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
him into a state of salvation so farre as that now they are within the Covenant and so consequently have right unto the seale of initiation It is said indeed that they spake the word of the Lord unto him and all that were in the house viz. so many as were capable of instruction But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expression word or action of any in the family except onely of the Iaylour himself whose repentance and faith at least initiall is expressed by the effects thereof viz. his humiliation and desire of salvation vers 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them declared vers 33. in taking them the same houre of the night and washing their stripes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then it is said that he and all his were baptized straight-way Which evidently sheweth that the governours faith and repentance or being within the Covenant doth sufficiently interesse their inferiours that are at their dispose to the Covenant of Grace and so to the Seale of entrance at least if they be not refractary wilfully and stubbornly refusing to be given up to God by their superiours The like may be said of Stephanus his family 1 Cor. 1.16 But most cleare and expresse is the example of Lydia Act. 16.14 15. When the Lord had opened her heart to attend to those things that were spoken of Paul she was baptized and her houshold Not a word spoken of preaching to or actuall faith and repentance of the rest So that it is apparent that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance and interest in God his whole Family whether those that were born in the house or those that were bought with money yea even his infants of eight dayes old had so farre interest in God that upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment now they had right unto the Seal of Circumcision after God had once instituted it so Christian governours of families or parents by their faith and repentance are meanes of bringing salvation to their families and interessing those that are under them to God and Christ so farre as that they have right unto Baptisme at least except they stubbornly refuse the Seale and reject the Covenant A. R. To this Argument especially the Scriptures brought to confirme the assumption you answer There might be no Infants there viz. in those families which were baptized and my negative say you is as good as your affirmative Answer This toucheth not the force of mine Argument which hath shewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Gospel their families were accepted unto Baptisme their superiours tendring them thereunto Whether Infants or not there is no exception of Infants or others But you say your Negative is as good as our Affirmative without proofe and that you bring Scripture for your negative as Act. 18.8 which Scripture maketh nothing against us For first if Crispus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family it doth not follow that these families which we mentioned had none but actuall beleevers in them before they were baptized Secondly Crispus may be said to beleeve he and his houshold and so to be baptized though they were not all indued with actuall faith as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers even the whole Family when the Seale of the righteousnesse by faith had been set upon all the Males therein although they did not all actually beleeve You adde the example of the Iaylour Act. 16.31 32 c. Answer We have already sufficiently considered what is contained in vers 31 32 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family viz that were capable of instruction yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour himselfe is manifested But you say He and all his houshold beleeved in God as it is vers 34. Answ If you looke into the Originall you shall finde that that verse makes nothing for your purpose It is word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he rejoyced with all his house having beleeved in God or when he had beleeved in God But because the English cannot so fully and clearely give the sense of the place it may be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having beleeved being the Masculine gender and singular number as the Grammarians speake cannot be referred to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone or taken with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the keeper So that the sense should be the whole house beleeved or the Iaylour and the whole house beleeved I say the words cannot beare this sense as the skilfull in the language may easily see and therefore in the translation beleeving or rather having beleeved in God is to be read within a parenthesis so that those words with his whole family is to be referred onely to the word rejoyced Thus And rejoyced beleeving or having beleeved in God with all his house So that though our Translatours did well render the words yet the want of observing the parenthesis causeth the words at the first sight otherwise to sound then indeed they do to those that looke on the Originall Laetatus est cum omni domo credens Deo So Arias Montanus But under correction and with submission to better judgements if I might be so bold I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words the scope of the place and for the avoyding of ambiguitie And having beleeved in God he rejoyced exulted or testified his joy openly by outward actions in all his family or through his house or all his house over For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beleeving and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoyced are both the singular number and so have reference to one alone viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Iaylour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred with all his house is an adverbe and so according to the ordinary use of that part of speech is referred to the verbe to shew how the thing was done not by whom Beside the scope of the place seemes to favour this Interpretation for it is said in the words before that he brought them into the house and set meat before them or made them a feast so that he expressed his rejoycing in his whole house by making a solemn feast in all the family as it were celebrating that night as his spirituall birth-dayes solemnitie Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned which you apprehend to speake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized with these that speake of baptizing families where yet none are said to beleeve save the heads and thence you gather That it cannot be reasonably imagined but that the Apostle did baptize these families according to commission c. and those other places which are more silent must be expounded by this which is more plain and not this by those Answ First No question the Apostle baptized according to commission but that their
to maintaine and yet you are not afraid nor ashamed to father this errour upon Christ himselfe and would force his words to the Iewes to sound this way Ioh. 8.31 And among other your toyes that you would fasten on him which are not worth the examining unlesse a man had more time then he knew how well to bestow you bring him in speaking thus in the conclusion of your paraphrase that you make on his words to the Iewes You see then how that Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and you his naturall seed was to be an everlasting Covenant in your flesh to wit in me that was to come of your flesh Gen. 17.13 Answ First is not this notorious presumption to father such a fancy as this on Christ to call the flesh of the Iews fore-skinne Christ himselfe for that by the flesh in which Gods covenant was is meant the fore-skin wherein God set the signe and seale of his covenant is apparent by comparing the 10 11 12. verses of Gen. 17. together Secondly If that were an everlasting Covenant which God made with Abraham and the Israelites and made with them in Christ though Christ was not that flesh in which circumcision was made both which you grant here and the Scripture plentifully proveth then certainly was the covenant made with the Iewes and with us all one for substance seeing they and we have one Mediatour and seeing the old dispensation of the covenant is abrogated how was that an everlasting covenant but as the same covenant is perpetuated now in the Evangelicall dispensation of it But you will have Christ give this reason that by the flesh wherein the covenant of circumcision was to be is meant Christ because Christ was to come of their flesh Answ Was he so Was Christ to come of the flesh of strangers and Proselytes or of all the posteritie of Abraham which had the covenant in the flesh Did Christ come of the flesh of all that were circumcised which must needs follow on this conceit What prodigious opinions doth this mans braine conceive and father on Christ After you come as you say to shut up all thus That it is apparent that infants of Christian parents cannot warrantably be baptized untill they manifest and declare their faith by profession as is apparent first from the doctrine and practise of Iohn Matth. 3.6.8 9. Mar. 1.4 Secondly of Christ and his Apostles Ioh. 3 22. compared with 4.1 2. Act. 2.38.41 and 8.12.36 37. Thirdly by the tenour of the commission Mat. 28.29 Mar. 16.15 16. Answ No su h thing is apparent from these Scriptures as is first sufficiently shewed by the foregoing reasons Secondly by the fore examination of those Scriptures and grounds you build upon Thirdly in none of those places doe you finde baptisme so restrained to those that professe the faith that it should be lawfull for none else to have it Fourthly I adde if abusing the Scriptures and inventing and avouching new and monstrous errours may make your opinion for which you plead to be apparent truth then indeed you have made appparent what you say otherwise not Fiftly though in mine answer to that Scripture Matth. 28.29 I hope sufficient hath been said to answer all other Scriptures of that kind yet because some put great confidence in that Mar. 16.15.16 for this opinion though it be the same for substance with the other Mar. 16.15 16. I will adde a little in this place though happily the same for substance that hath beene said The words of Christ are these Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be damned To make it appeare that nothing can be gathered to confirme the adversaries opinion note these foure things First Here our Saviour doth not forbid his Disciples to baptize any that want actuall faith or confine baptisme to beleevers or expressely shew who should be baptized and who not onely he shews who should by saved viz. those that beleeve and were baptized and who should be damned viz. those that beleeved not so that it is strange that men should promise to themselves any patronage for Anabaptisme from this place Secondly If any should say that though here it be not expressed that beleevers onely are to be baptized yet it may be hence gathered and is implied from the order and connexion of the words He that beleeveth and is baptized so that men must beleeve before they be baptized I adde secondly That no such thing can be necessarily implied by the series of the words which I prove by this very Text. First it would by as good consequence follow that none ought or can preach the Gospel be meanes of working faith baptize or helpe toward salvation but those who have received Apostolicall authoritie and gifts to goe into all the world and preach unto every creature for the connexion and order is alike but no man will yeeld this consequence Secondly by as good and better consequence you might gather that none shall be saved but those that beleeve and are baptized which is false for whatsoever you hold I conceive that none but those that are given over to strong delusions will hold that all the children of Christian parents that die before they come to actuall faith must remedilesly perish and as for the absolute necessitie of baptisme to salvation if with the Papists you hold it will easily be confuted from this Scripture shewing that not want of baptisme where it cannot be had and is not wilfully contemned but unbeleefe condemneth Yet there is as good reason for these inferences from this place as for that you would imply hence Or thirdly that nothing but unbeliefe can be the ground of damnation might as well be concluded hence as that nothing but faith can be the ground of baptisme whereas not onely unbeleife but every sinne is damnable and without repentance will bring damnation Thirdly I answer to this Scripture that though it were granted that the Apostles who were to gather a Church out the unbeleeving world and take them into Covenant that were out of Covenant might not baptize any but those who by professing faith tooke hold of the covenant from which before they were aliens and their families who were now received into covenant with them yet it doth not follow that the children of parents in covenant and so in Covenant themselves should be denied baptisme though they want actuall faith for there is not the same reason of a Church gathered and to be gathered as that latter part He that beleeveth not shall be damned if it be understood of actuall faith must be restrained to the present time and matter for to those that were out of Covenant actuall faith was necessary to bring them and theirs within covenant So that the Gentiles to whom the Apostles were to preach must of necessity actually beleeve else they could not
use of circumcision to Abraham and his posteritie for the substance to wit to be a signe of their being in covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in your opinion why doe you not shew the difference of Abrahams circumcision and theirs If you say it was to Abraham a seale of his faith righteousnesse and regeneration that he had already to them of that which they were to have I answer this is but a circumstantiall difference and gives what we desire and maintaine If you say that many who were circumcised were never justified by faith or regenerated this was mans abuse and fault who being received into such a Covenant wherein God promised to be his God and was ready to performe his promise yet would not performe the conditions required in the covenant For if some that received circumcision were never internally in Covenant nor indued with the righteousnesse of faith that hinders not but that circumcision was a signe of their being outwardly received into that covenant wherein God was ready to bestow faith and regeneration if through their owne default they did not deprive themselves thereof Besides if there was not the same use of circumcision to Abraham and his children circumcised by Gods appointment How doe you say in your Preface to the Reader That baptisme is an undoubted pledge from God of the free pardon and remission of sinnes to the right subjects thereof sith it may with as good reason be said though it were so in our Saviours time yet it is not so now as you seeme to beare men in hand Though circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith and a signe of the covenant between God and him to Abraham yet it was not so to his posteritie though they were the right subjects thereof whom God had appointed to be circumcised But if you rightly gather that Baptisme is an undoubted pledge of the pardon of sinne to the right subjects thereof now because it was so to those which were first baptized we may as well gather that circumcision was a signe of the Covenant and seale of the righteousnesse of faith to those infants which by Gods appointment received it as it was to Abraham Hitherto of those Arguments of ours whereunto this Disputant answers As for the other Arguments and Objections which he brings and answers I shall leave them to defend them that owne them I will adde briefly one or two Arguments more 4. Arg. Arg. 6. If the baptizing of Infants born of Christian parents or parents within the new covenant be not according to the rule of Gods word then there is no rule or warrant in the Scripture for baptizing the posteritie of beleevers under the New covenant at all and so consequently the children of beleevers must not be baptized at all neither young nor old for we must do nothing without Scripture warrant But that the posteritie of Christian parents ought not to be baptized at all is most absurd and false as I think will be acknowledged of all that beare the names of Christians For how can it be supposed that the faith and Christianity of the parents should be so prejudiciall to the children as to deprive them of the pledge of the remission of sinnes though they repent and beleeve when yet the posteritie of Infidels may be baptized upon their faith and repentance Therefore the Antecedent must needs be false viz. that the baptizing of infants of Christian parents is not according to the rule of the word and consequently the contradictory thereto true viz. that the baptizing of infants borne of parents in covenant is according to the rule The Assumption I conceive needs no proofe seeing Christ hath appointed that the Sacraments of the New Testament should be perpetuall to the end of the world Matth. 28.19.20 1 Cor. 11.26 to those that should be in Covenant For the confirmation then of the proposition and making cleare its consequence Consider first there is no command example or other testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of testimony in Scripture can be given to shew that the children of beleeving parents should be kept from baptisme untill they could in their owne persons actually repent beleeve and make confession of their faith But still when parents were converted to the faith and baptized their whole families were baptized with them Neither is there any word concerning the posteritie of Christian parents who were borne of them being in covenant to have been baptized in riper yeares Secondly those commands and examples of baptizing them that repented beleeved and professed the faith are all of such as had before been out of the New covenant and were come of parents that had never been under the covenant of the Gospel and therefore with lesse reason can be applied to the posteritie of Christian parents when they come to yeares of discretion then when they were infants For those examples and commands shew that so soone as one is in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel he hath right unto baptisme Neither can it without sinne to God and injurie to the person be denied to him but ought to be administred so soone as it may conveniently be had And therefore as they that had beene out of covenant before so soone as they had repented and beleeved at least professed so much which was necessary to their being taken into covenant ought to be baptized as soone as might be conveniently Act. 8.36 37 38. Act. 10.47 Act. 22.16 and might not without injurie be hindred by others or sinne in themselves neglect it So the children of Christian parents being in covenant as hath beene proved and cannot be denied with any shew of truth that I say not without blasphemy cannot without injurie be denied baptisme so soone as it may expediently be administred to them This Argument for more evidence and clearenesse may be propounded thus The posteritie of beleevers either must be baptized in their infancie or when they are able to make a profession of faith and do it really or they must not be baptized at all But to hold that they should not be baptized at all but that all the children of beleevers should be debarred baptisme though they prove never so godly is absurd and wicked that they should be baptized onely when they come to yeares of discretion and make profession of faith and repentance there is no warrant in Scripture neither by command practise or otherwise as hath been shewed Therefore they are to be baptized in infancie Arg. 7. If Christian women that are under the new covenant have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and may and ought to be admitted thereunto neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom notwithstanding their sexe though there be no cleare expresse direct and immediate command or example in the Scripture for the same then may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant to be admitted to