Anno Dom. 1644. 219 IX The conclusion of all 227 Errata sic corrige Page 1. line 15. read end p. 4. l. 8. r. a visible Church p. 23. l. 24. r. reiteration p. 36. l. penult r. 1. Cor. 14. 19. p. 41. l. 22. r. sexes p. 44. l. penult r. and they are no where prohibited p. 48. l. 3. r. And. p. 51. l. 15. r. or a legitimate wife p. 53. l. 33. r. from p. 57. l. 27. r. in the principles of p. 67. in marg ad lin 19. r. Valentinian p. 70. l. 9. r. that they lin 25. r. rue it by p. 89. l. 17 r. propounded p. 120. l. 24. r Prayer himselfe p. 125. lin 18 r. hebetetur p. 185. lin 6. dele to page 189. l. 8. r. Scepter p. 195. l. 4. r. abjiciunt p 198. l. 13. r. the man p. 207. l. 14. r instance p. 211. l. 21. r. reliquo p. 215. l. 31. r. habet p. 216. l. 17. r. stagello p 218. l. ult r. as well as an Arrian p. 219. in marg l. 5. r. bini p. 225. l. 35. r. evident p. 226. l. 37. dele of Greg. Naz. Theol. Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What wilt thou say of Infants that neither experimentally know the grace of Baptisme nor the losse by want thereof Shall we baptize them Yes by all meanes if there be any danger For it were better that they should be sanctified though they be not sensible thereof then to goe out of this world without the seal and badge of their initiation into Christianity A true Relation of what passed at a meeting in Southwark between D. Featley and a company of Anabaptists October 17. 1642. AFter the Company were placed and Dr. Featley had made a short ejaculatory Prayer to GOD to give a blessing to the meeting a Scotchman began thus M. Doctor we come to dispute with you at this time not for contention sake but to receive satisfaction wee hold that the Baptisme of Infants cannot be proved lawfull by the Testimony of Scripture or by Apostolicall tradition if you therefore can prove the same either way we shall willingly submit unto you Are you then Anabaptists I am deceived in my expectation I thought that the ending of this meeting had bin to have reasoned with you about other matters and that my taske would have beene to have justified our Communion-Booke and the lawfulnesse and necessity of comming to the Church which I am ready to doe Anabaptisme which I perceive is the poynt you hold is an heresie long since condemned both by the Greeke and Latine Church and I could have wished also that you had brought schollars with you who knew how to dispute which I conceive you doe not so farre as I guesse by your habit and am informed concerning your professions for there are but two wayes of disputing First by Authority Secondly by reason First by Authority if you will dispute in Divinity you must be able to produce the Scriptures in the Originall Languages For no Translation is simply authenticall or the undoubted word of God In the undoubted word of God there can be no Error But in Translations there may be and are errors The Bible Translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God but so farre onely as it agreeth with the Original which as I am infermed none of you understand Secondly if you will dispute by Reason you must conclude syllogistically in mood and figure which I take to be out of your Element However sith you have so earnestly desired this meeting and have propounded a Question to me I little expected before I answer yours I will propound a Question or two to you concerning the blessed Trinity that I may know whether you are well instructed in the principles of Catechisme who yet are so well conceited of your selves that you take upon you to teach others This M. Doctor is nihil ad Rhombum we would know of your whether the Baptism of Children can be proved lawful as we said before as it is practised among you Whereas you say this my question is not ad Rhombum you mistake the matter For it is ad Rhombum if you know what the Phrase meaneth Is not the form of Baptisme this I Baptize thee in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost therfore my questions concerning the Trinity appertain to the Doctrine of Baptisme Before therefore I answer you concerning the persons fit to be Baptized whether men and women onely in riper years or children also to try your skill I will propound an argument to each of you out of Scripture concerning the blessed Trinity And first turning to the Scotchman Doe you believe saith hee that each of the three persons is God how then doth Christ Iohn 17. 3. say that the Father is the onely true God 2. After turning to the other Doe you believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son if you doe so how then doe you answer the words of our Saviour Iohn 15. 26. The Spirit which proceeds from the Father there is no mention at all of proceeding from the Son but the Father onely To the latter of these queries nothing was answered by either of them to the former they both answered First the Scotchman We never intend to deny that every person in Trinity is God for the text you alledge it proves not what you bring it for Herâ—t be Text being read the Scotchman answered Christ opposeth his Father as the true God to all false Gods I doe not urge the word true for that indeed is spoken in opposition to false Gods but the word only and thus I frame the Argument If God the Father be the only true God then the holy Ghost is not God But God the Father is the onely true God Ergo the Holy Ghost is not God The Father is said to be the only God in respect of Essence This Answer containes in it Blasphemy for if the Father bee the onely true God in respect of Essence then is not the Son or the Holy Ghost God in respect of Essence but that is false and blasphemous for then the three persons should not be one God in Essence or in respect of Essence Here the Scotchmans answer being exploded he wrote something and gave it some there present and in the meane while one M. Cufin interposing said I come not here to dispute but to receive satisfaction of some doubts which if you can resolve me in I shal submit Now for the place you alledge out of S. John I conceive it may be thus answered Christ spake this as man and his meaning is that his Father is only God and no Creature is so It is very true that only excludes all creatures but whereas you say that these words are spoken by Christ as man onely it cannot stand with the Text for it is added and whom
have baptized you with water and he will baptize you with the holy Ghost And in the 19. of the Rev. 21. ver it is in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is word for word they were slain in the sword yet must it be translated they were slain with the sword not in the sword Notwithstanding I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptisme of men especially in the hotter climates hath been is and may lawfully be used yet there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging but only washing in the river But the question is whether no other baptizing is lawfull or whether dipping in rivers be so necessarie to baptisme that none are accounted baptized but those who are dipt after such a manner this we say is false neither do any of the texts alledged prove it It is true dipping is a kind of baptizing but all baptizing is not dipping The Apostles were baptized with fire yet were they not dipt into it tables and beds are said in the originall to be baptized that is washed yet not dipt The Israelites in the wildernesse were baptized with the cloud yet not dipt into it the children of Zebedee were to be baptized with the baptisme of blood wherewith our Saviour was baptized yet neither he nor they were dipt into blood Lastly all the fathers speak of the baptisme of tears wherewith all penitents are washed yet there is no dipping in such a baptisme As for the representation of the death and resurrection that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptisme but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration and cleansing us from our sins However in the manner of baptisme as it is administred in the church of England there is a resemblance of death and the resurrection For though the child he not alwayes dipped into the water as the rubrick prescribeth save only in case of necessitie which would be dangerous in cold weather especially if the child be weak and sickly yet the Minister dippeth his hand into the water and plucketh it out when he baptizeth the infant The second error of the Anabaptists which A. R. strenuously propugneth is their decrying down paedo baptisme and with-holding Christs lambs from being bathed in the sacred Font. This foul error or rather heresie for it is condemned for such both by the primitive and the reformed churches he endeavoureth to blanch in part if not to quite clear from all aspersion and justifie by four arguments which I will propound in his own words that he may not say I shoot his arrows without their heads the first I find p. 27. PART I. The administration of baptisme which hath no expresse command in Scripture and which overthrows or prevents that administration of baptisme which is expressely commanded in Scripture is a meer device of mans brain and no baptisme of Christ. But the administration of baptisme upon infants hath no expresse command in Scripture and it overthrows or prevents the administration of baptisme upon disciples or beleevers which is expressely commanded in Scripture Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 16. Ioh. 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 38. and 8. 37. Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is a meer device of mans brain and no baptisme of Christ. This argument stands as it were upon two legs and both of them are lame the one is that nothing may be done in the worship of God without expresse command in Scripture This is an ignorant and erroneous assertion For first there is no expresse precept in Scripture for beleeving and acknowledging in terminis three Persons in the unitie of the deitie and yet Athanasius faith in his Creed that whosoever beleeveth not and worshipeth not the Trinitie in unitie and unitie in Trinitie shall perish everlastingly Secondly there is no expresse command in Scripture to confesse the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son tanquam distinctis personis yet it is not only an article of religion in the church of England but also set down in the confession of the Anabaptists lately printed Thirdly there is no expresse precept for the abrogating of the Jewish sabbath and religious observing the Christian yet no Anabaptists hold themselvs bound to keep holy the Saturday or Jewish sabbath neither have they yet to my knowledge oppugned the observation of the Lords day Fourthly there is no expresse precept in Scripture for womens receiving the sacrament of the Lords Supper For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup is a common name to both sexes yet the Apostle useth the masculine article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so there is no expresse command but for men yet no sectaries upon record no not the Anabaptists themselvs exclude women from the holy Communion Fifthly there is no expresse precept for re-baptizing those who in their infancie were baptized by a lawfull minister according to the form prescribed by our Saviour in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost nay rather there is an expresse prohibition in the words of the Apostle one faith one baptisme and in that clause of the Nicen Creed I beleeve one baptisme for the remission of sins yet re-baptizing is a prime article of the faith of this sect from whence they take their very name of Anabaptists that is re-baptizers If A. R. here will stretch expresse precept to any thing that is commanded in Scripture either immediatly or mediatly either in particular or in generall either in plain or direct tearms or in the true sense of the text so I grant all the four former orthodox tenets may be proved by Scripture And so also I have before proved the lawfulnesse of baptizing children though there be no expresse Scripture for it intormini◠The other leg also upon which his argument standeth is as lame as the former For the baptisme of infants no way over-throws or prevents the baptizing of any disciples or beleevers instructed in the mysteries of salvation of whom the texts alledged are meant but there-baptizing of such who were before baptized in their infancie which re-baptizing is no where commanded in Scriptures and as if all nations were converted to the Christian faith there needed no more conversion so if all were admitted to the church by baptisme in their infancie they should need no other admission by re-baptizing them but there will be alwayes some to be converted till the fulnesse of the Iews and Gentiles also is come in and till then there will be use of that precept of our Saviour Mat. 28. Go teach all nations baptizing them the second Argument of his against paedo-baptisme PART 2. The second I find p. 20. If they ground the baptizing children from
Circumcision was instituted as appears Rom. 4. 11. to be a seal of the righteousnesse of faith But for the same end also was baptisme instituted to be a seal of the covenant of grace and the free remission of our sins by faith And though children in the old law before eight dayes had not actuall faith nor could make profession thereof yet they received the sacrament thereof Therefore by the same reason children under the gospel though they have not actuall faith nor can make profession thereof yet may and ought to receive the sacrament of baptisme which is a seal of the covenat of grace and righteousnesse by faith Children ought not to be baptized because there is no command for it Mark I pray how uncertain they are in their grounds sometimes they say that children are not to be baptized because they have not actuall faith which I overthrew but even now sometimes because there is no commandement for it Which as the future arguments disprove so see a punctuall refutation of this answer Infra art 2. ob jâ Prove it by scripture that they ought to be baptized So I will first I will alledge you the text of scripture and then frame my argument from it the place of scripture is Ioh. 3. 5. Verily verily I say unto you except a man he born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God My argument from this place for the baptizing of infants is this If none can enter into the kingdom of God but those that are born of water and the spirit that is those that are baptized with water and regenerated by the spirit then is there a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tye God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter By this your reason it would follow that all that are baptized are regenerated and none regenerated but those who are baptized what becomes then of those who dye without baptisme I conceive the same of them as of those among the Jews who dyed before they were circumcised we leave them to the mercy of God conceiving charitably of their salvation because the children of the faithfull are comprised in the covenant Gen. 17. 7. and Acts. 2. 39. and the Apostle saith They are holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. All that I will conclude from this place is that no children enter into the kingdom of heaven by the ordinary way chalked out by Christ but those who are baptized or which comes all to one that the sacrament of baptisme ought to be administred to children as the ordinary means of their salvation This text speaks not of children but of men children are not men You might as well and better say that women are not men and doe you think that women ought not to be baptized this text speaks of children as well as those in riper years male or female for as the Apostle speaketh In Christ there is no difference of sex or age All that are to enter into the kingdom of God ought to be born of water and the spirit But children enter into the kingdom of God as well as men of ripers years Ergo children ought to be born again with water c. How prove you that children enter into the kingdom of God All those that are holy enter into the kingdom of God But the children of the faithfull are holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo they enter into the kingdom of God The Apostle meaneth that such are not bastards At which the company laughing as a ridiculous answer as if all that were not bastards were holy or that no children could be holy in the Apostles sense who were base-born Another Anabaptist came in and propounded a question concering Lay-mens preaching I will prove unto you M. Doctor that neither you nor such men as you are ought to preach but such only ought to perform that office of preaching as are appoynted by us How prove you that Those who are ordained ministers by ungodly men ought not to preach But you and others as you are be ordained by ungodly men Ergo you ought not to preach I denie both your propositions First because although we should suppose the bishops who ordained ministers to be ungodly men yet if they were themselves lawfully ordained and had power of imposition of hands the ministers ordained by them may and ought to discharge their function Iudas the Apostle and Nicholas the deacon were ungodly men yet the ministeriall acts they did either in preaching the word or administring the sacraments were never accounted void Secondly I denie that our bishops were ungodly men They that persecute good men are ungodly men But all your bishops persecute good men Ergo the bishops are ungodly men I answer first some of our bishops never persecuted any man as namely the Arch-bishop of Armagh and bishop Potter Secondly though some of our bishops by their places as they were high commissioners punished some men by Mulcts imprisonments or other censures yet they persecuted no godly man but executed justice upon delinquents namely factious schismaticks that disobey the Kings ecclesiasticall laws and disturb the peace of the church Yea but they are good men whom your bishops persecute and you cannot except the bishop of Armagh for when I was called in question before the high commission the Primate of Ireland sate there and by silence gave consent The Primate of Ireland was never a Judge in our high commission in England as it is well known sometimes he might sit with the rest but he had no power to give sentence in the high commission in England and if I might know truly for what cause you were brought into the high commission I doubt not but to prove the sentence given against you to be just for you are one who come not to church nor will hear our preachers but only some of your own sect and those no better then meer Lay-men We do no read of any such distinction in the word of God as Lay-men and Clergy-men these are popish distinctions the word Lay is not in all the scriptures No more is the word Trinity nor sacrament nor many others read in scripture yet the sense of them is there and so is the distinction of Clergy and Laitie for God commandeth that the people should learn the law from the Priests mouth the Priests were no other then the Clergy and the common people then the Laity Their Priest-hood was not the same with yours It was the same for substance but not for ceremony and manner of worship their Priest-hood was typicall ours evangelicall they by the figures of the ceremoniall law fore-shewed Christ to come we preach that Christ is come Can you prove any
of the Gospel both by the Law of God and by the Law of nature vers 7. Who goeth a warfare on his own charge who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock and vers 13. Doe ye not know that those that minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they that wait at the Altar be partakers with the Altar even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel He saith not God permitteth or alloweth of it but ordaineth and commandeth it And lest these two strings should not be strong enough to keepe the bow still bent he addeth a third to wit an Apostolical injunction let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things Moreover when we read that Abraham and Iacob gave tithes I demand by what Law whether by the Law of nature or the Leviticall or Evangelicall not by vertue of the Leviticall for that Law was not then enacted and by that Law Levi was to receive not pay tithes Yet Levi himselfe in Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech if they paid it by the Law of nature that bindeth all men if by the Evangelicall Law it bindeth all Christians to pay their tithes towards the maintenance of Melchisedechs Priesthood which endureth for ever And Saint Austine fearfully upon this ground threatneth all those who refuse willingly to pay their tithes that God would reduce them to a tithe and blast all the nine parts of their estate Thirdly I except against the thirty ninth Article viz. that baptisme is an ordinance of the new Testament given by Christ to be dispensed only upon persons professing Faith or that are disciples or taught who upon a profession of Faith ought to be baptized Here they lispe not but speak out plaine their Anabaptisticall doctrine whereby they exclude all the children of the faithfull from the sacrament of entrance into the Church and the only outward meanes of their salvation in that state but the best of their proofes fall short the word only which only can prove this their assertion is not found in any of the texts alledged in the margent nor can the sense of it be collected from thence For though it is most true and evident in the letter of those texts that all Nations that are to be converted and all men in them of yeers of discretion that have been taught the principles of Religion ought to make profession of their Faith before they are baptized as all that came to mens estate among the Jews or proselytes ought both to know and to give their assent to the covenant before they received the seal thereof to wit circumcision yet no such thing was or could be required of children who notwithstanding were circumcised the eight day so by the judgement of all the Christian Churches in the world the children of beleevers who are comprised in the letter of the covenant may receive the seal thereof to wit baptisme though they cannot make profession of their Faith by themselves for the present but others make it for them and in their stead the affirmative is true that all that make profession of their Faith and testifie their unfained repentance are to be baptized but the negative is most false that none are to be baptized who have not before made such profession of their Faith when by reason of their infancie they are not capable to be taught But this hereticall assertion is at large resu'ed by manifold Arguments drawne from Scripture Fathers and reason and all their cavils and evasions exploded Article 2. to which I refer the Reader Fourthly I except against the fortieth Article viz. The way and manner of dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water it being a signe must answer the things signified which are these 1. The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ 2. That interest the Saints have in the death buriall and resurrection of Christ 3. Together with a confirmation of our Faith that as certainly as the body is buried under water and riseth again so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of the resurrection to reigne with Christ. This Article is wholly sowred with the new leaven of Anabaptisme I say the new leaven for it cannot be proved that any of the ancient Anabaptists maintained any such position there being three wayes of baptizing either by dipping or washing or sprinkling to which the Scripture alludeth in sundry places the Sacrament is rightly administred by any of the three and whatsoever is here alleadged for dipping we approve of so far as it excludeth not the other two Dipping may be and hath been used in some places trina immersio a threefold dipping but there is no necessity of it it is not essentiall to Baptisme neither doe the Texts in the margent conclude any such thing It is true Iohn baptized Christ in Iordan and Philip baptized the Eunuch in the river but the Text saith not that either the Eunuch or Christ himselfe or any baptized by Iohn or his Disciples or any of Christs Disciples were dipped plunged or dowsed over head and eares as this Article implyeth and our Anabaptists now practise Againe the bare example of Christ and his Apostles without a precept doth not bind the Church and precept there is none for dipping it is certaine Christ and his Apostles celebrated the Communion after Supper and in unleavened bread and with such a gesture as was then in use among the Jewes yet because there is no precept in the Gospell for these things no Christian Church at this day precisely observeth those circumstances and therefore dato non concesso that Christ and Saint Iohn or their Disciples used dipping in Baptisme it will not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner Besides it ought to be noted that in the beginning Christians had no Churches nor Fonts in them and there being many hundreds nay thousands often to be baptized together there was a kind of necessity that this Sacrament should be administred in rivers or such places where were store of waters as there were in Enon neare Salem where John baptized But now the Church hath better provided there being Christian Oratories every where and Fonts in them most convenient for this purpose whereunto I shall need to adde here no more having fully handled this point both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the discussion of the first Article Fiftly I except against the 41. Article viz. The persons designed by Christ to dispence this ordinance the Scripture hold forth to be a preaching Disciple it being no where tyed to a particular Church Officer or Person If the eye be