children had the spirit in their infancy John Baptist had faith in the womb the Scripture saith it not its only Thomas Hall's words Jeremiah sanctified from the womb c. and what of all this its not one swallow makes a Summer because John and Jeremiah were sanctified that is set apart from the womb to their particular offices therefore all Infants are sanctified a goodly conclusion because Balaams Asse did speak therefore all Asses may speak a likely matter You say The Promise is that in the Gospel times the childe shall die an hundred year old c. Isa 65 20. that is say you They shall be blest with spiritual life and light from Christ as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church of God when that relates to a spiritual glory in the Church of Christ which is yet to come not of the Natural but of the Spiritual Seed when they shall be freed from the former weakness and temptation this Scripture Answers Rev. 21. 1 2 3. 2 Pet. 3. 13. And whereas you say though Infants cannot lay hold on Christ yet he can lay hold on them We question not Christs laying hold on them but we are not to baptize them till they lay hold on Christ Pag. 49. you say Infants have faith repentance regeneration and before you confess they are children of wrath alike the children of wrath as heathens are pag. 10. yet now faith repentance regeneration unheard of contradictions If your preaching brethren had written such palpable contradictions you would have concluded that it had been either for want of learning or through much forgetfulness but you mend the business well you think It is virtually and potentially by way of inclination c. They have the spirit and seed of faith c. The truth of this appears apparently in Infants when they are grown doth the seed of faith appear or the seed of corruption Come forth O all ye that have any experience of the grace of Iesus and work of faith with power speak you knowledge in this particular whether there be in Infants an inclination and the seed of faith or whether there be not rather an inclination to every thing that is evil and the power of corruption remaining in them Be ashamed and blush to utter such known untruths and unheard of contradictions Children of wrath yet the seed of faith inclinations to believe I say no more but leave this Argument likewise to the wise consideration of the Reader The eleventh Argument That way which doth confound the two Sacraments and take away the distinction which God hath put between them cannot be the way of God But the way of the Anabaptists doth confound the two Sacraments and takes away that distinction which God hath put between them Ergo T is not the way of God Answ There is no truth in your Minor for first where is the Scripture that saith baptism is only for Initiation and not for Confirmation it s a fancy of your own brain may not baptism be be initiation and confirmation too 2. If it be truth what you say that Baptism is only for initiation into the Church what is become of your Mr. Baxters grand Argument That they are members of the Church then not initiated in by baptism one of your Arguments must of necessity be false I say both of them as relating to Infants 3. It was the Apostles practice to baptize believers and give them the Supper too and did they confound the two Sacraments as you call them bear with me for I know no Scripture cals them so So that the way of the Anabaptists as you falsely reproachfully call them doth not confound the Ordinances but preserve them in their place to the right end according to the right rule and you it is confound Ordinances observing neither rule place nor end The twelfth Argument Such as were typically baptized under the Law may be really baptized under the Gospel Infants were typically baptized under the Law Ergo. You reason from the type to the truth In this take a view likewise of your own ignorance in not understanding the difference between type and antitype type and substance type and truth and shew me if you can any one type in all the Scripture that typed out another type you may as well say that the Jewish Sacrifices typed out the Gospel Supper c. But all types related to substances and Christ was the substance of all legal types this truth will be clear in the resolving of these questions 1. If Christ be the substance of all types whether or no the baptizing of the natural seed in the type do not represent unto us the baptizing of the spirituall seed into the substance 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. 2. Whether or no as all the natural feed were baptized into Moses and into the sea and cloud so all the spiritual seed should be baptized into the profession of faith of Jesus Mat. 28. 19. Act. 19. 3. Whether to make the substance no other then the type the Covenant of the Gospel no other then that of the Law the seed of the Gospel-Covenant the same as the Legal the administration of Gospel-ordinance on the same subjects as of the Legal notwithstanding Christ hath given cleer rules to the contrary be not to make null the Gospel and to deny Christ to be come in the flesh and so to be the Antichrist Gal. 5. 2. Mat. 28. 20. Act. 3. 22. 1 Joh. 4. 2. 3. In a word if you will make this type the ground of your baptizing Infants first then you do not hearken to Christ the substance but honour him in the type deny him in his person and spirit secondly you are to baptize them as they were in the type viz. in the cloud and in the sea What is that to your sprinkling of Infants Thirdly you may from hence if that be your warrant from whence you ground your practise baptize your Cattel too for all passed through the sea and indeed not to be a pattern to you that you might hence take occasion to sprinkle Infants so denying Christ but a type of Christ the Saviour and Deliverer of his people that as the natural seed were saved in the type so the spiritual were and are saved in the substance viz. in Christ All you say to this Argument being thus untruly grounded is but a non sequitur and so I leave it The thirteenth Argument From the priviledges that Christ purchased for Infants Those who are subjects of Christs kingdom have right to the priviledges of subjects But some Infants are subjects of Christs kingdom Ergo Some Infants have right to the priviledges of Subjects You say The seal of the Covenant is a choise priviledge I have often said and say again that Baptism is no seal of the Covenant but the Spirit To your second Argument I say there is no truth in your Major for there is not a word of Baptizing in the Text and
the judgement of the Church he may lawfully nay he ought to submit unto the Call of God be he high or low from the Speaker of the House or President of the Counsell of State unto the Hewer of wood and Drawer of water and this is a true Call when thus called of God therefore all you say to this is but an idle fancy you have no ground for it His second Error That Infant-Baptism is a childish thing And this you say He will own for a Truth And this I do say I still own for a Truth and that first in the Subject 2. In the Administrators You say There is an Objection lies in the way which he sets down viz. That the Infants of the children of Israel were as uncapable of the understanding of the mysterie of Circumcision as Infants are now of Baptism My Answers though reproached by you I suppose it s not for want of ignorance I shall relate them again and leave them to the judgement of the Reader only adding one more will stand and their truth be manifest when what you practise will fall in the streets It s truth that one part of Circumcisions Mystery viz. the Circumcision of the heart was as far from the capacity of Infants as the mysterie of Baptism is now 2. As Circumcision was a Type and Figure in the flesh of Christ who was to come of Abrahams Seed and there was no such capacity required because it was a Jewish Legal Type as all the rest of their external Worships and Sacrifices were leading to and representing the coming of Christ in the flesh That these are not words to please children as you pretend unless you mean the children of God but words of truth it will appear if the honest Reader do but consider that as all the Ordinances of the Jews were Carnal and Typical Heb. 9. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. So those Ordinances were given to the Natural or Carnal Seed viz. the Seed of the Flesh which was Typical likewise as their Ordinances were therefore was not the like capacity required in them as in those in the Gospel days who are directly led into the Mysterie unto Jesus who is come being the substance of all those Types and shadows 3. There was a Command for that of Circumcision none for that of Baptism you cry out O egregiously gifted Disputant Answ O egregiously ignorant Is it not the Command that gives a capacity to the one and to the other If the Lord Command the one and not the other is not that enough to silence man for ever Zac. 2. 13. I say its the Command of God that gives a capacity to the creature of obeying and there are none capable of a Duty but those that are called to the Duty and this you confess your self p. 86. that in weighty things of God a Christian must have a certain evident Rule to warrant his practise Whereas you say They were therefore circumcised because taken into the Covenant and so Church Members I shall Answer it in its place and say something to it in my fourth Answer I shall adde a fourth and that is They were capable of those things promised to them in that Covenant viz. The Land of Canaan and only the spiritual seed are capable of those things promised in the Gospel-Covenant viz. The spiritual Land Jesus Christ and all the good things of the Gospel 2. I say its childish as relating to the Administrators c. and you give a clear answer to it of just nothing I refer the Reader to it His third Error That none must be baptized until they come to perfect age To this you seem to give a learned Answer crying out of Ignorance and where it is let the Reader judge by the Scriptures I produce Was not Christ himself baptized at thirty years of age The Eunuch by Philip Acts 8. 37. And those that came to Iohn Mat. 3. and those Acts 2. 40 41 You say When any Anabaptist in England can prove that there was no Infants baptized in the Apostles time then it may be you will make use of that which I bring I shall make use of your own words before O egregiously gifted Disputant What are you so well verst that we must prove Negatives I thought that you had known so much in disputation of Reason and Scripture that if you will practise a thing then you must prove it or else it is Will worship if you can produce no precept nor president in Scripture for your practise then you have no ground for your practise but you can produce neither precept nor president for your practise Ergo. I say Is there one rule for them and another for us now if there be produce it To this you learnedly answer If he did understand sense he would see that the same Scripture-rule that was then given to the Churches directs us to a different course in gathering of Churches And truly I must be mighty wise then to understand that which is not for mine own ends such sense will prove sensual in the end Jam. 3. 13 14 15 16. and this is the summe of what you say only you would flatter the people with your love to them and its manifest it is in darkening the Truth You have produced no Scripture for another rule to us then that to them although I called for it but only Rev. 2. 2. Try them that say they are Apostles and are not but lyars I say so too and earnestly desire nay charge those who have any knowledge of Jesus to do it See who sticks fastest to the Scriptures we or you that so they may find out the lyars and detect and avoid them for they serve not the Lord Jesus but their own bellies and by their works they shall know them As for those consequences mentioned as that of Circumcision the Housholds and those brought to Christ c. I wonder that you blush not to write so audaciously as you do knowing that almost all people know the truth of what I write that these are the consequences witness The Font-Guarded Immediatly you confess that its true The first consequence is made use of but come hither all you that fear the Lord see what a shift this man makes to help himself he takes it for granted that I acknowledge that baptism is come in the room of Circumcision when I do but declare your false and nonsensical consequences not mine own conclusion I deny Baptism to be come in the room of Circumcision my grounds you may see in the Font-Guard Routed in my answer to Doctor Hall yet if it were true that Baptism were come in the room of Circumcision as Richard Sanders would have it let the babes and sucklings come and see what ground here will be for Infant baptism let Jesus Christ be King let him have but so much honour as to tell you who shall be baptized and how it shall be done the controversie will be ended If you think
it is of God not a wolf but a sheep not a false but a true Prophet speaking to edification exhortation and consolation they may with comfort hear and approve the speaking of such in the Church Your fourth Argument is If to appoint to the office of a Minister and the work of a Minister be all one then no man is appointed to the work of a Minister but he that is appointed to the office But to appoint to the office of a Minister and the work of a Minister be all one Ergo. Ans Your Minor is denied A man may be appointed to the work of a Minister yet never be appointed to the office For 1. Richard Sanders himself in his own practise shall confute this Logick for he saith That he Preached a long time before he was Ordained c. but he mends the matter It was in order to the Ministry But in case Richard Sanders had died before he had been ordained then Preaching and the Office of the Ministry had not been one there had been a great deal of Preaching without Office So that in this your practise you contradict your reason and you allowed your self in the thing which you condemn 2. Were these Act. 8. 4. appointed to the office they did the work but the office you read not of And those 1 Pet. 4. 10 11. they were commanded to the work but not to the office for then every one must have been officers c. 3. You have given your Argument but never a Scripture to confirm it but you endeavour to confirm one Reason by another without Scripture Take heed Richard of outing Scripture with your Reason be content to fall down under the power of truth let God be true and all fleshes wisdom so far as it opposeth God be a lye You now come to his 7. Error That Humane Learning is no way necessary to the Ministry of the Gospel and that I affirm p. 38. 39. 41. Pulpit-Guard Routed that the power of the Spirit of Christ in Saints is sufficiently able to make them to divide the word aright and to convince gain-sayers And dare you deny this Truth Is not the Spirit of Christ sufficient dare you derogate from the Holy Spirit and do you find any other Ministery or Teacher then the Spirit in the Scripture 1 Cor. 12. Joh. 14. 26. 16. 7 8. But you seem to help this again you deny not the ability of the Spirit but you question the will or if he please to do it I think that needs not be the Question but rather whether you are in the Scripture directed to any other way for the attaining of the minde of God then the Spirit and the Scripture but you question pag. 126. Whether the main and principle Doctrine of the Scriptures be so plainly laid down as that a Christian may attain unto the knowledge of the same without humane Learning you grant that if he have a Translation he may and have not we a Translation in English and is it not true but false then the Translators have done wrong but is it not true in the substance is there any material fundamental mistake if not then an English man in the English Translation may understand the minde of God as much and more if he have a greater measure of the Spirit then an Hebritian and Grecian can understand in those Languages 2. I answer that I do not quarrell against Tongues but at the abuse of them to make an Idol of them I know you may come to the knowledge of the Letter of Scripture in an ordinary way more fully with it then without it but it is the abuse of it that I quarrel at because you set it up in the room of the Spirit as if none could understand Scripture but those that have Tongues then the Faith of all others must be an implicite Faith built upon the credit of men which would prove very weak in the end 3. It s the use of Philosophy in the things of God as some of you affirm that there is a necessity of studying Arts Sciences Logick Rhetorick c. to make them Ministers as Tho. Halls Pulpit Guard make use of your tongues bring forth the truth of the Original to the people help those that want it and make not an Idol of it c. You proceed to produce some Scriptures A good account of which cannot be given without the help of humane Learning Answ In this you shew so much weakness that I would not say a word unto it were it not for one or two of them and I shall say but a word or two 1. Is there any thing material in any of these Scriptures Put case a man knew not the Emphasis of the Original as Rich. Sanders cals it Is any thing laid open by him material or 2. if so it s that which may be easily attained But to the Scriptures the first is Apostolos and what if a man never knew that it signifies Sent why might he not understand as much as your self in it for every man that knows any thing knows that the twelve Apostles and Paul were Apostles and you know no more you do not know that all that are sent of Jesus Christ are Apostles viz. Sent. The second Scripture of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock you seem to give a learned interpretation as if Christ intended to build his Church upon Peter so much is clearly hinted in what you say I trace you no farther in this I leave the weight of what you say concerning those Scriptures to the Reader because I am in haste As to that you say concerning Ghost I perceive you know well what the word is in the Greek and what if it were alwayes so translated in English and I think it is one of the greatest wrongs to our English translation the mispronouncing of words in pronouncing Hebrew and Greek instead of English Messias from Mesha instead of Anointed Emmanuel instead of God with us In Greek Christ from Christos instead of anointed Jesus instead of Saviour Apostle instead of Sent Baptize instead of Dip or Wash c. and Ghost instead of Spirit though that 's no Greek word Why do you not reform these things with your learning unless it be done on purpose to keep people in ignorance But you have something farther to say it seems and that very learnedly page 134. and you have much to say to this particular That there is not any Scripture understood by spiritual Christians the grammatical sense of which a man that hath not the Spirit of Christ may attain unto and page 135. That Scripture is sufficient to discover its own sense to all men diligently improving the outward helps afforded by God and that if it be the Spirits work to discover the sense and meaning of Scripture then the Spirits work is to make Notionists c. Answ And is this your spiritualness indeed That a natural man without the Spirit may understand the mind
Joh. 4. 24 God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth and such the Father seeks to worship him Jesus Christ came forth from the Father for that end that he might gain a spiritual people to worship but your great work is to get in a natural people a carnal people the fleshly seed so contradicting the end of God in giving Christ upholding the Covenant made with Abraham and Moses so denying Christ to be come in the flesh I will not say at present for your own ends and interests The force of your first Argument being thus untwisted and its weakness and invalidity laid open I need not trace you in your Parallels what I have already written puts an end to your Parallels as far as you imagine they tend to uphold the strength of your Arguments I shall present another Parallel from what I have declared leaving it to the judgment of the judicious Reader to consider 1. The Covenant made with Abraham was an outward covenant and promise of the Land of Canaan Gen. 17. 10 11 12. 1. Ours is a spiritual Covenant and promise of in Jesus Christ the true spiritual Land of rest Heb. 4. 4. to 8. 2. That was made with Abraham and his natural seed Gen. 17. 7 8. 2. Ours is a Covenant made with Christ and all his spiritual seed Isa 59. 21. Gal. 3 29. 3. Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant Rom. 4. 11. 3. But the Spirit of grace is the seal of our covenant Eph. 1 â—3 4 30. 4. That was a Covenant that many most of those in it missed of eternal life Rom. 2. 27. 4 Ours is a covenant sure stedfast eternal everlasting to those once truly in it Isa 55 3. Jer. 31. 31 32. Joh 10. 28 29. 5. That was a Covenant that might be broken and had an end as all types end when the substance comes 5. Ours is a Covenant that cannot be broken nor shall ever have an end being the substance it self of the type Now to your second Argument from Circumcision The second Argument p. 13. Such as were circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But the Jews with their Infants were circumcised under the Law Ergo Christians and their Infants may be baptized under the Gospel You confess that your Major is questioned as well it may be so I could give you several Arguments which you would not like as well grounded as this of yours but I forbear For proof of your Major 1. You say They are under the same Covenant That is denied and rased in my Answer to your former argument It is neither the same Covenant nor the same seal an outward seal to an outward Covenant an inward seal to an inward Covenant 2. You say There is the same reason for the one as for the other our children are born in original sin as well as theirs have the same need of the seal Oh unimaginable blindness was Circumcision or Baptism either ever given to seal up the pardon of original sin If it was then it must be pardoned or not pardoned if pardoned then sure else it is but the putting a seal to a blank But the truth is they were never given either of them upon that account or for that end to seal up the pardon of original sin And whereas you say there is the same reason for the one as for the other it is denied for the command of God is the reason of the one and of the other God commanded Infants to be circumcised he hath commanded Believers to be baptized and 't is reason that he should be obeyed as in the first so in the second it 's an unreasonable and wicked thing to contradict by contrary actions the commands of Christ 3. You say If Baptism succeed in the place of Circumcision then Baptism belongs to those to whom Circumcision did belong But Baptism doth succeed in the place of Circumcision Ergo c. I answer your Minor is denied 1. There is no Scripture that saith that Baptism was ordained in the place of Circumcision it 's your own invention never mentioned by the Apostles of Christ The Scriptures you mention Act. 2. 38 39. Col. 2. 11 12. have not the least hint in them to the thing in hand and are abundantly abused and wrested to that for which they were never intended as will appear 2. You confess that Baptism was in force before Circumcision was abolished Circumcision and Baptism stood both in force by a Law for some years at least 3 or 4 years Now if Baptism had come in the room of Circumcision then Circumcision must have ceased when Baptism came But Circumcision did not cease when Baptism came Therefore Baptism came not in the room of it If it be objected that Paul circumcised Timothy after the ascension of Christ I answer that was because of the Jewes for their weakness but it was in being by the Law of God untill the death of Christ So then I reason thus That which put an end to Circumcision came in the room of Circumcision but Christ put an end to Circumcision therefore he is come in the room of Circumcision That it was Christ and not Baptism that put an end to Circumcision is cleer Rom. 10. 4. Gal. 5. 2 3. So that Baptism did not put an end to Circumcision but Christ did therefore Baptism came not in the room of Circumcision 3. It could not come in the room of Circumcision to them that never had Circumcision but women were never circumcised the Gentiles were never circumcised and it could not come in the room of Circumcision to those which never were circumcised But you will say that women were virtually circumcised in the men c. And why are they not baptized virtually in the men too if you will take your rule from Circumcision let them be baptized in the men too 4. There is no parity but a disparity between Baptism and Circumcision as your self in some things have noted 1. In the action 2. in the time 3. in the subject 4. in the end First in the action that was the cutting of the foreskin of the flesh which occasioned blood this of Baptism a dipping into or under water Secondly for the time that was to be done at eight dayes old this of Baptism when the party desireth it professing faith and repentance to the satisfying of the Church be when it will Thirdly for the subject that was the Male only this of Baptism is to be administred on both men and women professing faith in our Lord Jesus and repentance towards God Fourthly for the end that is far wide as will appear in this ensuing Parallel 1. Circumcision set forth Christ to come 1. Baptism declares Christ already come 2. Circumcision represented the circumcision of the heart the cutting off of sin and self c. 2. Baptism declares the washing away of the guilt of sin and death and burial with
Book Baptizing of Infants is a new invention found out by the Pope and the Devil t is the mark of the Beast invented by Antichrist either by Pope Higinus who lived in the second Century about 150 years after Christ or else by Pope Innocent the third who lived at least 1000 years after Christ 1215. You answer 1. If Higinus Bishop of Rome were the first inventor of it then it was more ancient then many will grant 2. You say That he was not the inventor of it but you find by Platina that he was the first that enjoined Sureties And why not the first that enjoyned Infant baptism you produce nothing to the contrary but your word and that the same authority that ordained the one ordained the other is very apparent 1. Because neither of them have any footing in the Scripture And 2. Because History relates that both Infant-baptism and Sureties or Godfathers came in together as is related in the History of the names and customes of all Nations written by Iohannes Boemus Aubamus a Dutchman translated out of Latine into English by Edward Aston 1611. page 159. he saith That Baptism heretofore as it was established by a Canonical sanction was not ministred unto any unless upon very urgent necessity but unto such as were beforehand well instructed in the Faith and sufficiently catechized and examined thereof seven several times to wit upon certain days in Lent c. But this Sacrament being above all the rest most necessary to salvation and lest any one should depart out of this life without the benefit thereof it was ordained that assoon as an Infant was born he should have God-fathers procured for him to be his Witnesses or Sureties and that then the childe being brought by his Godfathers before the Church-door the Priest standing there for the purpose should demand of the childe before he dip him in the holy Font. Whether he will forsake the Devil and all his pomps and whether he believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith and the Godfathers affirming on his behalf c. The reason why I record this in this place is first to present to view the probability of Higinus bringing in of Infants Baptism for you say that you finde by Platina that he brought in Godfathers first and I finde by Joannes Boemus that he that brought Godfathers first brought in Infants-Baptism with it 2. I finde that there was a time when there was a Canonical Sanction or Statute against it 3. The coming in of Infant-Baptism with the reason of it viz. lest any should die without it and the manner of it with God-fathers and dipping not sprinkling in the holy Font. And this Mr. Baxter confesseth himself in his third Edition of the Saints Everlasting Rest part 1. ch 8. Sect 5 p 179. in the Margin he saith And in the Primitive times none were Baptized without an express Covenanting wherein they renounced the world flesh and Devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey him as you may see in Tertul. Origen Cyprian and others at large c. This being a Truth where is ground for Infant-Baptism upon Mr. Baxters own confession So that these things thus considered takes off all your probabilities that the Apostles did baptize Infants and that it hath been a practise in the Church ever since yet you confess immediatly that some of the ancients pag. 89. did perswade men from baptizing Infants yet say you their disswasions shew that their usual practice was to baptize them I say that it rather did shew that those Ancients knew that it was but an invention of man and that there was no ground for it in Scripture else what need they to disswade them from it 1. You say S. John died 104. saith Alsteed a likely or unlikely matter the Psalmist saith long before a mans days were threescore and ten c. John died a 104 years after Christ if this be likely I leave all to judge Justin Martyr you say who lived in all probability It is but probability then and very unlikely for you say he flourished about 130. is this like to be in Johns days all John days might be nay must be well near 200 years then and all this you strain to draw down if you could Baptism of Infants from the Apostles the sum of all is this Justin Martyr disputes the difference between Infants who die baptized and those who die unbaptized he lived probably in S. Johns days and knew the practise of the Apostle but he lived 130 years after Christ John must live so long too or 104 at least that so Justin Martyr might know Apostolick practise from John You mention others as Tertullian Origen Cyprian c. who mention baptizing of Infants it may be they mention it as an Innovation for Mr. Baxter saith expresly as before that they say there were none baptized in the Primitive times without an express Covenanting c. So you conclude that Infants Baptism is no new invention either of Pope or Devil no man can shew what Pope or man invented it Answ 1. Christ never commanded it the Apostles never practised it that is evident not only from the Scriptures silence but Master Baxters confession and then some Pope man or Devil must invent it and we are come very near the mark you produce a History that saith Pope Higinus brought in Godfathers I have mentioned another that saith Godfathers and Infant-Baptism came in together and why not by the same Pope you conclude that you will retort this upon the Anabaptists that their practise is but a new invention not above an hundred years old c. Answ There is no truth in that Baptizing of Believers is 1652 years old and that is many scores of yeers before your Infant-Baptism was invented and this Practise of the baptizing and non baptizing of Infants is that which hath been mentioned with much envy almost in all Ages since the Primitive times which notes that there hath been some Witnesses to the truth in all Ages About the year 1525. Zuinglius being busied about Reformation there crept in the Heresie of the Catabaptists who forbade the baptizing of Infants and did rebaptize themselves With these Zuinglius dealt friendly at first disputing with them and convincing them of their errours but they being obstinate in their opinions he caused the Senate severely to punish them some with imprisonment some with death this is recorded in a Book intituled Abel redivivus or The dead yet speaking pag. 92. And your own confession That some Ancients disswaded from the baptizing of Infants c. The 20. Objection you mention is That Baptizing is dipping But your Infants are not dipped Ergo They are not Baptized You answer 1. That dipping is a thing indifferent and not absolutely necessary or essential to Baptism there may be true Baptism where there is no dipping c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Baptize is one thing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 to plunge over head and ears is another c. Answ It s one and the same for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to dip as your self confess pag. 113. though not only to dip you say the Primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath four severall significations 1. To drownd plunge or overwhelm 2. To dye or dip 3. To moysten or make wet 4. To wash or cleanse Note 1. It doth not by your own confession signifie to sprinkle you have said enough to satisfie any that desireth satisfaction in this particular that your Practise of sprinkling is not according to the Scripture and in truth sprinkling is another word and another thing then Baptizing Rantizo is the Greek word for sprinkling and Baptizo from Bapto is the Greek word for Baptizing take it in which of these four you please neither of them is to sprinkle but in dipping either of all the four is fulfilled if dipped then wet then washed then drowned or plunged so that dipping is nothing short of Baptizing for the word signifieth it it s nothing beyond Baptism for it is but a plunging a wetting or washing of the whole man so that take in all the significations of that word Baptizo dipping answers them all but sprinkling answers neither and in deed and truth is not baptizing but another thing and that which Christ never commanded Sprinkling a little water in the face is not a dipping or plunging it is not a wetting or washing the whole man and in no case answers the command of Christ But for the clearing of this particular I shall give these four grounds to confirm dipping to be the true baptizing and not sprinkling 1. From the signification of the word as hath been already minded it is the conclusion of all the Masters of the Greek Tongue in the Greek Lexicons that the first and most native and proper signification of Baptizo is to dip or plunge into or under water and this your self confesse that 1. It signifieth to drown plunge overwhelm die or dip this Mr. Lee in his Critica Sacra on the word and Passor with divers others affirms whom I suppose you conclude were Masters of the Greek Tongue and this likewise Doctor Featly in his Dipper Dipt confesseth and this I finde that the word Baptizo is never rendred in the New-Testament to sprinkle nor Rantizo to Baptize therefore do no longer wrest the truth contrary to your own knowledge but be still and know that God is God 2. From the Practise of the Servants of the Lord in the Primitive times who best knew the minde of Christ 1. John who was the Messenger of Christ Mal. 3. 1. Baptized and he baptized in Jordan Mat. 3 6. And he baptized Christ himself in Jordan ver 16. with Mark 1. 9. and he came up out of the water What need Christ and John go down into the water if sprinkling would do the deed And the Text saith Mat. 3. 13. That Jesus cometh to John to be baptized that is upon Mr. Hales one account to be plunged dipped wet or washed not sprinkled and being dip'd he was both wet and washed And Joh. 3. 23. its said That John was baptizing not sprinkling in Enon neer Salim because there was much water there If sprinkling had been the thing required no need of much water To this you say 1. Water was scarce in those hot Countries that infers not a stripping naked and plunging of all that were Baptized but only the conveniency of baptizing a multitude c. Answ 1. Do you know or have you heard of any such hot Country where there could not be water had enough to sprinkle many thousands if need require 2. Was Canaan such a Country as that water was scarce in it being the promised fruitfull Land in the whole world a type of the Heavenly Canaan where were Wells digged Deut. 6. 11. Neh. 9. 25. and Rivers in abundance or else the Type holds not correspondence to the Antitype Ezek. 34. 13 Is 12. 3. Therefore for shame talk no more of a dry and hot Country it being a Land of Rivers and Wells digged c. So that if a little water would have done it as a little would have sprinkled thousands they needed not to have been baptized in Enon so the word is not at but in Enon and so these several places translated with water Mat. 3. 11. Mark 1. 8. Luk. 3. 6. Iohn 1. 26. Act. 1. 5. in the Greek it is rendred in every one of them in water although you seem to hold forth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth with yet the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in and is so understood and rendred twenty times in the New Testament against once with that being the proper signification of the word and most sutable to the Practise of the Apostles and servants of the Lord. Compare the former Scriptures with Act 8. 38. and its clear they baptized in the water not because of the scarcity of water as you pretend but because there was much water without which that Ordinance of dipping could not be administred As for your Font-sprinkling there is not the least shadow of any ground for it in the Scripture and whereas you say not a stripping naked c. the Scripture mentions no such thing neither is it our Practise nor yours neither Do you use to strip naked when you sprinkle neither do we when we baptize c. 2. You say Suppose the Apostles did dip those whom they baptized yet 't will not follow therefore that we must do so too because t is only an example without a precept and so doth not binde us c. Answ 1. There was the precept both to them and us 2. they knew the will of him who gave the precept and walked according to it and we by their president know what the precept was and so it s a precept to us as well as them They lived in Judea in hot climates where was no danger of dipping c. Answ 1. And was there one way for them in Judea and another for us in England prove that by Scripture when you write next 2. Was their Country so much hotter then ours had they not Winter and Summer heat and cold frost and snow as we have Ioh. 10. 22. Psal 74. 17. Ier. 36. 22. Psal 148. 8. Therefore give off this for shame likewise Say no more their Country was hot and ours cold You say The danger of dipping in our cold Country is that many in our dayes have dyed If you intend the dipping of Believers you speak a horrid untruth I am confident that never one perished in that way But secondly if you minde dipping of Infants I know none are dipped 2. If any be no wonder if they perish being done out of Gods way having no warrant from him You confess Mr. Perkins approves of dipping in hot Countries and in men of years but denies the use of
Not against the Ministry of Christ but of the World and of Antichrist 14. He reproacheth the Army making them all Independents and Anabaptists Ans It s a great untruth to say I make them all so that I say is that those whom you falsely call Anabaptists and Independents are the Instruments by which God hath given a being to you and the Nation I deny not what was done by any at first but I know not how it would have been at last if God had not raised up the Spirits of some to stand in the gap and your selves had like to have been the great Instruments for self-ends to have drawn on ruine had not the Lord prevenced 15. He dishonoureth and abuseth the present Power by Dedication of an absurd Heretical Blasphemous non-Licensed Pamphlet called a Discourse at Axbridge Answ I do affirm that none dare give such vile titles to such apparent truths but those whose eyes are blinded and whose hearts are hardned filled with all enmity against the truth of Jesus Christ I refer those who desire further satisfaction to the discourse it self And truly we had need appeal to the Authority of the Nation for a civill preservation it being our Birthright there being so many of your generation men of blood that will say nay swear blasphemy Heresie any thing that so you might be rid of us Finally I say no more to all your perverse and raging accusations but the Lord rebuke thee Some few Queries presented 1. Query Whether or no in all that Tho. Hall hath said he hath in any case answered the Pulpit-Guard-Routed or relieved his own Guard 2. Qu. Whether or no all that Tho. Hall hath said in his Font-Guard doth amount to so much as either a Precept or President for his Practise 3. Whether or no if not his Practise in sprinkling Infants be not Will-Worship 4. Whether the upholding of an outward Covenant and a natural Seed in that Covenant be not to deny Christ to be come in the flesh 5. Whether or no there be any Seed in the days of the Gospel accounted for the Seed but the Spiritual all the Promises made to Abraham being dissolved into Christ coming forth from him to the Spiritual Seed none being accounted the children of Abraham but those that do the works of Abraham 6. Whether or no Tho. Hall tells true or false when he saith he will prove Tho. Collier of above a thousand lyes and can name but fifteen upon his own account 7. Whether or no in those fifteen he mentions being rightly considered as before Tho. Hall be the lyar or Tho. Collier 8. Whether Tho. Hall have spoken true or false in these things following 1. In asserting that none ought to preach the Gospel but men in Office 2. In saying there is both precept and president for Baptizing Infants when he can produce neither 3. In saying that the Covenant of the Law is the same as the Covenant in the Gospel when the Scripture saith the contrary Isa 31. 31. Heb. 8. 4. In saying that baptizing Infants is a tradition from the Apostles when he cannot prove the Apostles baptized any 5. In saying that sprinkling is baptizing when they are two things 6. Whether the bringing in of all the People into an outward Covenant and form of Godliness without the power be not the way of delusion and confusion 7. Then whether the Leaders of the People do not cause them to erre A Word of REPLY to Iohn Ferriby in an Appendix to The Lawfull Preacher called The Pulpit-Guard-Relieved SIR You call your Appendix The Pulpit-Guard Relieved But whether it be A Relief in good earnest I leave to the Reader to judge If chiding railing and reproaching be A Relief then you have Relieved it else not And notwithstanding your great swelling words you 'l find there is so much in that Pulpit-Rout that neither you nor all your Gang will ever be able to extinguish it Rage you may but ruin it you cannot You say Page 2. That he is so bitter in his Expressions against the Gentleman so loud in railing against the Coat that he deserves no Answer But you are mistaken Sir they are not railings but true discoveries of Wolves in Sheeps cloathing But you say You forbear lest in this the Proverb should be verified Like to like quoth the Devil to the Collier And who is worst think you the Devil or the Collier By your own confession you are the Devil I the Collier The Devil it is it seems speaks to the Collier and surely if the Collier did the Devils work he would never reprove him for it But if the Collier do the work of Christ the Devil will fall upon him You say You will not meddle with the Looking-glass nor will you examine the Tryal and Verdict nor take notice of the strength of his Arguments I wonder what then you will do here 's like to be a goodly Relief anon A Pulpit Relief yet take no notice of the force of the Truth that lieth against it It 's just like to a company of men that will pretend they relieve a besieged Garison yet take no notice of the Besiegers or will stand at a distance and give great words and so go away boasting that the Work is done and the mean time the Besieged perish Thus have you dealt with your Pulpit-Guard And truly had not I had other occasions to write I had never troubled my head or pen to have given you a word of Answer And in this I shall give you but a word or two Thus having shifted your self from the substance of what is said in The Pulpit Guard-Rout you pretend to give a Glympse of his skill in the interpretation of Scripture The First is that of the Priests of the Law and the Ministers of the Gospel The Priesthood under the Law typed out Christ and he is the alone Priest by office I deny not Ministers by office under the Gospel but that Ministry that is of Christ never forbiddeth the preaching of the Brethren who have received the Gift though they never meddle with the office but rather encourageth to it 1. Pet 4. 10 11. And it is a truth that Corah's guilt was in doing that which was forbidden but the Saints are Commanded to and Commended for preaching Commanded to it Rom. 12. 3 6. 1 Cor. 14 31. 1 Pet. 4. 10. Commended for it 1 Cor. 11. 2. One Ordinance or Tradition and that not the least too was that they might nay that they ought to bring their gifts to the Church for the good of the whole There are diversities of gifts in the Church and all for the good of the whole 1 Cor. 12. And this Monopolizing spirit that hath so long reigned in those who call themselves Ministers hath been the cause of so much blindness in the World as hath been almost to this day And as for the Calling of the Worldly Ministry I leave the Reader to what is wrtten in The Pulpit-Guard Routed
of God but from their receiving their prophesie immediatly from God discovering things to come Whereas you say They were not called Prophets in the old Testament from the matter of their prophesie but for the manner of receiving it 1. I answer it was from both matter and manner too 2. If what you say be truth see a clear difference those 1 Cor. 14. are called Prophets not so much from the manner as the matter He that prophesieth speaketh to edification exhortation and consolation as if he should say if you would know a Prophet it is such a one as speaks to edification c. and whosoever speaks not to edification c. is no Prophet for the Apostle doth not only direct them in the manner of prophesie but in the matter too it s a word to edification and truly you either miserably contradict your selves or else do of purpose to keep souls in the dark for Thomas Hall whom you pretend to vindicate applyeth that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets viz. to the probation and examination of the Presbyterie and he hath no other Scripture to prove the Presbyterian examination and probation but that yet afterwards both with him and you that prophesie is extraordinary and yet you confess that Presbyterie was an ordinary office what contradictions are these and what will you not say for your own ends You seem much to harp upon one thing and that of little consequence to the thing in hand That the extraordinary way of Revelation did denominate their sayings to be prophesies and not their foretelling things to come I say that not only that but the matter of the prophesie as well as the manner as a blind man might see or understand for if any prophesie and the matter of the prophesie proved not true he was no true Prophet therefore that the people might know a true Prophet under the Law they were to look at the matter of the prophesie not the manner of receiving it Isa 23. 26. How long shall this be in the heart of the Prophets to prophesie lies ver 28. The Prophet that hath a dream let him tell a dream and he that hath my word let him speak my word faithfully c. So that it was the faithful and true speaking of the word from whence they had the denomination of Prophet and this in substance you confess page 101. contradicting what you say p. 100. It was the extraordinary way of Revelation here it s the manifestation of their prophesie because they manifested to others by divine inspiration things past present and to come So that now you confess its the manifestation by revelation of truth that made them Prophets not the ordinary way of speaking to edification c. mentioned 1 Cor. 14. 3. As to all you say to Rev. 19 10. page 103. I may truly retort your own words I am afraid the devil hath taught you to play the Sophister for when the Text saith The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesie you say immediatly and extraordinarily inspired Doth the Text say so or is it your own invention I leave to the Reader to judge And as for your distinction from Chap. 1. ver 2. The word of God and the Testimony of Jesus it s one and the same in substance or at most the Testimony of Jesus is but an explanation of the word of God He was banished for the word of God even for the Testimony of Jesus so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must of necessity sometimes be understood As Col. 2. 2. the Apostle manifesting his earnest desire for the Saints that they might come to the Knowledge of God and of the Father c. which must be rendred even of the Father a word rather to explain the former then distinguish c. So that John doth not so distinguish as if he had been more excellent then the rest of the Apostles in the testimony of Jesus c. but for that it was he was banished and the truth is that the Testimony of Jesus though not so eminent as the Apostles yet if by the same spirit according to the rule of truth and according to the measure received it is the spirit of prophesie As for what you say to that Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 37. Every spiritual man is a Prophet All the Saints are spiritual Therefore all Prophets What you with so much contempt say to this doth but discover of what spirit you are and you might know that when I say the Saints are not all Prophets page 21. I intended that they had not all the same gift of prophesie to speak to the edifying of the Church and upon that account they are not all Prophets Yet secondly they are all Prophets upon a common account and are able to speak something of God and Christ as occasion is offered this God promised and hath made good that he would pour out of his Spirit upon all flesh c. So that the truth holds clear That every spiritual man is a Prophet and that according to the measure of the gift so he may and ought to speak though all are not Prophets viz. able to speak in the Church to edification exhortation and consolation yet all are Prophets and may speak occasionally to edification though not in the Church Some of the grounds you pretend to answer As that these Prophets were such as needed direction from the Apostles c. therefore not extraordinary You pretend to answer this first Because there were extraordinary tongues and the Apostle directs them and why not direct extraordinary Prophets too Answ 1. If by ordinary and extraordinary you mean the one common to all the other more then ordinary so not common to all that I alwayes have granted and shall as in the case of prophesying So of tongues All have the Spirit of Christ that is ordinary to all If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Rom. 8. 9. yet all have not the gift of prophesie to speak in the Church as before So in those tongues there was that speech of the things of God that was ordinary to all and that of tongues which was proper to but some as Prophesie yet not so extraordinary as to be either 1. infallible therefore needed direction or 2. passing for the Apostle spake with tongues more then they all And secondly that this of tongues was not such an extraordinary business as you pretend is clear and that first from the Apostles disswading them from it as you may see at large in the Chapter and that from the unprofitableness of it both to the Church and to the world too ver 2 3. and 23 24. 2. He saith ver 5. Greater is he that prophesieth then he that speaketh with tongues and the reason is rendred because he that prophesieth edifieth the Church c. You say there is yet one reason more page 87. Praying
and Prophesying are put together 1 Cor. 11. 5. Was it extraordinary praying too You answer You will put in that too for his Learning 1 Cor. 14. 14 15. If I pray in an unknown Tongue c. Is not here extraordinary praying Doth the Scripture call it extraordinary anywhere and may we not say truly as the Apostle saith of Prophesie greater is he that prophecieth then he that speaketh with tongues and the reason is because he speaketh to edification so say I greater was and is he that prayeth in a known tongue then he that prayeth in an unknown tongue and the Apostle upon the same account disswades them as well from praying or praising in an unknown tongue as from speaking in an unknown tongue and if that prayer had been extraordinary surely he would not have perswaded them from it for I think that prayer is most extraordinary that is most prevailing with God and that is the prayer of Faith not of an unknown tongue You now come to give your Reasons why this Prophesie is extraordinary 1. Because it is joyned with extraordinary gifts 1 Cor. 14. viz. The gift of Tongues Ans 1. Those gifts as hath been already shewed were not so extraordinary as you pretend For greater was be that prophesied then he that spake with tongues But 2. Were what you say truth that that Prophesy in this Chapter were intermixed with extraordinary gifts as that of tongues for which you say its unlikely that Prophesy should be ordinary I say were what you say in the first place truth yet the second doth not follow For in Scripture its ordinary to place or intermix those gifts or offices which you call ordinary and extraordinary together And I wonder you had not so much in you as to see it That might have saved you the labour of setting down this Reason See 1. Cor 12 29. Are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers are all Workers of Miracles c You affirm Apostles Prophets Miracles are extraordinary and Teachers placed in the midst to be ordinary or by way of ordinary office So Rom 12. v. 6 7 8. v. 6. he speaks of Prophesy You say that it is extraordinary yet it s joyned in with that you call ordinary Teaching and exhortation v. 7 8. you parallel with it for your proof Ephes 4. 11. which Scripture makes as much against you as any I know when rightly understood For 1. these are not extraordinary offices as is discoursed at large in the Pulpit-Guard Routed But the ordinary standing gifts and offices in the Church of Christ And Secondly if otherwise upon your own account Apostles Prophets Evangelists which you say are extraordinary are reckoned up with Pastors and Teachers which you say are ordinary and continuing offices in the Church of Christ And 3. I wonder how you dare to divide and with Tho. Hall to pick out what you please and to call one ordinary and another extraordinary when the Scripture presents them all as standing in the Church upon the same account gifts given forth by the Spirit from Christ to the Church And you would take some and leave others so rob the Church of Christ of those gifts orders Priviledges and Officers that Christ hath given to it but no wonder for you own neither Church Ordinances Gifts or Officers according to the mind of Christ but what you have received by Tradition from Antichrist You say that he sayth Apostles are not extraordinary and as for Evangelists he hath nothing to say of them c. Truly had you not been blind or forgetfull there is enough said of them It seems I must say it again Pag. 70. An Evangelist is not an extraordinary but an ordinary work a cryer or publisher of glad tydings which is proper to all the servants of the Lord that preach glad tydings to men and as for Apostles they are not extraordinary but ordinary I say it again and I wonder you durst to oppose so clear a truth those who are sent of God to preach the Gospel for converting souls and gathering Churches are Apostles viz. sent ones and the Twelve Apostles did not take their denomination from their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit but from their mission from Christ to do his work so that notwithstanding none are so sent as those Apostles were 1. immediately or by an immediate mission from his own mouth 2. So immediately inspired and abilitated from above nor 3. to do the same work in every particular though the same in substance viz. to be the first Planters of the Gospel to establish it by signs and miracles c. Yet there is the same in truth and men sent for the gathering of Churches are as truly Apostles as they were as the sons of God are as truly the sons of God as Christ himself though not filled with the same fullness And that you may see there were more Apostles then those Christ was the great Apostle Heb. 3. 1. and he sent the Twelve and other Apostles it s more then probable there were Rom. 16. 7. the Scripture saith that Andronicus and Junias were of note among the Apostles 1. It s probable that they were Apostles c. else how should they be of note or reckoned among them 2. That there were Apostles there and it could not be of the Twelve For Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles and the others of the Circumcision they were of note among the Apostles of or belonging to the Church in Rome But Secondly It s apparent that there are or shall be both Apostles and Prophets at the Fall of Babylon which work I believe is now begun and the Lord hath his sent ones abroad in the World in and by whom he will effect his work who shall rejoyce in the fall of Babylon Rev. 18. 20. Rejoyce over her ye holy Apostles and Prophets for God hath avenged you on her So that notwithstanding all your scuffling shifts you make to help your self and to keep up your honour with the people yet know that God is truth and every man that opposeth him shall be found a lyar and that he hath left these ordinary standing gifts and offices in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers c. And whereas you say that I argue against it p. 70. that those scattered brethren Act. 8. were not Apostles though sent to gather Saints c. That I say is as a blind man may understand that they were none of the twelve Apostles for they tarried at Jerusalem in answer to Tho. Halls assertion that they might be Apostles whereas it is said that the Apostles tarried at Jerusalem but that they were Apostles viz. sent forth by the Lord not in a common way though not of the twelve Apostles The second Reason Because this word Prophet hath been alwayes used to signifie a person extraordinarily inspired of God when taken in a good sense c. Ans 1. Because Prophets were ordinarily taken in this sense