed will hath made no promise to save yet though the members of the Church of England do presume so farre it doth not make a nullitie of the ordinance no more then the Philistines presumption in taking the Arke of God c 1. Sam. 4.10 11. and 5.1 or the men of Bethshemosh their looking therein d 6.19 made it to be no Ark of God neither doth mens traditions destroy Gods institutions for Gods pillars and posts are still his own though Idolaters do set theirs thereby e Ezek. 43.8 But though some in the Church of England do baptise by sureties which they commonly call godfathers and godmothers yet others see it to be vaine and popish and do baptise their children without them these in respect of the ground which you have here instanced you cannot object against Now the ground wherefore the Church of England doth administer baptisme is taken out of Gods Word at least pretended by them so to be how Christ declared that little children belong to the kingdom of God and he took them up in his arms laid his hands upon them and blessed them c. yea from the very institution of Jesus Christ unto his disciples Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 this I say though it be the ground whereby they administer baptisme as peradventure the ground of the Apostates of Israel circumcising was taken from the commission of God given to Abraham yet these Idolaters like the Apostate Israelites are sacralegious abusers of this holy institution of God Thus having answered directly to your foure particulars which you have brought against the baptisme in the Church of England I now proceed to answer your fifth and last particular to wit concerning the subjects which you treated of in your first particular where you passed from the end to the subject Pag. 24. THe subjects say you on which baptisme is there administred are infants To which I answer that you have omitted a materiall word for you should have said the infants of Idolaters but when you speake of infants in generall without denoting what sort of infants you mean you speak in the aire But you grant that the Scripture holdeth forth that disciples or beleevers onely are to be baptised which is really my judgement that onely beleevers or disciples are to be baptised as formerly they were to be circumcised and as Abraham himself had no command to circumcise all nations or seeds or any apostate whatsoever though the off-spring of his body but those that were the seed in covenant with God * Gen. 7.14 so the Apostles had no warrant to baptise any other but beleeving men and women and their holy seed according to the great commission of our blessed Saviour where all nations were commanded to be baptised onely upon this condition that they should become disciples Matth. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 Act. 2.38 And I grant with you that to be a disciple of Christ is to abide in him and to continue in his words Joh. 8.31 such are Christs disciples indeed and are made free by Christ * Joh 8.36 such as beare the crosse and come after Christ forsaking all that they have But know this that free Justification cometh not by any act of our own but by the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ imputed unto us * Isa 63.3.5 53.10 11 12. Rom. 3.6 Rev. 1.5 5.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. And therefore holy infants may be said in one respect to do all these things Christ himself hath declared that they receive the kingdome of God and such holy infants are his disciples indeed such have born the crosse divers times suffering with their holy parents for the same cause and they resist not the will of God in any thing these are not all infants but onely the infants of beleeving parents whom we ought to judge as righteous and as holy till they manifest otherwise as any other Saint on earth though he professe great things these are those heavenly creatures to whom the Gospel ought be applyed though they are uncapable to receive it actually yea when the Gospel is verbally applyed to the parents their infants are not exempted but received according to Christs words unto Zacheus To day is salvation come to this house for as much as he also is the sonne of Abraham * Luk. 19.9 Christ hath promised life to those that chuse life and also to their infants and therefore the same infants have faith imputatively for he that beleeveth not shall be damned So that it appeareth that salvation cometh not but by faith in Christ For as much then as the Scripture is so clear that these holy infants are saved and seeing that salvation cometh not without repentance and faith It is too much presumption to say that infants are destitute of faith and repentance though all the men in the world would grant it But I do wonder what is the maine ground that doth drive you or the greatest reason or conceit that doth draw you so to determine concerning infants * Pag. 25. as if they were destitute of the heavenly gifts and graces of Gods Spirit Is it because they cannot verbally expresse or actually perform such things as those of riper yeers can do If this be your greatest reason it will not beare down the least weight in the ballance of Gods sanctuary as may easily appeare But though baptisme in the Church of England be administred upon the wrong subjects namely the seed of Idolaters and though eternall life be sought and promised by them another way then God hath appointed yet to affirm that because some infants are not meet subjects of baptisme that therefore no infants are is a saying founded upon the sands and fetched out of the fond fictions of mens brains and not from the word of God Your best way had been this to have searched into the records of holy Scripture and observed the nature of the ordinance of circumcision and compared the same signe a Gen. 17.13 and seale b Rom. 4.11 of righteousnesse with baptisme c Col. 2.11 12. and so to have found out the equivolence which the one hath with the other and then you should have examined whether the circumcision of Apostate Infants were according to the will of God and if it were not whether they were commanded by the Lord at their returning to be circumcised again If it had been so then you might have had ground to have beaten down the baptisme which is received in the Church of England but this is not the way you take but instead of this you shoot at rovers not keeping to the matter in hand And till it can be proved that the circumcision of infants was none of the Lords circumcision I must still say that the baptisme of Infants is the Lords baptisme wherefore stand to your cause and bring forth your strong reasons For as yet your reasons are verie weak though
A CHRISTIAN PLEA FOR CHRISTIANS BAPTISME Raised from the grave of Apostasie OR A SHORT TREATISE Being a reproof of some things written by A. R. in his Treatise intituled The vanitie of Childish Baptisme In the Answer whereof The lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme is defended the sufficiency of our Baptisme received in the state of Apostasie shewed and the deficiencie of the Arguments brought against it manifested by sufficient grounds and reasons drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture S. C. Ezek. 37.12 13 14. O my people I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves c. 2. Chron. 30.18 19. The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God the Lord God of his fathers though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary Jer. 9.25.26 Behold the daies come saith the Lord that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised Egypt and Judah and Edom and the children of Ammon and Moab and all that are cut off into corners that dwell in the wildernesse for all these Nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart Rev. 11.1 2. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod and the Angel stood saying Rise and measure the Temple of God and the Altar and them that worship therein But the Court which is without the Temple cast out and measure it not for it is given unto the Gentiles c. LONDON Printed by T. P. and M. S. and are to be sold by Ben. Allen in Popes-head-Alley 1643. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER Grace Mercie and Peace be multiplyed c. HAving considered that the weaknesse and frivolousnesse of the Arguments brought by A. R. against Baptisme deserved no Answer and conceiving that most of them were publickly confuted in print * By Ainsworth Wilkinson Clifton Robinson divers others before any of them were thus published I thought not to have medled with them in such a publick way But further considering that the said Arguments of his were divulged in print and might do much hurt amongst some ignorant people who would do better if they knew better I thought it meet to help to take off this new vizard put upon the Anabaptists old out-worn arguments and so to pull down this little tottering turret of Babel because that in this false fire and light of the sparks of these crackling thornes the makers thereof delight still to walke and some are yet deluded by such frothie Divinitie and smokie clouds of subl me sophistry without due triall of them by the light of Gods Word or weighing them in the balance of the Sanctuary Wherefore in obedience to God and love to his people I have here undertaken to use my talent in vindicating the lawfulnesse of Christians Baptisme raised with them out of the grave of the Apostasie of the man of sinne which hath been for many yeers in which Apostate estate and wretched condition the name of God hath been greatly profained his institutions though not destroyed yet highly abused to the destruction of many souls out of which state God hath called some who have obeyed his voyce and come out of Babel to Sion and are as dearly beloved of God as the penitent Israelites whom God in former time brought from Jeroboams apostasie to Judah where they kept the feast unto the Lord and were both young and old accepted of him though they retained the Circumcision which they received in that apostate estate where there was neither true visible Church ministry worship nor government but all diabolicall and Apostaticall yet God having reserved his own ordinance pure unto himself the evill of the manner being repented of by them the thing it self was not commanded to be administred upon them again And surely God could have commanded that Circumâ—ision done in Apostasie by a wrong administrator and by a false power and upon a wrong subject to have been esteemed as not done at all and that the parties when they returned from that Apostasie should have been circumcised again but he would not no more hath he commanded us to be baptised again though we were baptised in an Apostate state for Baptisme is as durable as Circumcision and God is as able to purge baptisme now as he was to purge Circumcision then But Mr. A. R. hath taken upon him to prove the Baptisme which we Christians received in the state of Apostasie to be none of Gods Baptisme but insufficient In the prosecution whereof he alledgeth severall particulars by which he would disprove the same which particulars are examined and his inferences from thence answered in the ensuing discourse But it would not have been amisse if he had well considered for abridgement of his work that baptisme being by his own confession a great ordinance of the New Testament To make it lesse generall or lesse durable then Circumcision or inferiour thereunto would be to make Christ lesse faithfull in his house then Moses and inferiour to him But baptisme is more generall then Circumcision And Christ is more excellent then Moses and Baptisme is as durable as Circumcision Therefore seeing Circumcision was not worne out by those Baptisme is not worne out by these Think not Christian Reader that I intend to plead for the Apostaticall Church of Rome or any of her daughters or for their ministry worship or Government So farre am I from this that I utterly renounce and disclaime the same and leave the Justification of them to the disposition of those who account them no worse then Heathens that never knew the truth and seek to lessen their sinne by labouring to vindicate their supposed innocencie teaching them in this to plead ignoramus and not guiltie when they are justly accused for committing of sacriledge Yea and Gods definitive sentence pronounced against them and his just judgements executed and daily executing upon them as appeareth at this very day since the sharp arrows of the Almighty have been and are still so generally scattered abroad to the destruction and ruination of those persons not onely for their abuse of common meats and drinks and other temporall blessings but chiefly and above all for the abuse and prophanation of spirituall things as the prophanation of Gods holy word and ordinances which they distribute to all sorts of sinners that come under the notion of a verball profession though very vile in their life and conversation All which is of us not to be lessened or excused as if it were not sacriledge or theft in an high degree but rather to be lamented that those persons who draw neer unto God with their mouthes and outwardly pretend to stand for Christ and fight for his true Religion taking upon them to defend the same some with the Word others with the sword against those who do oppose them should have their hearts so farre alienated from God as so much to take his holy Name in vaine
estate For though God visiteth the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate him yet he sheweth mercie to thousands of those that love him and keep his Commandments h Ver. 6. The deniall of Baptisme to the infants of beleevers ariseth from many grosse and ignorant mistakes of the true sence and meaninâ— of many texts of Scriptures as also from many foolish conceptions and idle dreamâ—s wherewith persons have intoxicated their minds and wraped themselves into grievous absurdities As in other things they bewray a great deale of ignorance so do they in this about infants and are driven in maintenance of this errour to discover more errours in themselves g Exod. 20.5 and to strike at the fundamentall principles of Religion They suppose that those Scriptures which set forth the excellent priviledges of the faithfull and their seed concerne not infants at all but only persons of yeers that are capable and do professe faith and repentance limiting the seed to them of yeers onely or to Christs person barring out infants in their conceptions from visible union and communion with him Where it is said that the Covenant of Circumcision was to be in their flesh * Gen. 17.13 they interpret that flesh to be Christ where Circumcision in Scripture is called the signe a Gen 17.11 and seal of the righteousnesse of faith b Rom. 4.11 they limit that to Abraham onely and Gen 17.10 these words this is my Covenant * For this see A. R. his second book pa. 24 lin 13. 14. they take literally to be a reall Covenant without taking the exposition vers 11. even as the Papists expound Matth. 26.26 This is my body for his reall and corporall presence They also would most absurdly make Baptisme lesse general and more generall then circumcision which implyeth a flat contradiction Whereas it is said He that beleeveth and is baptised shall be saved c. This they say cannot be applyed to any infants for say they infants have no faith either by action or imputation then they are driven forcibly to run upon another absurditie that either Infants are saved without faith ar else that they are not saved at all Circumcision they conceive was not a seale of the new Covenant but of some carnall thing but this is a carnall affirmation like the judgement of him that saith the Church of the Jews was constituted upon nature and carnalitie opposite to the spirit and farre different from the Churches of Christ * Pag. 22.17.18.19.20 These absurdities with many more follow one another like links of one chain yea this is an evill under the Sun that those things which are old errors by some now adayes are esteemed as new truths Amongst whom some there are in particular who deny the heavenly state and baptisme of holy infants and also the baptisme of Christ received in the state of apostasie not distinguishing between a thing well done ill done and not done at all which distinctions ought to be observed both in spirituall and temporall things And considering Christian Reader that in many things we sin all and are subject to erre in our best actions I earnestly desire thee to take nothing upon trust which I set down but duely trie and discreetly weigh the same in the balance of the Lords sanctuary and if thou reapâ—st any profit by my poore endeavours give the glory to God and wherin I misse it let me be informed that the same may by me be reformed for the unchangeable truth of Jesus Christ we ought to love dearly prize highly and purchase it without ever parting from it and cherish it as the Lord doth put it into our bosome and so become one with it even like unto Jesus Christ who is the way the truth the life and the light of those who in his light do see light whose unsearchable riches I desire with all Saints every way to comprehend and therewith bid thee farewell And so remain Thy Christian Brother in the fellowship of the Gospel S C. A REPROOF OF SOME things written by A.R. in his Treatise intituled The vanitie of Childish Baptisme In the Answer whereof The lawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme is defended the sufficiencie of our Baptisme received in the state of Apostasie shewed and the deficiencie of the Arguments brought against it manifested by sufficient grounds and reasons drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture Mr. AR. YOu have in your title page and Epistle to the Reader taken upon you to do that which you are not able and promised that which you cannot perform and affirmed that which you cannot prove by Scripture which is that the Baptisme of Infants is unwarrantable and a meer device brought into the world for politick and by ends c. and that therefore it being the baptisme in the Church of England you have undertaken to prove it to be deficient and none of Gods Baptisme IN the entrance of your discourse you confesse Pag. 1. That Baptisme is a great ordinance of the new Testament To which I adde that though every ordinance of the new Testament be great yet there is a difference between them for some ordinances are active both in respect of the administrator and partaker thereof other ordinances are meerly passive in reference to the parties upon whom the same are administred amongst which passive ordinances Baptisme is one * So Mr. Spilsbery saith the subject of Baptisme is to be passive See his Treatise pa. 26. li 7. That Baptisme is so as I have here declared the Scriptures Mat. 28.19 Acts 2.38 which you have quoted dâ—â—xpresse where the Apostles were commanded to baptise others And the Disciples are not bidden by Peter to baptise themselves but to be baptised by others And you may know that the Eunuch baptised not himself but Philip a baptised person baptised him Act. 8.38 And therefore in this respect baptisme is unto us as circumcision was to the Saints of old to wit an ordinance not acted by the subject or receiver but submitted unto Josh 5. and suffered so it is said Joshua circumcised the children of Israel the second time for they were uncircumcised God did not require them to circumcise themselves but Joshua a circumcised person was to circumcise them Jos 5.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. And as to circumcision then there was required a right instrument a right subject and an enrighting power so there is now required to baptisme But as circumcision was Gods though the subject and instrument and power was not right So is baptisme now Gods holy institution though done by a false minister upon a false subject and by a false power And though these Antichristians have no command or warrant from God to baptise Apostates or any other persons no more then the idolatrous Israelites had to circumcise yet as that circumcision then administred after that manner contrary to Gods revealed will was
not changed from being Gods nor done over again upon those that returned out of that Apostasie So baptisme now though it be administred by these Apostates after such an idolatrous manner and upon such idolatrous subjects yet it doth not make a nullitie of the ordinance By this it appeareth that you have laid the ground of your reasoning amisse in bringing your five particulars to make a nullitie of our baptisme which we have received in Apostasie the insufficiencie of which grounds of yours shall be further shewed in the examination of the particulars which follow Your first particular ground by which you say you will disprove the baptisme in the Church of England is Pag. 2. because as you affirme that the end for which baptisme is there administred is to regenerate the infants there baptised for proof whereof you repeat their forme of words before and after baptisme but you mention not the 〈◊〉 of institution which they pronounce in the act of baptising and you would argue that because they declare that all men be conceived and born in sinne and because they say that our Saviour Christ saith none can enter into the kingdome of God except he be regenerated and born anew of water and the holy Ghost and because the Minister beseecheth the people to call upon God 〈◊〉 Father through our Lord Jesus Christ that of his bountifull mercy he will grant to the children that thing which by nature they cannot have that they may be baptised with water and the holy Ghost And because the Minister and people pray thus We beseech thee of thine infinite mercies that thou wilt mercifully look upon these children sanctifie them and wash them with the holy Ghost that they being delivered from thy wrath may be received into the Ark of Christs Church and being stedfast in faith joyfull through hope and rooted in charitie c. We call upon thee for these infants that they coming to thy holy baptisme may receive the remission of their sins by spirituall regeneration c. Give thy holy Spirit to these infants that they may be born again and be made heirs of everlasting salvation Also because the Minister after he hath cast a little water on the childrens faces openly forthwith without blushing * Lin. 28. saith Now seeing that these children be regenerated and grafted into the body of Christs congregation c. And then exhorts the people to give thanks to God for that it hath pleased him to regenerate the infants with his holy Spirit and received them for his own children by adoption c. From these premises you would infer that the baptisme is false which ground of yours is very weak yea the ground of your reasoning is amisse and contrary to reason For it is no right arguing to bring the mixing of their traditions as a nihilation of Gods institution And their confession that all men be born and conceived in sin and repetition of the words of Christ and the exhortation to call upon God the Father through Jesus Christ that he will give them that of his mercy which they confesse by nature they cannot have that they might be baptised with water and the holy Ghost Doth not argue that the baptisme is not Gods ordinance for it is neither their high conceptions or great estimations or such verball pronuntiations that doth destroy or make void Gods holy institutions yet it is a prophanation of the Name of God and so it is of the ordinance because the persons who administer the same are Idolaters and the subjects upon whom it is administred are the seed of Apostates Neither is it their beseeching God of his infinite mercies that he will mercifully look upon these children and sanctifie them and wash them with the holy Ghost that will disanull the ordinance and make it of none effect Neither doth their praying that the children may be delivered from Gods wrath and that they may be received into the Ark of Christs Church and be stedfast in faith joyfull through hope and rooted in charitie c. overthrow Gods ordinance and make the Baptisme received no ordinance of God Neither doth their acknowledging of baptisme to be Gods and to be holy and there praying for remission of sins for the Infants by spirituall regeneration nor their ascribing regeneration to the holy Spirit prove the baptisme there administred to be no true baptisme And it is not their sprinkling or casting water upon the face of the children that maketh a nullitie of the ordinance though he without blushing say afterwards that the children be regenerated for whether he blush or not blush that is not materiall to prove the point which you brought it for And though the exhortation which the Minister gives to the people together with the rest agreeth with their Catechise the particulars whereof concerning infants regeneration though they were confirmed by these Fathers * Ierome Augustin Zanchus Peter Martyr Dr Whitticar which you have cited to be noted * Pag. 3. instead of many more yet it doth not argue but that the baptisme holdeth firme though in respect of the manner we allow it not neither their additions thereunto and though it be done by a wrong administratour upon an apostate yet if that Apostate return from his apostasie the evill of the manner being repented of the action hath no need to be done over again neither doth God so require it any more then he required the apostate Israelites when they returned to be circumcised again this you cannot deny except you could prove baptisme to be lesse durable then circumcision as if Christ were lesse faithfull in his house then Moses Again you say the end for which Infants are baptised in the Church of England is to regenerate them and that they may be born anew and accordingly it is concluded in the Catechisme * Pag. 3. and confirmed by all these Authors and divers others well known to your Ministers the maintainers of this doctrine that in Baptisme they receive the holy Spirit that they are regenerate and born anew that they are made the members of Christ the children of God and heires of the kingdom of heaven In answer to all which you say you shall say nothing but onely reason this with some other of their own principles and practise and thereby you say you doubt not but it will appear to all how unfaithfully they have and do delude the Nations in this particular I answer As for their unfaithfulnesse and their deluding the Nations I doubt not of it but with what do they most delude if not with that which they have like theeves stolen away So the whorish woman is said to delude by commending the stollen waters and hidden bread for sweetnesse and pleasantnesse and so inticing her lovers to commit fornication with her a Pro. 9.1.7 so the Philistines thought the Ark to be a rare thing b 1 Sam. 4.7 8 9. and so indeed it was