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
by Alexander and scoffed at the scrupulous caution of the Grecians who would passe no act without signing it and swearing to it Scythae colendo fidem jurant our Scythians faith is our band and our promise our oath Those who blush not to break their faith with men will make no scruple of conscience to forsweare themselves by their Gods An honest mans word is as good as his oath and a prophane persons oath is no more to be regarded then his word All these examples of the heathen may bee alleadged to good purpose to shame and confound those Christians in name who rap out oathes by no allowance who turn Christs meritorious sufferings in all his parts into blasphemies and wound his very wounds Assuredly if men shall give account at the day of judgment of every idle word much more of execrable oathes but it will not follow we may not sweare lightly or rashly to the great dishonour of God and scandall of religion and therefore wee may not honour God by an oath by calling him to witnesse in matters of greatest moment whereby we agnize his soveraigne Majesty we professe his all-seeing wisdom we invocate his sin revenging justice against all those who dare put his holy and dreadfull name to that which their conscience tells them is a falshood Whereas it is said that an honest man will have as well a care of his word as his oath and a dishonest man as little regard of his oath as his word this is but a vaine flourish for an honest man who will have a care of his word will have a greater care of his oath and a twist â—s stronger then a single string and although many dishonest men will falsifie their word for their advantage yet they will not so easily bee brought to forsweare themselves in regard of the severe penalty of the law and the infamy and horrour of the sinne of perjury whereof the Hebrewes write that at the giving of the tables in Mount Sinai when the law was proclaimed against perjury heaven and earth shook as it were trembling at so horrid a crime The issue and effect of all is this as God sweareth by himself for our comfort so we may swear by him for his glory nay the Prophet goeth farther we ought and it is our duty to take an oath in truth by the truth and for the truth in truth that is in a true and just cause by the truth that is by God who is the truth and for the truth that is for the manifestation and confirmation of truth The second difficulty concerning oathes is whether they may bee imposed I answer briefly they may both by supreame and inferiour Magistrates deriving their authority from him this I prove First by cleare testimony of Scripture Secondly by the examples of holy and religious men who have both administred and taken such oathes Thirdly by evidence of reason ARGUMENT I. In the charge that Ioshuah gave to the Elders Heads Iudges and other officers of Israel among other things there is this remarkeable passage Yee shall not make mention of the names of other Gods nor cause to sweare by them neither serve them nor bow your selves unto them but cleave to the Lord your God as you have done this day whence I thus frame my argument What the Rulers of Israel were forbidden to doe to other Gods this passage sheweth that they may and ought to doe to the true God But the Rulers of Israel are forbidden to make mention of or cause any to sweare by the Gods of the heathen Ergo they may and ought to make mention of the name of the true God and require and cause men to sweare by him when an oath shall be required of them ARGUMENT II. What the Saints of God are recorded to have done and they are no where reproved for the doing thereof in holy Scripture we may doe for all those things were written for our example 1. Cor. 10. 6. But the Saints of God are recorded in holy Scripture to have exacted and taken oaths imposed for Abraham Gen. 24. 23. maketh his servant sweare by the Lord God of heaven that he should not take a wife to his sonne of the daughters of the Canaanites David being urged by Saul sware 1. Sam. 24. 21. 22. that he would not cut off Sauls seed after him Ezra made the chiefe Priests and all Israel to sweare that they would put away their strange wives according to the commandement of God Ezrah 10. 5. Nehemiah 5. 12. called the Priests and tooke an oath of them that they should doe according to their promise that they should restore unto their brethren their lands their vinâ—-yards their olive-yards their houses and also the hundred part of their monie and of the corn wine and oile they exacted of them Ergo Christians may lawfully both impose and take oathes ARGUMENT III. All Christian Magistrates may command those who are subject to their authority such things as are lawfull and necessary for the discharge of their office and the preservation of humane society But oathes are things lawfull as is proved in the former question and they are necessary for the execution of the Magistrates office and the preservation of humane society For without such oathes the Common-wealth hath no sure tye upon publick officers and Ministers nor Kings upon their subjects nor Lords upon their tenants neither can mens titles be cleared in causes civill nor justice done in causes criminall nor dangerous plots and conspiracies be discovered against the State Ergo Christian Magistrates may command those that are under their authority to take oathes and this is the constant judgement of the reformed Churches But they object no man may be enforced to any act of Religion for Tertullian saith acutely and truly nec Religionis est Religionem cogere It is against Religion to compell or enforce Religion But the taking of an oath whereby we invocate God is an act of Religion Therefore no man may or ought to bee enforced to take an oath There are two sorts of acts of Religion inward and outward First inward as to adhere to God to love him to beleive in him and put our confidence and place our happinesse chiefly in him these and such like acts of Religion cannot be enforced Secondly outward as comming to Church receiving the Sacrament and making confession of our faith fasting and prayer these latter may be enforced as wee see by the example of Iosiah who compelled all Israel to serve the Lord and by the speech of the King in the Parable who made a great supper and bade many guests and when they had made their severall excuses said to his servant Goe to the high waies and hedges and compell them to come in that my house may be full Among these latter acts of Religion is the taking of an oath which though in all leagues and covenants and holy vowes it ought to be free
those duties of not resisting evill nor revenging our selves and loving our enemies in which the Anabaptists as well as Papists place Evangelicall perfection were required by the law Deut. 32. 35. To me vengeance belongeth and recompence I will repay saith the Lord And Prov. 25. 21. If thine enemy hunger feed him if hee thirst give him drinke ARGUMENT II. A holy and divine office can be no derogation to Evangelicall perfection But such is the office of a Magistrate For they are stiled Gods Psalme 82. 1. 6. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he judgeth among the Gods I have said yee are Gods and 2 Chron. 19. 6. 7. You judge not for man but for the Lord who is with you in the judgment and in the execution of their office they are the Ministers of God both to reward them that doe well and to execute wrath upon them that doe evill Rom. 13. 14. Ergo the execution of the office of a Civill Magistrate can be no derogation to Christian perfection ARGUMENT III. That dignity and power wherewith most holy and religious men and highest in favour have been invested may well stand with Evangelicall perfection But most holy and religious men have been invested with the dignity and power of Magistracie as namely Melchizedec a singular type of Christ Ioseph a man inspired by God and a revealer of his secrets Iob a perfect and upright man Moses the servant of God Ioshuah the Captaine of the Lords Host David a man after Gods own heart Daniel a man beloved of God Iedidiah Hezekiah and Iosiah after whom the Holy Ghost sendeth this testimony Like unto them there were no Kings before them that turned to the Lord with all their heart and all their soule and all their strength according to all the law of Moses nor after them arose any like unto them 2 Kings 23. 25. Ergo the dignity and power of Magistracie may stand with Evangelicall perfection ARGUMENT IV. That which was foretold and promised for a singular blessing to the Christian Church cannot be repugnant to the rules of the Gospell But the government and protection of Kings and their supporting and maintaining the Gospell is foretold and promised as a singular blessing to the Christian Church Psal. 68. 29. Kings shall bring presents unto thee Psalm 72. 9 10 11. They that dwell in the wildernesse shall bow before him and his enemies shall lick the dust the kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall bring presents The King of Sheba and Saba shall bring gifts Esay 49. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers and Queens shall bee thy nursing Mothers they shall bow downe to thee with their face towards the earth and lick up the dust of thy feet Ergo the government and protection of Kings cannot be repugnant to the rule of the Gospell ARGUMENT V. The use of that authority must needs bee a blessing to a land the want whereof is noted by the Holy Ghost and threatned as a great plague fearfull judgement upon a people But the want of a civill Magistrate to sway the sword of justice is noted by the holy Ghost as a great plague and fearfull judgement Iud. 17. 6. 18. 1. 21. 25. Hâ— 3. 4. Ergo the use of the Civill Magistrate is a blessing to a land ANABAP ANSWER The people of the Iewes being stiffe-necked and stubborne needed to bee curbed and kept in by the power of the Civill Magistrate but Christians who are meek Lambes need not so REPLY 1 What meek Lambes the Anabaptists have beene it appeareth by Pontanus who relateth that by tumults raised by them in Germany Holsatia and Swethland there were slaughtered within a few yeares no lesse then 150000. 2 It is true that the Jewes were for the most part a stubborn and stiffnecked people and therefore are said by the Prophets to have sinews of iron and I pray God divers Christians at this day have not nerves in their neck of the same metall But yet the Holy Ghost in the places above quoted ascribeth not the great disorders in those dayes to the perverse and froward disposition of that people but to the want of a Soveraigne Magistrate In those dayes there was no King in Israel but every one did that which was right in his owne eyes which words are repeated verbatim c. 21. 25. that we should take speciall notice of them and they imply that whensoever there falls an Interregnum this mischiefe will ensue thereupon that every man will doe that which is right in his own eyes and his lust shall be his law Whence Calvin rightly inferres that the Anabaptists could not take a more ready way to ruine all Empires and Kingdomes and introduce all carnall liberty and villany then by wresting the sword out of the Magistrates hand ARGUMENT VI. Their authority is established by the Gospell to whom all are bound to submit and obey But all Christians are bound to obey the Civill Magistrate Rom. 13. 1. 4. 5. Tit. 3. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Ergo the authority of the Magistrate is established by the Gospell ANABAP ANSVVER The Magistrates that then were were Infidels and Heathen to whom the Christians could not with a good conscience obey because they made many cruell edicts against the Christian faith the meaning therefore of the Apostle can be no other then that we should yeild them passive obedience REPLY Saint Augustine rightly distinguisheth between Dominum temporalem and Dominum aeternum the souldiers under Iulian the Apostata when the Emperour commanded them to advance in Battaile against the Persian they executed his commands and acquitted themselves valiantly against their enemy but when he commanded them to offer sacrifice to his Idols they preferred their Eternall Lord before their Temporall and absolutely refused to doe it In like manner all good Christians can put a difference between Civill Religious commands such things as appertaine to the government of the State and such things as belong to the immediate service of God In the former they yeild their obedience even to heathen Magistrates for God in the latter they comply not with them because such their commands are against God Although it bee true that the greatest part of our Christian duty which we owe to wicked Magistrates oppressing and tyrannizing over those that are truly religious making havock of the Church is to submit to their power and glorifie God by our sufferings yet the very Text of the Apostle requires more Tit. 3. 1. not only to bee subject to Principalities and Powers but to obey Magistrates and to bee ready to every good worke namely all such good works as tend to the Peace of the Common-wealth and well managing the affaires of the State If evill Magistrates may not bee resisted much lesse good if wee ought to honour and humbly obey and pay tribute to Princes and Governours that are averse from the Christian faith how much more to religious