A Briefe ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE Lately Written by one P. B. TO PROVE BAPTISME under the defection of Antichrist to be the Ordinance of IESUS CHRIST AND The Baptizing of Infants to be agreeable to the Word of GOD Wherein is Declared from his owne grounds that true Baptisme and a false Church are inconsistent and cannot stand together And also maintained That the Baptizing of Infants hath no authority from the Scriptures The simple beleeveth every Word but the prudent man looketh well to his goings PROV. 14.15 By R. BARROW LONDON Printed in the Yeere 1642. To the READER ALthough divers of the learned have declared the Baptisme of Infants to be but a humane tradition as P. B. confesseth in his Epistle page 3. yet notwithstanding there be many that have and doe take upon them to countenance the same by the Word of God wherein they commit a double offence one in seducing the people and leading them to disobedience against Christ Mat. 28.19 Mar 16.15 16. whom they are to heare in all things Acts 3. The other in taking the Word of Christ and putting it as a sword into the hands of men to defend and maintaine themselves in such their disobedience against him amongst whom one P. B. hath lately taken part in publishing a booke to proove the Baptisme of Infants to be agreeable to the word of God but as many times it falleth out when men undertake to defend an evill cause he hath so bewrayed the error of that doctrine that in the judgement of any who are but indifferently acquainted with the Scriptures there needs no more be said to discover the falsity thereof and sinfulnesse of his owne practice in the same things wherein unadvisedly hee accuseth others One instance J shall give thereby to cause the Reader in pursuing his discourse to take notice therin hee fighteth against himselfe and in that thing most of all whereupon his whole building standeth which is the perpetuity of the visible Church under the new Testament page 1. and so by consequent of Baptisme whereby the matter of the Church is differenced page 3.4 wherein hee maketh Baptisme to depend upon the Church whence then it must needs follow that unlesse hee can finde such a Church which hath successively continued from the first planting untill these dayes hee cannot assure himsefe that his baptisme received is the ordinance of Christ But pag. 2.3 he confesseth that he knoweth not where any such Church hath continued nor doth hee believe that any can be found that can make such a continuance of the Church to appeare therefore hee received not his Baptisme from any such Church nor is it then by his owne argument the baptisme of Christ but a counterfeit or Idoll come out of the bottomelesse pit as hee himselfe speaketh page 6. Having thus destroyed his foundation and impeached his owne baptisme and the baptisme of the Church of England derived from the Church of Rome a false state the mother of fornications c. as he affirmeth in the 3. page of his Epistle to the Reader his whole building must needs fall to the ground which thing being considered I know it may be thought that an Answer to such a Discourse should be altogether unnecessary for hee that impeacheth himselfe needs no other to accuse him yet neverthelesse hearing that some not well acquainted with the state of this controversie have by his mis-applying the Scriptures in the handling of the same been prejudiced against the truth by him evill spoken of for their sakes therefore is this briefe Answer made wherein not regarding to follow him to and fro in all his vaine wandering and tautologies wherewith his booke is stored I have reduced his whole Discourse into such particular heads as doe either concern the perpetuity of the visible Church the baptisme of the Church of Rome or the baptisme of Infants c. which hee undertaketh to prove for Answer I have made use of little save onely what I have found in his owne writing wherein indeed is sufficient to discover the vanity of his opinion in these particulars and to satisfie any that thereby have taken offence againg the truth but all that is said will appeare to thee courteous Reader in the following Answer and therefore I shall referre thee thereunto and also unto the grace and guidance of Christ our Redeemer in whose service I am alwayes thine R. BARROVV A BREIFE ANSVVER To a Discourse lately written by one P. B. c. FIrst he saith that the visible Church of Christ hath had a perpetuall continuance in the world from the first plantation thereof by Christ and the Apostles and shall so continue unto the end of the world this he saith was prophesied Esa. 9.7.59.21 witnessed Luke 1.33 Acts 5.29 and confirmed Matth. 16.18.28.20 and these Scriptures are stable and true and so to be accounted by all the Saints page 1. I answer That these Scriptures and all other being delivered by the spirit of God 2 Pet. 1.21 are stable and true and so to be accounted of all the world Acts 3.22.23 and yet are not therefore the severall glosses and understandings of men given upon these or other Scriptures alwayes stable and true nor so to be accounted of any man Before wee give credit therefore to his construction of these Scriptures wee will a little examine how he makes the truth thereof to appeare he saith that the perpetuity of the visible Church was prophesied Esay 9.7.59.21 And the Word is yea and Amen c. whereupon then it must needs follow that if the visible Church of Christ hath not had a perpetuall uninterrupted succession in the world ever since the first plantation thereof untill these dayes though this prophesie in it selfe be true yet his understanding and interpretation thereof must needs be false This rule the Lord himselfe hath given us thereby to distinguish the true Prophet from the false Deutron 18.22 hee saith when a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord and if the thing follow not nor come to passe that is not the thing which the Lord hath spoken but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously Now as hereby wee are taught to distinguish the true Prophets from the false so likewise are wee by the same rule taught to know the true interpretation of every prophesie from the false and therefore when any interpretation of any prophesie is given and accordingly the thing follow not nor come to passe that is not the thing which the Lord hath spoken in that prophesie but it 's a false interpretation and he is a false Prophet that hath given the same of whom wee are taught to beware Matth. 7.15 from which imputation we shall now see how well he acquitteth himselfe First he telleth us that the defection and falling away under Antichrist was very generall and marvellous universall and this he proveth Rev. 13.8 16. to which also he might have added the 3.4 and 7. verses and unlesse the defection under
in baptisme contrary to his owne institution Matth. 28.19 and example Marke 1.9 Mat. 3.16 But his great objection against the dipping of the whole man is this he saith That it 's hard to determine how it can stand with modesty and shamefastnesse and yet in the countries where baptisme first began hee urgeth against us that they dipped often and also rubbed thereby to cleanse page 14. Now if he cannot determine how dipping once may be performed with modesty c. how will he determine how dipping often and rubbing to cleanse as he instanceth could be performed with modesty and shamefastnesse Surely he will conclude that they put on a linnen garment But there it will follow that they baptise the garments c. Haply he will say not the garments but the persons in the garment because that when he sprinkleth his infants he doth not strip them naked out of their clothes neither yet will he say that therefore he baptiseth their garments into the death and resurrection of Christ but the infant that are therein But if it must needs follow that they baptise the garments c. in their behalfe I know though not in ours he will determine that it was but an error in respect of the subject like to the baptisme of an infant in the stead of a believer as he pleadeth page 12. and therefore not worthy to be blamed or taken notice of Having thus spoken his minde against the ordinance of Christ to wit the baptising or dipping of believers which in derision he calleth the new baptisme page 3. hee returnes againe to the former argument the baptisme of Infants page 10. which hee saith began many yeeres before Christ died or at least before the Apostles left the world which indeed must needs be true if it be the baptisme which was instituted by Iesus Christ as hee pretends to prove by these reasons that follow His first ground is from the Covenant of God made with Abraham Gen. 17. which covenant he saith was neither part of the new nor yet of the old chap. 17.18 because it was neither confirmed with the blood of Bulls nor with the blood of Christ which thing he saith may seeme new but yet he desires to see the error that attends its I answer marvelling that he should urge Infants being in a covenant not confirmed with the blood of Christ to prove their interest in baptisme and so by consequent in the blood of Christ the blood of Christ is the blood of the new Testament Mat. 26.28 Now if that infants be not in this covenant confirmed with the blood of Christ then can they have no interest in baptisme which serveth as he saith page 14. to set forth our washing and sprinkling with the blood of Christ there needs not therefore any more words be used to shew the errour that attends this new conceit urged to prove Infants right to baptisme when it not onely excludes them from baptisme but also from salvation by Christ But Infants being a part of the Church and members thereof before Christ what doth let them from being so still seeing as hee saith the Lord hath never spoken one word thereof but the contrary I answer that although Infants were of the Church before Christ yet the Lord hath manifestly declared that they should not be so now Christ the true promised seed being once come as is seene Gal. 4.22 c. where the Apostle thus speaketh It is written saith hee that Abraham had two sonnes the one by a bond-maid the other by a free woman 23. but he that was borne of the bond-woman was borne â—fter the flesh but hee of the free woman was borne by promise 24. which things he saith was an allegorie verse 25.26 the bond maid Hagar shadowing out the old covenant or testament and her sonne Ishmael which she bore to Abraham after the flesh or by carnall generation shadowing out all the fleshly and carnall Israelites which should proceed from Abraham in after generations The free woman Sara pointing out the new covenant or Ierusalem which is from above and teaches her son appointing out Christ the promised seed as Gal. 3.16 and believers borne from above or by promise as Isack was the spirituall seed of Abraham as Gal. 3.29 and therefore he saith verse 28. We brethren as Isacke was are the children of promise after this to close up the full intent of the spirit of God in this thing in the 29. 30. verses he sheweth that by the carnall and fleshly seed Ishmael his persecuting of him which was borne by the promise to wit Isaack whereupon hee and his mother was by the command of God both of them together cast out of Abrahams house the Church Gen. 21.10 thereby was foreshowne that when Christ the true Isaack should be borne Gal. 3.16 and the barren woman the new Covenant or Gospell should bring forth and beare sons unto God as verse 27. then should the bond woman the old and carnall covenant with all the carnall ordinances thereof Heb. 9.10 together all her sonnes the carnall and the fleshly seed be cast out of the house so saith the Text verse 30. Cast out the bond woman and her sonne for the sonne of the bond woman shall not be heire with the sonne of the free woman Ioh. 7.35.26 and therefore although children carnally begotten were admitted members of the Church before Christ yet are they not so now but are with their mother the old and carnall covenant with all the appurtenances thereof are to be rejected as was said before and so also is P. B. his exposition of this Script page 22. which by the sonnes of the bond woman onely noteth such who have actually refused and rejected grace as Ioh. 7.35.36 and thereby became bound as though by nature before they had rejected grace they had been free which is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who by the children of the bond woman understandeth all that are borne as Ishmael was by fleshly generation or all those who are not as Isaake who was by promise as before Col. 4.27.28 with 3 29. His next ground to prove the baptisme of Infants is this because the Apostle exhorteth parents to bring up their children in admonition of the Lord therefore they were of the Church and so by consequent were baptised but how doth hee prove that they were of the Church thus because the Apostle who had nothing to doe with those who are without 1 Cor. 5. exhorts their parents to bring them up in the admonition of the Lord To this I answer that the Apostle did not write this exhortation to the children who were without but to their parents who were within besides where the Apostle saith that hee hath nothing to doe with those that are without 1 Cor. 5.12 it 's manifest that hee doth not meane that he hath nothing to doe to exhort those that are without to know and feare the Lord for hee was sent to preach the
Gospell to those that were without that thereby they might be brought within Act. 26.17.18 and hee acknowledgeth himselfe a debtor to all men to the unwise as well as to the wise Rom. 1.14 when he saith therefore that hee hath nothing to doe with those that are without his meaning is that he hath nothing to doe to censure and deale with them that are without for their evills of incest whoredomes thefts c. he was not by Christ made a Judge over men in those matters 1 Cor. 5.12.13 no more then Christ himselfe was Luke 12.14 From this reason of his to prove Infants to be of the Church and therefore baptised viz. because the Apostle exhorts their parents to bring them up in the nurture of the Lord c. It will follow that because the Apostle Peter exhorts believing wives to be in subjection to their husbands that so although by the word they could not yet by their good conversation they might be won 1 Pet. 3.1.2 that therefore their unbelieving husbands were of the Church and baptised or else the Apostle medled with those with whom he had nothing to doe But he saith it 's an uncomfortable doctrine to hold that children are not of the Church for if they are not borne members of the Church then they are brought forth children to the divell pag. 25. I answer that by nature we are all alike the children of wrath Ephes. 2.3 our being of the Church depending upon our new birth and generation Iohn 3.3 and if all that were not borne members of the Church shall be damned then by P. B. his judgement seeing hee cannot prove any true visible church to be in the world page 3. and therefore no children to be borne in church there shall none at all be saved Is not this doctrine of his a very comfortable doctrine for else what end doth he conceive was the preaching of the Gospell ordained Matth. 28.19 Acts 26.18 He hath yet another argument which must needs be answered for in it there is great confidence placed and it 's this the children of believers are holy and therefore may be baptised 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I answer that the Apostle doth not say that the children of believers are holy but he saith That the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the believing husband that is lawfull for his use so that he may lawfully abide with her and needs not for her unbeliefe sake put her away as was scrupled verse 10.11 12. or else if that shee were not then the children which he should beget of her were uncleane or unholy whereas being sanctified or lawfull to his use they are cleane or holy that is legitimate for the holinesse of the children here spoken of is not concluded from the faith of parent but from the lawfull use which the believing husband hath of his unbelieving wife for so are the words The unbelieving husband is sanctified by or to the believing wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by or to the believing husband or else were your children uncleane but now are they holy This Scripture therfore proves no more holinesse in the children of believers then in the children lawfully he gotten in the honourable estate of marriage by unbelievers Hebr. 13.4 and so by consequence yeeldeth no better warrant for the baptising of the one then it doth for the baptising of the other but I intend brevity and therefore for further answer in this point I referre him to A. R. his booke lately printed wherein the same is handled at large These are the best reasons that P. B. can shew to prove the baptisme of Infants to be according to the word of God which in regard they cannot give satisfaction to some but they still notwithstanding doe sticke at the mater as they well may and desire a precept or an example to warrant the same and therefore he promiseth to shew both page 29. but first hee desireth that wee would give him an example of an unbaptised persons his baptising of others and of the refusing of Infants from being of the Church both which being before sufficiently declared we will now take notice how he performeth his promise First he saith There are examples of baptising of housholds as the Iaylers and Lydias Acts 16. and the house of Stephanus and questionlesse divers others pag. 29. But I demand an example for the baptising of Infants and not of baptising housholds of believers such as the Iaylors Act. 16.34 and Stephanus 1 Cor. 16.16 and Crispus Acts 18.8 and questionlesse divers others This is a bad example for an example he will have it called though it be none at all to prove that the baptisme of Infants which must be thus declared housholds were baptised but in some housholds there are Infants therefore Infanâ—s have been baptised This is as plaine an example to prove the baptisme of Infants as this that followeth is to prove the baptising of notorious drunkards swearers thieves murtherers c. whole housholds have beene baptised but in some houses there are notorious drunkards swearers thieves murtherers c. therfore the Apostles baptised such and such may be baptised Who seeth not your folly Another example as plaine as this followeth The whole Church of Colosse were buried with Christ in baptisme but children were a part of the Church therefore Infants were baptised Col. 3.20.21 I answer that the whole Church of Colosse were buried with Christ in baptisme and that there were children in that Church to whom the Apostle wrote and exhorted to obey their parents in all things Col. 3.20 But our question is about Infants and not children in generall some wherof are grown to yeers of understanding as these were to whom the Apostle wrote for sure P. B. will not say he wrote to Infants which could not understand what he saith In Gen. 43.14 when Iacob sent his sonne Benjamine into Egypt he useth these words concerning him and Ioseph If I am bereaved of my children I am bereaved Now by his reason Benjamine who was about seventeene yeeres old and Ioseph who was about thirty yeeres of age should both of them be Infants because their father called them children These examples will yeeld as little satisfaction to any that question the baptising of Infants as his Reasons before answered But although these examples faile yet page 31. he saith there is a plaine command of Iesus Christ for the baptising of Infants and it appeareth thus Many nations appeare to be Abrahams and to have him for their father now all these nations in which there must needs be some children by the expresse command of Iesus Christ Mat. 28.19 are to be baptised I answer Abraham was to be a father of many nations some whereof were his naturall and carnall seed borne after the flesh as Ishmael and the Iewes who for unbeliefe were rejected and cast off with the old and carnall Covenant or Testament as was shewed before Others were so to be