thing or spirituall act or grace signified by Baptisme may be sufficiently expressed without Dipping then is not Dipping necessary in Baptisme for the whole use of the signe in Baptisme in all other Sacraments is but to represent the thing signified and inwardly wrought upon the soul by the means of that ordinance of God But the thing signified to wit the cleansing of the soul from the guilt and filth of sin may be sufficiently expressed by washing or rubbing with water and so putting away the filth of the flesh 1 Pet. 3. 21. without any plunging or Dipping of the whole body or any part thereof Ergo Dipping is not necessary in Baptisme ARGUMENT IIII. Sprinkling may be done and is usually without any Dipping at all But the outward act of Baptisme representing the inward Ablution of the soul is expressed in holy Scripture by sprinkling Hebr. 9. 13. The blood of bulls and goats sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 10. 22. Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water 1 Pet. 1. 2. Through the sanctification of the spirit and sprinkling of the blood of Iesus Christ. Ergo The outward act of Baptisme may be rightly performed without any Dipping at all ARGUMENT V. Baptisme is a Sacrament though not of absolute necessity yet of very great as all confesse and it falleth out often that it ought to be administred to sick and infirm persons even sometimes lying upon their death bed they making profession of their Faith and earnestly desiring it But in such case these infirm persons cannot after the manner of the Anabaptists be carried to rivers or wells and there be Dipt and plunged in them without evident and apparent danger yet may they safely be Baptised by sprinkling or gentle rubbing with water Ergo Sprinkling or rubbing the flesh with water in the Name of the Trinity by those who have authority and commission from Christ is sufficient without any Dipping at all ARGUMENT VI. All the Sacraments of the church may and ought to be administred without giving any just scandall But the resort of great multitudes of men and women together in the evening and going naked into rivers there to be plunged and Dipt cannot be done without scandall especially where the State giveth no allowance to any such practise nor appointeth any order to prevent such fowl abuses as are like at such disorderly meetings to be committed Ergo The Sacrament of Baptisme ought not to be administred with such plunging or Dipping The Objections of the Anabaptists answered Now let us hear what they can say for their Dipping and with what weak bulrushes they fight against the truth Fist they object that the word Baptize is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to Dip or Die therefore say they washing or sprinkling with water is not Baptizing but plunging the body or the head at least in water But we answer First out of Aquinas and the schoolmen in verbis non tam spectandum ex quo quam ad quid sumantur in words we are not so much to respect from whence they are derived as how they are used as we see the branches of trees spread much further then the roots so the derivative words are often of a larger extent of signification then their primitives for instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth originally and properly Catechizing or such a kinde of Teaching wherein the principles of Religion or of any Art or Science are often inculcated and by continuall sounding and resounding beat into the ears of children or novies but yet it is taken in holy Scripture in a larger sense not onely for catchizing of children but instructing men of riper yeers in the doctrine of salvation as Luke 1. 4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherein thou hast been instructed and Acts 1825. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord and Acts 21. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereof they informed concerning thee and Rom. 14. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Follow the things wherewith one may edifie another and Gal. 6. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him that as taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth him In like manner The word prophecie is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth originally and properly to foretell things future yet it is taken in the new Testament especially in a larger sense for all such as reveale the will of God and declare his promises aswell past and already fulfilled as to be fulfilled hereafter as namely 1 Cor. 11. 4. every man praying or prophecying having his head covered dishonoureth his head 1 Cor. 14. 1. Desire spirituall gifts but rather that ye may prophesie and verse 3. He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification to exhortation to comfort verse 31. Ye may all prophesâ—e one by one verse 32. The spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets So the word Baptize though it be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo to Dip or Plunge into the water and signifieth primarily such a kinde of washing as is used in bucks where linnen is Plunged and Dipt yet it is taken more largely for any kinde of washing rinsing or cleansing even where there is no Dipping at all as Matth. 3. 11. 20. 22. Mark 7. 4. 10. 38. Luke 3. 16. Acts 1. 5. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence Baptize is derived signifieth as well to Die as to Dip and it may be the holy Ghost in the word Baptize hath some reference to that signification because by Baptisme we change our hiew for as Varro reporteth of a river in Baeotia that the water thereof turneth sheep of a dark or dun colour into white so the sheep of Christ which are washed in the Font of Baptisme by vertue of Christs promise though before they were of never so dark sad or dirtie colour yet in their souls become white and pure and are as it were new died therefore admitting that in the word Baptize there were something of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tingo to Dip or Die yet it will not follow That it necessarily signifieth Dipping for it may aswell imply this spirituall Die to which no Dipping is necessary Secondly they argue from the example of Christ and Iohn and of Philip and the Eunuch Iesus say they and Iohn went both into Iordan and there Iohn Baptized Iesus and likewise Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water and there Philip Baptized the Eunuch therefore say they sprinkling or washing with water will not suffice but the parties that are to be baptized ought to go into the water and there be Dipt over head and ears But we answer First an example of Christ or his
Christ omni renaâ—ceâ—i aqua baptismatis instar est uteri virginalis â—adem 〈…〉 qui replevit virginem peccatum quod ihi 〈…〉 conceptio hic mystica toâ—â—it ablâ—tio And 〈◊〉 5. factuâ— est homo nostri generis ut nos divinae naturae possâ—imus esse consortes originem quam sumpsit in utero virginis posuit in 〈…〉 dedit 〈◊〉 quod dedit matri obumbratio Spiritus quâ—â— facit ut Maria pareret salvatorem facit ut regeneret undae credontem to every regenerate Christian the water of baptisme is in stead of the Virgins wombe the same Spirit replenishing the font which filled the Virgin and the sinne which there his holy conception prevented or evacuated here the mysticall ablution takes away And again Christ was made a man of our nature that we might be made partakers of his divine nature the birth or originall which he took in the Virgins womb he hath put in the font of baptisme he hath given that to the water which he gave to his mother by the like over shadowing of the Spirit the water regenerates a beleever whereby Mary brought forth a Saviour As for the rest of his arguments they are like rotten wyer they will not endure the streining and they are alreadâ—e broken in pieces by another See the declaration against the Anabaptists printed at London for R. W. 1644. A confutation of A. R. his TRACTATE entituled The Vanitie of childrens baptisme THe presse now adays is like Africa â—emper aliquid apportat novi monstri it brings forth every day some new monster among which one of the most ugly and mishapen is a Treatise printed by A. R. of The Vanitie of childish baptisme quis furor ô cives quae tanta licentia praeli O the impietie of the men of these times the more to be condemned by all after-ages by how much they condemn the pietie and devotion of the former An ordinance of God and most holy sacrament instituted by Christ and from the dayes of the Apostles even to this present age administred by the whole church to the children of beleevers is tearmed by the vain author of this Treatise upon weak and childish reasons vain and childish Is everie action childish whereof children are the subject Then was circumcision childish and the protection of Angells is childish and the imposition of hands and benediction of our blessed Saviour I tremble to speak it in the language of this black-mouthed Treatiser will be concluded to be vain and childish For the sacrament of circumcision by Gods commandement was administred to children the Angells of heaven are childrens guardians and our Redeemer himself took children in his arms layd his hands upon them and blessed them And if he commanded children to be brought unto him shall not we bring them to the church If he embraced them shall not we receive them into his familie If he layd his hands on them shall not we wash them in his sacred font If he blessed them shall not we pray for them and after a religious manner consecrate them unto him and make them free of the citie of God according to Abrahams copie I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Herod the Ascalonite and Richard the third King of England were branded with anote of infamy and barbarous crueltie to allages the one for â—â—isling the young princes of the blood and heires of the crown of England the other for massaging the infants in Bethlehem and the confines thereof yet those bloodie tyrants deprived those sweet babes only of their temporall life of how much deeper dye is their sin who by their soul-murthering doctrine and practise endeavour to deprive the heires apparent not of an earthly but of a celestiall crown and all the children of the faithfull throughout the whole Christian world of the ordinarie means of eternall life Whatsoever fair varnish hath been of late put upon this heresie it seemed so horrid and abominable in the eyes of our predecessors and other reformed churches they inflicted the severest punishments upon the obstinate maintainers thereof that they could devise At Zurick after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Anabaptists the Senate made an act that if any presumed to rebaptise those that were baptized before they should be drowned In the year of our Lord 1539. five Dutch Anabaptists were burnt in Smithfield and two beyond Southwark in the way to Newington At Vienna many Anabaptists were so tyed together in chains that one drew the other after him into the river wherein they were all suffocated vid. suprâ— Here you may see the hand of God in punishing these sectaries some way answerable to their sin according to the observation of the wise man quo quis peccat co punietur they who drew others into the whirl-pool of error by constraint draw one another into the river to be drowned and they who prophaned baptisme by a second dipping rue it a third immersion But the punishment of these Catabaptists we leave to them that have the legislative power in their hands who though by present connivence they may seem to give them line yet no doubt it is that they may more entangle themselvs and more easily be caught For my part I seek not the confusion of their persons but the confutation of their errors two whereof A. R. undertaketh strenuously to defend The first is the necessitie of dipping in baptisme dipping saith he in his title-page is baptizing and baptizing dipping and p. 8. the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water This he endeavoureth to prove out of Mark 1. 8. and Ioh. 1. 26. and Plutarch l. de superstitione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Act. 11. 16. c. 8. 38. 39. Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and Mat. 3. 16. Christ went with Iohn into the water p. 11. and Col. 2. 12. buried with him in baptisme and Rom. 6. 4. 5. were buried with him by baptisme into his death Now let any man saith he that is not quite fallen out of his reason judge whether washing or sprinkling the face with water or dipping the whole man into water doth answer all these texts of scripture I answer this is a weak and childish fallacie For ex particulari non est syllogizari no man in his right wits will conclude a generall from a particular as he doth here Some men that were baptized went into the river therefore all that be baptized must do so The word baptizo sometimes signifieth to dip therefore it alwayes signifieth so Although in the places alledged the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not in but with as the words immediatly following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make it plain and therefore both the Geneva and the last translation render the words not I have baptized you in water but he will baptize you in the holy Ghost but I
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
given this power to the church yet some particular men in the church ought to execute this power of ordination The issue of the conference was first the Knights Ladies and Gentlemen gave the Doctor great thanks secondly three of the Anabaptists went away discontented the fourth seemed in part satisfied desired a second meeting but the next day conferring with the rest of that sect he altered his resolution and neither he nor any of that sect ever since that day troubled the Doctor or any other Minister in the Borough with any second chalenge Finis Additions to the former Conference IN the conference above mentioned D. F. promised to prove the baptisme of children 1. By scripture 2. By consent of the universall church And 3. by evident reason And the arguments drawn from the first head he prosecuted but was not permitted at that time to urge the arguments drawn from the second and third heads yet because they were desired by some persons of note it was thought fit they should be added to the former Next to the arguments drawn from expresse testimony of scripture for the baptisme of children we have a most forcible argument drawn from the consent of the universall church testified by their constant practise of admitting children to baptisme even from the Apostles dayes unto this present This argument if it be well weighed is of very great moment and may convince the conscience of any ingenuous Christian. For no Christian doubteth but that the Apostles were inspired by the holy Ghost and Christ promised his spirit to lead his church into all truth which promise he hath hitherto made good in such sort that it cannot be proved that ever the whole church of Christ unversally erred it is true particular churches have erred and may erre and generall councels which the schools tearm the representative church are subject to error and have sometimes decreed heresie and false-hood for truth but the formall church as they speak that is all the assemblies of Christians in the world cannot be impeached with error at any time whence I thus frame my argument That which the Apostles in their dayes began and the whole christian church scattered over the face of the whole earth hath continued in all ages and all countries where christianity hath been and is professed cannot be an erroneous practise But the catholike christian church in all places and ages even from the Apostles times hath admitted the children of faithfull parents to holy baptisme Ergo the practise of christening children cannot be erroneous or unwarrantable as the Anabaptists teach The major or first proposition is already sufficiently proved the minor or second proposition is proved by the testimony of Origen for the Greek church and S. Austin for the Latine and the Ecclesiasticall stories in all ages Origen in his Commentarie upon the sixt chapter of St. Paul to the Romans having alledged the words of the prophet David Psal. 51. 5. I was born in iniquity and in sin hath my mother conceived me addeth proper hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit parvulis dare baptismum for this reason namely because all are conceived in sin the church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to administer baptisme to little infants And St. Austine l. 10. de genesi ad literam c. 23. Consuetudo matris ecclesie in baptizandis parvulis non spernenda est nec omnino credenda esset nisi Apostolica esset traditio the custome of our mother the church in baptizing infants is no way to be sleighted or rejected neither were it at all to be beleeved if it were not an Apostolicall tradition As for the continuance continuance of it the hystorie of all ages of the church confirms it neither can there be brought an instance in any Christian church in the world that denyed baptisme to children til this sect arose in Germany since the reformation began there in the dayes of Henry the eight After the testimonies of scriptures and the practise of the catholike church we have a third proof drawn from evidence of Reason against which if it be excepted that the eye of reason in matter of faith is but dim and therefore that such arguments are no way convincing I answer that it is true that such arguments drawn from reason as have no other ground but philosophicall axioms or sensible experiments are of little force in matter of faith which is above reason but such reasons as have ground and foundation in scripture and are firmly built upon those foundations are of exceeding great force and such are those I purpose to alledge First where the disease is there ought the remedy to be applied But the disease to wit originall sin is in children as well as men For all have sinned in Adam Rom. 5. 12. and are by nature the children of wrath Ephesi 2. 3. Ergo the remedy which is baptisme ought to be applied to children as well as men Secondly those who are comprised within the covenant of grace ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme For to them appertain both the promises of the new testament and the seal thereof which is baptisme But the children of the faithfull are comprised within the covenant of grace Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee for an everlasting covenant Ergo children ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme Thirdly no means of salvation ought to be denyed to the children of the faithfull whereof they are capable But baptisme is an outward means of salvation whereof children are capable under the gospel as well as the children of the Jews were capable of circumcision under the law Ergo baptisme ought not to be denied to children Fourthly all those who receive the thing signified by baptisme ought to receive the outward sign It is the argument of St. Peter Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we But the children of the faithfull receive the thing signified by baptisme to wit regeneration and remission of sins Ergo they ought to receive the sign to wit the baptisme of water The proposition or major is proved alreadie the assumption or minor is thus proved Christ bad children come to him and he blessed them and said of such is the kingdom of God Mar. 10. 16. and that their Angels continually behold his Fathers face in heaven Mat. 18. 10. and unlesse the Anabaptists will grant that children are regenerated and receive remission of sins they must needs hold that all children are damned which is a most uncharitable and damnable assertion The ANABAPTISTS Objection Yea but the Anabaptists object Mat. 28. 18. Go teach all nations baptizing them Whence they would infer that none are to be baptized but those to whom the gospel hath before bin preached consequently that children ought not to be
were circumcised under the law they ought to be baptized under the Gospell For sith they are comprised in the covenant why should not they as well receive the seal thereof set to it in the new law as well as the children of the Jews received the seal set thereunto by the old Secondly I have produced before both command for baptizing of children Argument 1. and example of it Argument 3. and promise also unto it Argument 5. The command of baptizing all Nations Mat. 28. 29. the examples of baptizing whole families Act. 16. 15. 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. and the promise made to us and our seed Act. 2. 39. evidently extend to children They argue from Scripture affirmatively our Lord Jesus Christ in that great charter Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. saith Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature he that shall beleeve and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not beleeve shall be damned From these texts they would infer that none ought to be baptized but such who are first taught and instructed in the principles of Christian faith and consequently that no children ought to be baptized because they are not capable of teaching That the placing the word teaching before baptizing in that text doth no more conclude that teaching must alwayes precede baptisme then the setting repentance before faith in those words Repeâ—t ye and beleeve the Gospell Mark 1. 15. and setting water before the spirit Ioh. 3. 5. except a man be born of water and the spirit necessarily infer that repentance goeth before faith which yet is but a fruit of faith or that the outward baptisme with water goeth before the inward baptisme of the spirit whereas the contrarie is clearly proved out of that speech of Peter to Cornelius Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Secondly if there be any force in this argument drawn from the order of the words it maketh against them for thus we wound them with their dudgeon-dagger Christ saith baptize them in the name of the Father teaching them to observe all things baptizing therefore must go before teaching especially in children who may be baptized before they can be taught Thirdly they mis-translate the words for Christ saith not go teach all nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things neither is there a tautologie in our blessed Saviours words for his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. go make disciples among all nations baptizing them and teaching them Now though children cannot be taught before they are baptized yet they may be after a â—orâ— made Christs disciples by their parents or god-fathers offering them unto God and undertaking for them that they shall be brought up in the Christian religion Fourthly Christ speaketh here of the plantation of the Christi an faith and the conversion of whole nations in which alwayes the preaching of the word goeth before the administration of the sacrament First men are taught to repent of their sins and beleeve the Articles of the Christian faith and after they have made confession of the one and profession of the other then they are to be received into the church by baptisme This course was taken by the Apostles in the beginning and must at this day be taken by those who are sent into Turkie or the East and West Indies to convert Pagans or Mahumetans or unbeleeving Iews to the Gospell They are to baptize none before they have taught them the principles of Christian religion but after the Gospell is planted and the parents are beleeverâ— and received into the church by baptisme their children are first to be baptized and afterwards taught so soon as they are capable of teaching They argue from examples after this manner such are to be baptized who with the Iews in Ierusalem Mat. 3. 6. confesse their sins who with the Proselytes Act. 2. 41. gladly receive the word who with the Samaritans Act. 8. 6. give heed to the word preached who with those of Cornelius familie Act. 10. 44. receive the holy Ghost by the hearing of the word who with Lydia have their hearts opened to attend the things that are spoken by the Apostles Act. 16. 14. who with the Gaoler hear the word preached and seek after the means of salvation Act. 16. 30. But children can neither confesse their sins nor attend to the word preached nor actually beleeve nor desire baptisme they therefore ought not to be baptized But we answer all that can solidly be concluded from these examples is but this in the affirmative all such who were so qualified as these were viz. hearers of the Gospell penitent sinners and true beleevers unfainedly desiring the means of their salvation ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme which we freely grant but they cannot conclude from these examples negatively that none other ought to be Christened No more then it will follow that those of Cornelius his family received the gift of the holy Ghost and spake with divers tongues before they were baptized with water therefore none but such who have received such gifts of the holy Ghost may and ought to be baptized To confesse sins and actually professe faith makes a man more capable of baptisme yet dumb men who can do neither if they have a good testmonie of their life and conversation and by signs make it appear they unfainedly desire the sacraments may receive them Secondly if there be any force at all in an argument drawn from examples affirmatively it must be from examples in the like kind as from men to men from children to children not from women to men or from men to children or from children to men For it will not follow women in the Apostles times were covered in the church therefore men ought to be so or men may speak in the church therefore women may or children are usually fed with milk and not strong meat therefore men in ripers years ought to use such dyet no more will it follow men in riper years who are capable of instruction ought to hear the word to give their assent thereunto and enter into a strict covenant with God to lead a new life before they have accesse to the Font. Therefore the like duties are required of children who have not yet the use of reason nor knowledge of good or evill By this reason they might starve children because the law is he that will not labour let him not eat It holds in men but no way in children who are not able to labour in any calling by reason of the infirmitie of their joynts and want of reason and understanding Baptisme is a seal of the righteousnesse of faith
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
neither had they the gift of prophesie what then Was the promise there spoken of made to the Iews and their children and all the Gentiles whom God had vouchsafed to call namely the promise of salvation v. 21. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved and the gift of repentance and remission of sins by baptisme mentioned v. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Iesus for remission of sins Thirdly whereas they who are wel-affected to childrens baptisme draw an evidence thereof even from the cloud mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 2. after this manner This truth answereth the type but children were baptized in the type when they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea as Israel passed out of AEgypt into the wildernesse Ergo children ought now to be baptized in the truth This sworn enemie of childrens Christendom goeth about to blot and deface this evidence by scribling upon it that the baptizing in the sea and the cloud the Apostle speaketh of was an allegorie and an allusion not any type or figure from whence any substantiall argument might be drawn for childrens baptisme But if we scrape away his scribling we may read a clear evidence for the lawfulnesse of childrens baptisme REPLY For first it is confessed on all hands and may be collected from the sacred storie that the Israelites took all their children with them out of AEgypt and that they together with their parents passed through the red sed which was an embleme of Christs blood in which the spirituall Pharoah and all our ghostly enemies are destroyed and that they were washed and sprinkled as well as their parents with the water of the sea and that which dropt from the cloud and S. Paul addeth v. 6. that all those things were types 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that as the Apostle saith They and we ate the same spirituall bread v. 4. and drank of the same spirituall rock and the rock was Christ so he might have said that they were all baptized in the water of the cloud and in the sea and that water spiritually was Christs blood for so the ancient Fathers teach us to speak S. Hilarie in Psal. 67. They were all under the cloud and were drenched with Christ the rock giving them water And Leo likewise the sacraments were altered according to the diversitie of the times but the faith whereby we live in all ages was ever one And S. Austine yet more fully these things were sacraments in outward tokens diverse but in the things tokened all one with ours And the sacraments of the old law were promises of such things as should afterward be accomplished our sacraments of the new law are tokens that the same promises alreadie are accomplished Fourthly among many other arguments brought for the justification of the practice of the Christian church in the baptizing infants that passage of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. is much insisted upon For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by her husband else were you children unclean but now are they holy that for verie good reason For the Apostles argument concludes that some holinesse redounds to the children by the unbeleeving wives cohabition with her husband being a beleever or of the unbeleeving husband with a wife that is a Christian. Now the question is whether inward holinesse or outward that which some call federall holinesse the Apostle cannot mean inward holinesse for the beleefe of the father or mother cannot infuse or produce such holinesse in the infant and if the Apostle speak of this outward or federall holinesse and his meaning is that the unbeleeving wife is so farre sanctified to her husband as to bring forth a holy seed to him that is children belonging to the common-wealth of Israel and having a title to the covenant of grace then undoubtedly the children of beleevers ought to receive the seal of that covenant to wit baptisme To avoid this inference and defeat the whole argument this Anabaptist with his fellow Barbar coyneth a new holinesse never heard of in scripture and withall corrupteth the Apostles text with this absurd glosse ANSWER Because the unbeleeving wife is sanctified to her beleeving husband therefore her children are holy that is lawfully begotten not spurious not bastards REPLY A bastard exposition repugnant both to the text and the scope of the Apostle as I have declared before in-part Article 2. Argument 8. whereunto may be added these important considerations First holinesse in Scripture is no where taken for legitimation they may be holy whose birth was yet not legitimate and their birth legitmate who are far from holinesse Bastardie though it be a fruit of uncleanesse in the parents and a blemish to their children in their reputation yet it maketh not them unclean nor federally unholy that is such as belong not to the covenant of God for Pharez Zarah Iephthah and other base-born among the Iews were circumcised and reckoned among the people of God Secondly if the Apostle meant no more by holinesse but legitimation he had no way resolved the Corinthiant scruple which was whether according to the law of God and the example of the Israelites in the dayes of Ezra they were not to put away their unbeleeving wives and children the Apostle answereth no because their children begotten born by them should be no bastards as they expound the word holy This answer could give them no satisfaction at all for the children that were born or begotten by the Iews who had married strange wives in the days of Ezra were not bastards being born in wedlock yet they were commanded to put them away and their mothers Thirdly that cannot be the meaning of the Apostle which implies untruth for the Apostle wrote inspired by the Spirit of truth but it is not true that all those children are unclean that is as they interpret bastards that come of unbeleeving parents for though either or both the parents were infidels yet if the children were begotten born in lawfull wedlock they were no bastards noman doubteth but there may be lawful wedlock between infidels For marriage is de jure naturae and adulterie among the heathen was a crime but if the heathen marriages were no marriages then there could be no adulterie among them for adulterie is the defiling of the marriage bed Lastly the main scope of the Apostle in this place was to perswade the beleevers among the Corinthians to cohabit with their wives that were willing to live with them though they were yet unbleevers not only because they might conceive good hope of their conversion by their loving and Christian conversation with them but because thereby their children should acquire some holinesse But if the children of beleeving parents should not be admitted to the communion of Saints and congregation of the faithfull by baptisme their children should
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