and beleeved might have fallen and need to be restored Fourthly the best by such exhortations are kept watchfull None in this life are so fully regenerated or converted but they need additions and increase So that your consequences that you draw against us from our principles are frivolous A. R. Now let us come to your answer to our Objections as you pretend You say that To sophisticate by some distinction lest all our gaine by this trade should be taken from us and as all the people gave care to Philip so all the people should give care to us and so our kingdome should be at an end we use this distinction that they are onely holy in the judgement of charitie of the Church esteemed regenerate neither are any required to beleeve them to be regenerate as an Article of faith but in the judgement of charitie and then you ask What is the ground of this our charitie Answer First I would desire to know Whether the Baptisme which you administer regenerates and saves or no. I meane sacramentally for we say ours regenerates If no then it is not the Baptisme that Christ his Apostles used 1 Pet. 3. for Peter saith it saved Paul saith it buried with Christ If yea Rom. 6. whether you beleeve that all that are baptized of you are certainly regenerate and saved or no and then tell us what is the ground of your beliefe Secondly Whereas you dislike this distinction you should have demanded of Peter and other the Apostles and Evangelists that baptized some hypocrites no doubt witnesse Simon Magus Ananias Saphira c. and yet held that Baptisme saveth and burieth with Christ whether they held that these who received Baptisme were saved and buried with Christ in the judgement of certaintie or charitie and then you might have demanded a ground of that their judgement And seeing you arrogate to your self such skill in Scripture tell us what was Peters ground in saying Baptisme saveth when yet many that were baptized were damned and what answer you shall make to this question haply may serve to answer your own question to us Thirdly We answer directly Our ground on which we build this charitable opinion viz. that Baptisme regenerateth sacramentally or that infants of Christian parents baptized are regenerate is Gods word For doth not the Scripture tell us that God is the God of the faithfull and of their seed that he hath taken them into Covenant Gen. 17.7.10 Thus God promised unto Abraham the father of the faithfull not as any priviledge peculiar unto him but as the common priviledge of all in covenant and therefore proselytes of what nation soever upon their entring into covenant had their children taken into covenant likewise Again Exod. 12.48 Act. 2.36 1 Cor. 7.17 the promise is made not onely to the faithfull but also to their children Hence it is that the children of beleeving parents are holy Which places of Scripture shall in due place God willing be vindicated from your groundlesse exceptions Now whosoever is in covenant with God hath God for his God hath the promises belonging to him and is holy must needs be regenerate as he is in covenant hath God for his God c. And therefore seeing that children are in the same condition with their parents or those that are in stead of their parents in respect of outward covenant which is all the ground we have for judging others So that if the parent be in covenant the child remaines so untill by his own personall infidelitie and apostasie he discovenant himself if the parent be out of covenant the child remaines so untill by his own personall faith he accept and enter into covenant Hence it follows if we have so much ground for our judgement of charitie to hold that the parents are regenerate as the Apostles had for those whom they baptized which was no more then their profession of faith and repentance we have the same ground for our judgement concerning the regeneration of their children viz profession of faith and repentance made by their parents though we may oft be deceived in parents and children and no marvell even the Apostles themselves were deceived for they doubtlesse baptized many hypocrites As for your other objections whether fained by your self and fathered on us or found in any writings on our side they are not worthy defending nor your answer unto them worthy a reply Who say that The meere election of infants whether all or some is the ground of our baptizing them or beleeving them to be regenerate If any say so let him answer for himself But our ground as hath been shewed is the externall being in covenant whereby they have right to the seale of initiation which is not without its efficacy unto al though some whether they receive it in infancy or ripenesse by their own fault may render it unprofitable to themselves Therefore your frivolous inferences have no place here as that Al men women in the world are to be baptized for all are not outwardly in covenant And as for your confident assertion that Faith manifested by the confession of the mouth is the only ground of Baptisme to the elect if you meane it of the profession of faith of the person to be baptized it is not proved by those Scriptures you alledge Act. 8.37 Rom. 14.23 as hath been partly shewed already and God willing shall be shewed more fully hereafter unlesse you will make the Eunuches Baptisme with all its circumstances a necessary rule to be followed by all to be baptized So much may suffice to be answered to your first consideration An answer to the second consideration or argument taken from the manner of Baptizing LEt us come to your second consideration taken from the manner of the administration of Baptisme A. R. You say The manner in which Baptisme is administred in our Church is by sprinkling or casting a little water on the head or face And your position that you oppose against us is this Christs institution requires that the whole man be dipped all over in the water Hence your argument is this The manner of the use of water must be either by infusion or dipping But Iohn the Baptist or Dipper used the water by putting the party into the water not by infusing or sprinkling water upon the party as is proved Matth. 3.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I indeed baptize you in water Mark 1.8 I indeed have baptized you in water Ioh. 1.26 Act. 11.16 Answer Answ We will try how substantiall this reason is Whereas you say The use of water must be either by infusion or dipping In some sense this is true namely if it be taken by way of enumeration not of opposition for Baptisme which signifies washing is done by applying the water to the party baptized or washed But water is ordinarily applyed the one of these two wayes viz. either by dipping or sprinkling In this sense
we grant your proposition is true viz. that Baptisme must be either by dipping or infusion and so that it be either way it is sufficient But you take it not in this sense as may appeare by the manner of your reasoning for by the affirmation of the one you inferre the deniall of the other and if you should take it in this sense it would make against your selfe and overthrow your own argument Therefore it appears you take it by way of opposition and so we utterly deny it as false Your reasoning is like this We come to the knowledge of Christ by reading the Scriptures or hearing the word preached Joh. 5.39 But Christ bids the Iewes to search the Scripture viz. by reading that they might come to the knowledge of him Therefore not by hearing the word preached Or like this The Minister must preach either sitting or standing But Christ preached sitting Matth. 5.1 c. Therefore Ministers may not preach standing Or this We must pray either standing or kneeling or sitting or lying c. But Christ saith when you stand praying Mark 11.25 Therefore it is not lawfull to pray with any other gesture but standing Who seeth not the weaknesse of this reasoning yours is no better But to come to your assumption But Iohn the Baptist or Dipper as you say according to the Dutch did use the water By putting the partie into the water not by insusing or sprinkling Mat. 3.11 Mar. 1.8 Ioh. 1.26 Act. 11.16 Answer Answ First None of these places prove that Iohn put the partie into the water much lesse that the whole man was dipped all over in the water which you undertooke to prove But here is not the least intimation of any such matter Secondly Whereas you gather from the Originall that Iohn baptized in the water and dipped the whole man all over in the water and put the party into the water you might as well say that Christ baptized in the holy Ghost and fire and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghost and in the fire Act. 11.6 Matth. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or put the party into the holy Ghost and fire which were a strange interpretation for the particle is the same Thirdly Whereas you gather hence A Baptisme in water not a Baptisme with water I would have you tell me what were they baptized or washed with if not with water as if there were an irreconcileable repugnancy between baptizing in water and baptizing with water But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily signifie in you grant in our objection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you propound thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie with sometime as in Revel 19.21 And the rest were slain with the sword Whereunto I might adde that not onely in this place but frequently in the New Testament the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an Hebraisme answering the prefixe ב signifies as well with as in Matth. 5.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with not in what shall it be salted Matth. 7.2 with not in what judgement Act. 26.18 with not in the sanctified You answer this objection thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken for with after baptizo Reply I reply That is the thing in question And I would demand whether you thinke that our Translatours and most or all others who have Englished it with knew not how to render the Originall in its proper signification as well as your selfe Besides these forementioned places Mat. 3.11 Act. 11.19 speaking of Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire cannot be otherwise Englished with any sense Your peremptory deniall of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie with after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would confirme thus Either the word Baptizo must signifie to sprinkle or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not signifie with But the word baptizo doth signifie to dip Ergo the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie In and not with as is proved very clearely and denyed of none who are not ignorant of the language Answ As for this your Syllogisme it shews your Clarklinesse wherewith you scoffingly taunt our Ministers It is notoriously fond it wants forme hath foure termes In the assumption you put to dip in stead of not to sprinkle as if one word might not signifie to dip and sprinkle both There is no necessitie in the proposition Your assumption wherein you say But baptizo signifies to dip if it be taken exclusively as to debarre all other significations which it must or else it is brought to no purpose is false Whereas in your conclusion you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie in and not with which you say is denied by none who are not ignorant of the language Answer Answ What fond arrogancy this is I shall make appeare by and by But let us heare this criticall Linguist prove what he saith from the signification of the Greek word You say that Greeke Authors account Bapto and Baptizo to signifie that for which the Latines use Mergo Immergo Tingere immergendo that is to dip or plunge to douse over head or under water Answer Answ Bapto indeed signifies Mergo or Tingo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence which sometimes may signifie the same with its primitive But if we look into the use of it in the New Testament we shall finde it rendred To wash where the Originall word to Baptize is not kept as Mark. 7.4 And when they come from the market they eate not except they wash The washing of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds or tables Again vers 8. The washing of pots and cups Here you have the verbe Baptizo to wash and the noune Baptismos washing And that this is the proper signification of the word may appeare a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones vul Baptismata beside the consent of Translatours in that it is used as signifying the same thing with the other words that alwayes signifies a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones vul Baptismata washing as vers 2. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With unwashen hands and vers 3. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wash their hands By which it appeareth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie the same thing So Hebr. 9.10 And divers washings where the Apostle speaketh of the legall washings So Luk. 11.38 The Pharisee marvelled that Christ had not washed before dinner So that the word signifies properly to wash whether by infusion or immersion it matters not But should we grant Baptizo and Bapto to be altogether of the same signification though the contrary have been sufficiently proved what will you gain thereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies either mergo or tingo Mergo signifies properly to drown overwhelm swallow up c. If you will have your converts
according to this interpretation so baptized as to drown them you will make sure work to prevent their sinning any more And so your Baptisme will have a priviledge above the Baptisme of Christ Iohn or the Apostles for their converts and baptized ones sinned after Baptisme But if you will have Baptisme taken and used in this sense I know none that will be your disciples unlesse they be weary of their lives The other word Tingo signifies to dip or c Dan. 4.12 c Interpreters render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in sound hath great affinitie with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some letters being transposed by Intingitur Iun. Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf our Translatours render it to be wet Where Intingo cannot signifie to douse over head or to dip but to besprinkle or bedew for it follows with the dew of heaven besprinkle to embrue stain wet or wash c. Now what reason is there why it should be restrained onely to the first signification Nay if we compare Scriptures we shall finde that what is rendred by sprinkling in the Old Testament is expressed by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New As if we conferre these two places Rev 19.13 and Esa 63.3 In Rev. 10.13 And d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sparsus aspersus inspersus fuit vel active aspersit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspersus tinctus madefactus Bez. veste tincta sanguine Ari. vestimention tinctum Vulg. veste aspersa he was cloathed with a vesture dipt in blood So our Translatours or rather sprinkled so we Esa 63.3 Their blood shall be sprinkled on my garments To which place of Esay it is certain that the holy Ghost in the Revelation alludes that I say not that it may be a repetition of the same prophesis pointing at the same time and thing as it may appeare by the same similitude of treading the wine-presse of Gods wrath largely prosecuted in both places See Esa 63.1 With dyed garments vers 2. Red in his apparell c. vers 3. I have trod the wine presse and compare Rev. 19. v. 15. c. So that it is evident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresse the same that was meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though our Translatours render it dipped because the word in the Originall signifies either dipped or sprinkled equally Yea Beza useth a word that equally signifies dipped or sprinkled So Arias Montanus But the vulgar translation hath a word that onely signifies besprinkled not dipped But you say That Baptizo signifies to dip plunge douse over head c. is proved by Christs own Baptisme And e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was baptized into the Iordan Mark 1.9 But it is not the water was put upon him as in sprinkling the water is put on the partie Answ 1. Neither is it he was dipped plunged doused over head or under the water c. 2. The force of your argument lyes in this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you will needs have translated Into not In. But can you who censure others for their ignorance of the language be ignorant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth very frequently In or by not Into as Matth. 2.23 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He dwelt in not into a citie called Nazareth Matth. 4.13 He dwelt in not into Capernaum Matth. 5 45. Neither by the earth neither by Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are put in the same signification there Matth. 10.9 Neither possesse money in not into your purses and 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In not into the name of a Prophet Matth. 13.33 She hid it in not into three measures of flower c. Thus you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying in so that it were absurd to render it into and so you have proved nothing for your purpose from the particle You adde the testimonie of our Translatours themselves For which I answer Matth. 26.23 and Mar. 14.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have the preposition set before them which alters the signification and restrains it to signifie Dipping in which signification the simple Verbe that we are about is not restrained unto From Luk. 16.24 Ioh. 13.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour namely that bapto sometimes signifies to Dippe But thence it followes not that it signifies so alwaies or onely Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revel 19.13 and the difference betweene Bapto and Baptizo I have spoken before And here you confirme what I said and contradict your self For saying that in no Greek Authour nor Scripture written by the Apostles in that Language can be found that they differ Mark 7.4 Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a sense different from Bapto which you never shewed not have I read to signifie to Wash So that you pull down with your owne hands what you have beene building all this while See before what hath beene said to that place where mention is made of such a washing as is so farre from necessarily implying dowsing into the water onely that it will scarcely admit it as washing themselves when they come from the market and the washing of Beds or Tables What you adde That washing of cups is putting cups into the water is as true as washing hands or face is putting them into the water May not cups be as well washed by infusion of water in and upon them as by putting them into the water Your conjecture from Ioh. 3.23 is as frivolous As if there could be no reason why Iohn should chuse a place where were many waters but this that he might dip the whole man into the water plunge and douse them over head or under water as your expressions are But no such reason is here expressed nor so much as intimated Rather the cause seemes this Because in those hot countreys waters were rare Gen. 21.15.19 Gen. 26.18 Judg. 1.15 and in some places could not be had in a great distance therefore Iohn chose places where were continuall running waters and streames especially seeing there came such huge multitudes unto him to be baptized Mat. 3.5 6 7. and it is more then probable that not onely Iohn but also his disciples baptized as Ioh. 4.1 2. Christ is said to baptize those whom his disciples baptized So Iohn may be said to baptize those whom he and his disciples baptized together a long the river at severall places of the river that they might make more speedy dispatch with so great multitudes Act. 2.41 Act. 16.15.33 Neither is it true that you say A little font will suffice to besprinkle a whole world with handfuls Moreover we reade of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the rivers and of whole
families without mention of going out to the waters or fetching great store of waters It is like the waters they had within doores at midnight sufficed Act. 8.38 39. Your Collection from Philips going down to the water with the Eunuch that therefore they used dipping is as vain Must not they go to the water where it was if they would use it would the water have come up unto them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping Of the same stamp is your inference from Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.10 from Christs ascending from the water For as Christ was pleased to be baptized with water so he was pleased to go where the water was viz. in the channell to which there was a descent and from which there was an ascent so that he must go down to and come up from the water But here is not the least hint that Iohn doused Christ over head or under the water Nay rather that conceit of yours is here confuted for if our Blessed Saviour had been plunged of Iohn into the water then it would rather have been said That Iohn cast or plunged Christ into the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and took him out of the water But it is onely implyed that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it From your other Scriptures Col. 2.12 Rom. 6.4.5 1 Cor. 15.29 what you goe about to gather I know not unlesse this that as Christ was buried abode in the grave three dayes and then rose again so the party baptized must be put under the water abide there some considerable time and then come up againe for if you presse a similitude of Christs buriall in going down into the water and of his resurrection in coming up out of the water why not also of his abode in the grave three dayes by abiding three dayes or some answerable time under the water which will make bad worke neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scriptures Now to use your owne words Let any man that is not quite fallen out with his reason judge whether in all these Scriptures be any syllable that speaks more for dipping then for sprinkling or washing with water Men may well be at agreement with their reason and yet perceive no such thing as you inferre hence Col. 2.12 Rom. 6.4 5. 1 Cor. 15.29 But I would demand here two Questions First How can you gather from these places a dipping of the whole man over head and under water and that a similitude of Christs death buriall and rising againe to be represented by dipping into the water is signified here These Scriptures shew indeed that the end of our baptisme is to seale our communion with Christ in his death and resurrection by which we are dead to sinne and raised againe to holinesse But if you will presse hence a necessitie of resemblance of Christs death buriall and resurrection by our descending into abiding in and coming up out of the water Pro. 30.6 Revel 22.18 take heed lest you be one of those which adde to Gods word lest he reprove you as a lyer and adde unto you the plagues written in his Booke For I know not any word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implied much lesse expressed Besides if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by descension into and ascension out of the water you must urge also buriall which is principally there expressed by the biding of the whole man head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three dayes buriall which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning Secondly If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death buriall and resurrection is set before us in baptisme and so of our death to sinne and rising again to holinesse Yet I would demand why may not this be represented as well by infusion of water as by dipping Can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have beene put to death and buried by the infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other earthly creatures those few that were in the Arke excepted were buried in the universall Deluge at once by infusion not by dipping So that infusion or sprinkling Gen. 6.27 7.11 12. may well as clearely signifie death and buriall as dipping And to the preservation of Noah and those that were with him by the Arke on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptisme as its antitype Wherefore you might doe well to be henceforth a little more modest and not talke as if all men were fallen out with their reason which will not jumpe with you in your weake conceits Now we come to your inference or conclusion which being built on the crazie and rotten foundation of such vaine and fond premises falls to the ground of it selfe And whereas you say that The Greek wanted not words to expresse any other act as well as dipping I answer Neither did the Greek want words to expresse onely dipping of the whole man all over into the water or dowsing and plunging over head and under the water which you would have Baptizo to signifie but neither have nor can prove that it doth if the holy Ghost had meant any such act Neither doth the Spirit of God need your helpe to find out fit words It seemed fit to that wise Spirit to use Baptizo which signifies to wash whether by dipping or sprinkling washing onely being intended to be significant and not either dipping or sprinkling Whereas you say that It cannot be proved that baptisme was administred any other way then by dipping for at least a thousand years after Christ Ans I leave the proofe and trialls of that to Historians and Antiquaries as being unfurnished with the Records of Antiquitie though I conceive your Assertion is as bold and groundlesse as your others are proved to be Secondly Why do you not prove that dowsing over head and under water was used for at least a thousand years after Christ Thirdly How can you tell it cannot be proved that sprinkling was used of all that time Will you perswade people that you have read over all the writings of the Ancients or that you are so honest faithfull and unerring that your word must be taken for an Oracle without proofe As for your cleare resulting consequence as I said It is built on too weake grounds to stand and therefore may be safely denied as a plaine untruth And whereas you apply the words of Peter and Ananias unto us Act. 2.38 Act. 22.16 1 Sam. 15.23 as to unbaptized persons perswading us to arise and be baptized Intimating that for us to refuse this your Charge is rebellion and stubbornesse as witchcraft iniquitie and idolatrie I would advise you take heed of and repent for abusing Scripture as in these and a great part
head and under water that A. R. pleads for as essentiall to baptisme seems directly against the sixth Commandement and exposeth the person baptized to the danger of death For first suppose the party be fit for baptisme as they account in the sharpe Winter as now beleeving professing c. He must immediately be taken to the river as his tenet seemes to hold and there plunged in over head and eares though he come forth covered with yce But if he escape perishing with cold how can he escape being choaked and stifled with the water if he must be plunged over head to signifie his death to sinne secondly be kept under water to signifie his buriall and thirdly be taken up as this Disputer seemes to reason But whatsoever be the danger of freezing or suffocation it seemes this he holds the onely baptisme and therefore must not be swerved from Arg. 4 Fourthly will not this their manner of dipping be found also against the seventh Commandement in the Decalogue For I would know with these new dippers whether the parties to be dowsed and dipped may be baptized in a garment or no If they may then happily the garment may keep the water from some part of the body and then they are not rightly baptized for the whole man say they must be dipped Againe I would aske what warrant they have for dipping or baptizing garments more then the Papists have for baptizing Bells Therefore belike the parties must be naked and multitudes present as at Iohns baptisme and the parties men and women of ripe yeares as being able to make confession of their faith and repentance yet though they both sinne against the sixth Commandement indangering life and against all common honestie and civilitie and Christian modestie required in the seventh Commandement they must have this way observed because they fancie it the onely baptisme Shall we thinke this was the baptisme of Iohn Christ and his Apostles But enough of this second Consideration we come to the third Consideration The third Argument or Consideration against our Baptisme taken from the Ministers by whom administred examined YOur third Consideration against baptizing of infants amongst us is taken from the Calling Office Power and Authoritie of the Ministers by whom they are baptized Which subject because it hath been largely handled by others shall be lightly passed over Yet we will try what you say to it with shew of truth or weight A. R. Whereas you say That our Ministers power and authoritie was received from Bishops who received their power from the Antichristian State of Rome as they confesse so that the baptisme is from Antichrist not from Christ Answer 1 I answer First our Ministers have their authoritie and office from Iesus Christ as many as being fitted for that function upon due triall and approbation of Ministers though a Bishop or Bishops have had an hand yea a chiefe stroke therein and the choyce or acceptation of Gods people have set upon the worke of the Ministery Answer 2 Secondly a thing is not therefore forthwith unwarrantable or Antichristian because it comes from a Bishop or from the Pope or authoritie derived from them Is the doctrine of the unitie of Gods Essence Trinitie of Persons Creation of the world c. therefore unlawfull or Antichristian because holden by them If the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament have been in the custodie of the Papists as the Old Testament in the custodie of the Iewes so that we have no Bibles now but what came successively from the Iewes and Papists Must we therefore reject the Scripture as Antichristian or Iewish and look for immediate revelations Or if the Bishops had a hand in the Translation of our Bibles must they therefore be cast away as Antichristian so that neither you nor your disciples may meddle with them because they have passed through the hands of the Bishops If any of you have heard any Sacred truths from Ministers which have beene ordained by Bishops which you seemed to beleeve for a time must you of necessitie cast them away as falshoods and Antichristian Tenents false doctrines or nullities as you will make their baptisme Antichristian baptisme the reason is the same Take heed lest in so doing you cast away your soules Answer 3 Thirdly many things that Antichrist and they that are held under Antichrists tyranny hold and professe are not Antichristian but truly Christian As that the Canonicall Scriptures are the word of God that God is one in Essence yet three in Persons that Christ is the Sonne of God c. And many things taught by them many acts done by them are not Antichristian but Christian For Antichrist was foretold to sit in the Temple of God 2 Thess 2.4 which he would never have beene suffered to do had he not professed and practised some things that for their substance were of God And as for the faithfull over whom he did tyrannize while he sate in the Temple of God though they were abused and cheated by him with many superstitions and errours that he imposed upon them yet there were some saving truths that they professed and holy and acceptable worship and practise which they did performe which in Christ God was pleased to accept so that it is fond to reason Baptisme Ordination and the Scriptures were received from Antichrist therefore Antichristian Answer 4 Fourthly the power and authoritie of the Ministers doth not depend on the qualitie or station especially in respect of the worst part of the person or persons chusing or ordaining them Else men could never be assured of their owne or others ministrie whether it be true or false for the qualitie of men is onely knowne unto God and in the station of the best there may be somewhat irregular and wanting exact perfection but principally on Christs inward call discerned by the gifts propensitie and sincerity of the parties undertaking that office al which are requisite if they will to their own comfort and with Gods approbation exercise their ministerie although the want of some of these hinder not but that he which by Gods providence is called to the ministerie may have power and authoritie sufficient from God to be an instrument of God for the good of others though he were weake and unfound himselfe Mat. 10.4 and 40. as we may see in Iudas who was one of those to whom Christ saith He that receiveth you receiveth me c. the Scribes and Pharisees concerning whom Christ gave a charge that they should be heard and obeyed in those things which they taught sitting in Moses chaire Matth. 23.2 3. Phil. 1.15 16.18 Act. 6.5 Rev. 2.6 vide Brightman in locum though their lives were not exemplary the envious contentious and unsincere Preachers of Christ in whose preaching yet Paul rejoyced in Demas and Nicolas the Deacon who as Interpreters hold proved afterward the ring-leader of the Nicolaitanes This I say Christs inward call either of approbation
of your quotations you doe most grosly God will not hold them guiltlesse that take his name in vaine When you come to us with the same spirit and authoritie as Peter Ananias and Samuel had we will hearken to you Now though what hath beene said in answer to this disputers Arguments against baptizing by sprinkling or infusion and for onely dipping or plunging might suffice yet I will adde something more to what hath been written endeavouring to make it appeare that washing whether it be by dipping or sprinkling is the externall act required in this Sacrament to be used and that sprinkling or infusion is as if not more agreeable to the nature and institution of this Sacrament as dipping or immersion Argument 1. As the word used signifieth washing as hath beene shewed so the thing represented signified and sealed in this Sacrament is set forth in the Scripture by the phrase of washing or cleansing as 1 Cor. 6.11 But ye are washed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ye are sanctified but yea are iustified c. Now who questions but our justification and sanctification or remission of sinnes together with mortification and vivification are sealed and signified by baptisme c. But these are here called washing So T it 3.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost In the former of which expressions washing if here be not meant baptisme it selfe which to deny I see no reason yet certainely here is meant the thing signified by baptisme which is sufficient for our purpose which way so ever it is taken Heb. 10.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having our bodies washed with cleane water 1 Ioh. 1.7 And the bloud of Iesus Christ his Sonne shall cleanse us from all our sinnes Heb. 9.14 The bloud of Christ shall purge your conscience Now we know washing purging or cleansing may be and commonly is as well by infusion or powring on the thing to be washed as by dipping Common experience testifies so much and Scripture is not silent herein Luk. 7.44 She hath washed my feet with tears viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by powring or distilling as the word signifies And though it were granted that in those hot Countries they commonly washed by going downe into the water and being dipped therein whether in ordinary or ceremoniall or sacramentall washing that will no more inforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptisme now then the example of Christ and his Apostles * Matth. 26.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 22.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 14.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gesture in the Sacrament of the Supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying which was their usuall table gesture then Now the ordinary table gesture which is usuall among us is most fit so the usuall manner of washing amongst us is most fit to be observed in baptisme and that is by powring as well as by dipping But it may be objected That sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the perfect washing away of all our sinnes as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there onely the face or head onely Answ First the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptisme Secondly with as good reason one might plead thus It is most convenient that at the Lords Supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soule with the body and bloud of Christ But who would endure such reasoning These outward elements of Water Bread and Wine are for spirituall use and to signifie spirituall things so that if there be the truth of things the quantitie is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spirituall grace and that it be neither so little as not clearely to represent it 2. Pet. 3.21 nor so much as to take off the heart from the spirituall to the corporall thing Not the washing away of the filth of the body in baptisme nor the glutting or satisfying of the naturall appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after but the washing and refreshing of the soule which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking of a little bread and wine In Circumcision a little skin was cut off Arg. 2 The spirituall grace and invisible act of God upon the soule signified and represented by the outward act of baptisme is oft expressed in Scripture by the phrase of powring and besprinkling and that in great probabilitie if not certainly and unquestionably with allusion to the Sacrament of Baptisme either already administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fudit Infudit affudit profudit perfudit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to be administred I mean the bloud of Christ and the Spirit of God which are the invisible grace of Baptisme are said to be powred or sprinkled on Gods people Esa 44.3 For I will powre water on him that is thirstie and floods on the dry ground I will powre my Spirit on thy seed and my blessing upon thine off-spring Here the Spirit is said to be powred and this benefit is signified by the type of powring water Ioel 2.28 I will powre out my spirit on all flesh Which promise Peter citing calleth upon the people to repent and receive baptisme as being the signe and seale which God had appointed to represent and exhibite this promised blessing by Ezek. 36.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I will sprinkle upon you cleane water and you shall be cleane This cleane water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Iesus Christ represented by the water in baptisme Thus we see three severall phrases signifying to sprinkle besprinkle powre If we look into the New Testament we shall find the like phrases Act. 2.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will powre forth my Spirit upon all flesh Heb. 10.22 Having your hearts besprinkled from an evill conscience 1 Pet. 1.2 By the sanctification of the spirit and sprinkling of the bloud of Iesus Christ See Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12.24 Now let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speake not in allusion to baptisme and whether they all hold not forth the thing signified in baptisme and whether baptisme be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken off And then withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to judge whether sprinkling be not as that I say not more agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament as dipping Arg. 3 Thirdly this dousing over
And it may further appeare by these Scriptures Act. 8.38 Nothing now could hinder the Eunuch from being baptized for now the spirituall blessing appertained to him and therefore the externall signe Act. 10.47 48. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we And he commanded them to be baptized c. And Chap. 11.17 The Apostle implies that it had beene a withstanding of God not to have baptized them on whom the gift of the holy Ghost had been powred And so still upon the profession of faith and repentance when in the judgement of charitie the Preachers apprehended the parties to have interest and right to the spirituall grace they administred the outward signe though questionlesse they were deceived in many as Ananias Sapphira Simon Magus c. Yet it was a sufficient warrant to the Ministers to baptize them because so farre as they could judge they were under the promise For if amongst Christs few Disciples there was one traytour sonne of perdition devill doubtlesse amongst those many thousands that were baptized upon their profession of faith and repentance at the preaching of Iohn and the Apostles many were hypocrites as may appeare by the great evils that brake out in the Primitive Churches This I adde to shew that there is no infallible certainty of the inward grace required of or possible to the Minister And that to whom the inward grace belongs to them the outward signe belongs appeareth in Peters exhortation in that place quoted in the proposition Act. 2.38 39. And Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ to the remission of your sinnes and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afarre off even so many as the Lord our God shall call Wherein he shews them that if they will repent they have right unto baptisme as having right unto the thing signified in baptisme viz. the remission of sinnes by the bloud of Christ powred on their soules and the gift of the holy Ghost being the Spirit of Christ powred on them of which he had spoken before ver 17. both clearely represented and signified by the infusion or powring of water in baptisme And the rather to perswade them to repent and be baptized that they might receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost Peter tels them that the promise is to them and their children and so many as God should call though afarre off even among the Gentiles So that if by faith and repentance they and the Gentiles should accept the promise they and their children should have interest in the remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost and so consequently in baptisme so that not onely the parents repenting but also their children had title to the promise of the holy Gohst and so to the seale thereof A. R. First against this you object It is not said your infants but your children Ans Infants are not excluded I hope for infants are children though not onely infants neither do we hold that the promise was made to infants onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter useth a generall word that signifieth posteritie of what age soever whether of ripe or tender years Secondly you object It is not said promises but promise and that it is not promises but promise not infants but children You promise us satisfaction by looking back to what went before in the Chapter after a long repetition wherof you tell us what we may gather to wit that the gift of the holy Ghost mentioned ver 17. to be prophesied of by Ioel and to be received of the Father and shed forth by Christ ver 33. is repeated ver 38. Answ All this maketh nothing against us but for us Thirdly you adde You may see who are meant by children viz. the same that were mentioned ver 17. under the termes of sonnes and daughters that should prophecie Answ As if the Spirit mentioned here were onely a Spirit of prophecie The Spirit hath divers operations some ordinary and some extraordinary 1 Cor. 12.4.7 8 9 10 11. Neither is it said that all shall prophecie and dreame dreames Fourthly you say Therefore no infants are meant here who cannot prophecie c. Answ Why may not infants be of the number of that all flesh on which God would powre his Spirit though none of those that prophecie see visions dreame c. For these effects of the Spirit are not related as common to all on whom God would powre his Spirit but peculiar to some which had extraordinary gifts Secondly What hinders but they may receive the Spirit in their infancie by which they may prophecie in ripe yeares as we see in Iohn the Baptist Luk. 1.15 41. Thirdly I answer That this promise is not onely made concerning the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit which were bestowed in the times of the Apostle by which men did prophecie dreame dreames see visions speake with tongues c. but also of the sanctifying Spirit which is common to all ages of the Church even where such miraculous and extraordinarie gifts are not bestowed may appeare vers 30. The promise saith the Apostle was to all afarre off whomsoever the Lord should call that is all the Gentiles whom God should call by the Gospel to faith Now no man I hope will say that all whom over God called dreamed dreames saw visions prophecied spake with strange tongues c. Fifthly you adde There is not so much as any colour for baptizing of infants from hence For the Text is not Be baptized For the promise is to you and your children as many in Print doe falsely alledge But repent and be baptized c. and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy ghost For the promise is to you and your children Answ If we should take the words in your sense viz. that those words For the promise is made c. are brought as a reason onely of the words going immediately before it makes nothing against me for so the 38. vers containes a pregnant proofe of my proposition and vers 39. of mine assumption Secondly I answer There is no necessitie can appeare no nor probable reason I beleeve can be rendred why the reason For the promise c. vers 39. should be referred onely to the words immediately preceding you shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost and not unto the exhortation Repent and be baptized c. which untill you could have given some proofe of you might well have spared your immodest language and hainous accusation of false alledging Scripture For the context may either be analysed thus First Peter exhorts to repent and be baptized then he spurres them on by a reason taken from the effect viz. remission and the gift of the Spirit secondly from the promise that God had
this holinesse or unholinesse of children proceeds not from the holinesse or unholinesse of parents but from the lawfull or unlawfull conjunction of parents in the begetting of children for the Apostle in this place speakes of all men universally Answ Let any indifferent man judge whether this be not an uncleane illegitimate and spurious interpretation of and drawing conclusions from the Scripture For first What comfort or resolution had this beene in the scrupulous parent to tell him that his children were holy that is legitimate and no bastards but legitimates because they were begotten in lawfull matrimony that had beene contracted before conversion whereas by your interpretation of these Scriptures if they had continued still unconverted both of them their children had beene as holy that is legitimate and no bastards Secondly how can this place Marriage is honourable in all c. and the bed undefiled be understood of all men universally as you say viz. unbeleevers as well as beleevers Tit. 1.15 When the Apostle saith Vnto the pure all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbeleeving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to such It is evident therefore that we make not the Spirit of God contradict it selfe that the universall note all men is to be restrained to the subject matter viz. all sorts of beleevers for to such he wrote of what qualitie condition or calling soever Thirdly But I pray you see and if you will not let others consider how all this while in interpreting this Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 and wresting wiredrawing and pulling in as it were obtorto collo other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation you have directly and manifestly contradicted the Apostle and corrupted the Text. The Apostle tells the beleeving yoke-fellows that their children are holy though their yoke-fellows were unbeleevers because they are sanctified to them viz. by their faith you say therefore the children are holy because their matrimonie was lawfull If the Apostles meaning were that which you would have it he should have said You were lawfully married therefore are your children holy But he saith The unbeleever is sanctified by or to the beleever else were your children uncleane let their marriage be never so lawfull Paul gathers the holinesse of children from grounds peculiar to the faithfull viz. the faith and being in covenant at least of one of the parents shewing plainly that were it not for this the children must needs be uncleane You would draw it from grounds common to Infidels viz. lawfull matrimony affirming that whosoever is borne of parents though infidels lawfully married is holy in the Apostles sense Thus when men set themselves to maintain errours they are not afraid nor ashamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God You have somewhat further which you call an objection It seems then that the holines here of the children ariseth not from the holinesse or faith of the parents but meerly from the lawfull marriage and conjunction of the parents and then you answer It is even so and goe on to repeat what you have said and adde such like stuffe not worth reading Answ It is even false though you dictate it as è cathedra or è tripode and a manifest contradicting of plain Scripture as hath beene before demonstrated Your two next objections doe not concern us and therefore I passe them by Yet one more objection you bring us in making Have the children of beleevers no more priviledge then the children of Heathens Turks and Infidels you answer In respect of the Covenant of grace and salvation none at all and bring those Scriptures Ioh. 3.7 8. Act. 10.34 35. to shew that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any naturall birth but by a new birth Onely their priviledge you say is in respect of the meanes of salvation for beleeving parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Christ Answ What Christian heart doth not abhorre this assertion as being directly contrary to the tenour of Gods Covenant Gen. 17. of which more hereafter and repugnant to Gods gracious promises frequently inculcated in Scripture Exod. 20.5 6. Act. 2.39 Esa 59.21 Doth not this strike at a maine pillar of a Christians comfort grounded on those precious promises so that by this tenet if the children of Christian parents die before they be capable of the outward meanes of salvation or their parents be taken from them before they come to yeares of discretion they must be parted with as the children of Turkes or Infidels as being out of the state of salvation as being in a lost and hopelesse condition as having no right to the Covenant notwithstanding all the gracious promises that God hath made to the faithfull to be their God and the God of their seed to shew mercy to their posteritie even to thousands that the promises doe belong unto them and their children that his word and Spirit shall abide on their seed and their seeds seed Let men judge whether the father of lies can speake more contradictorily to Scripture for the extenuating of Gods rich grace and dashing the comfort of Gods people Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument Yet notwithstanding all shifts we see this truth remaines firme that the children of Christian parents are faederally holy and members of the Church and so have right to the seale of admission into the Church 4. Arg. 4. Arg. To those that are in Covenant with God the Sacrament or seale which God hath instituted to represent and seale admission into Covenant is to be administred Gen. 17.10 11. Exod. 12.48 But children of beleeving parents are in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7 Exod. 12.48 Esa 59.21 Therefore children of beleeving parents are to be admitted to the seale of entrance into the Covenant which now is baptisme in the time of the Gospel For the confirmation and explication of the former proposition I conceive it is hardly questioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people and appointed a seale to signifie and represent admission into the same then the seale or signe belongs to those which have entred into Covenant under what kinde of administration soever the Covenant be dispensed So Philip reasons If thou beleeve with all thine heart thou maist be baptized So Peter Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptized c. For actuall faith at least in profession was necessary to those that at first entered into the new covenant and received the sign or seale thereof to wit baptisme as well as it was necessary to Abraham who entered first into the old Covenant which was sealed by Circumcision though actuall faith was not required of his posteritie as necessarie to their being in Covenant Neither for ought that I see doth the Adversarie deny this proposition Yet if it be questioned it is fully