is one and the same in both and both but one and the same baptisme as to the Essence they differ indeed in Circumstance John baptising into Christ as to come and to suffer and Christs Apostles baptising into Christ as come and suffered If you alledge the words of John against this Matth. 3.11 I baptise you with Water but be that cometh after me shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire it is but a poor shift to shift off that to the baptisme of John and Christ which is put upon the persons of John and Christ for the words carry onely a difference of the Ministers of one and the same baptisme John dispencing it outwardly in Water by the hand of Man Christ dispencing it inwardly by the Finger of his Spirit which is as Fire It s but Popish sophistry to compare Johns baptism with water and Christs baptisme with Fire Johns baptisme with water is onely to be compared to Christs baptisme with water and then both the baptisme of John and of Christ are but one both in Authority for Christ Authorised and Appointed it John 3 3. Hâ— that sent me to baptise with water c waâ— God as also in Essence as I hinted for John used the right Element and matter and baptised with Water and the right Words or form invocating the sacred Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost is appears both because it was the form known to John and the Apostles who certainly baptised many before the death of Christ and before that form was solemnly and publickly declared Math. 28.19 after Christs Death and Resurrection besides that in the 19. of the Acts Saint Paul testifieth that John baptised into faith on Christ to come and so knowing Christ he could not be ignorant of the Father and the Spirit yea John 1.33 there is a manifest Testimony of the Father sending to him and telling him of the Spirits descending like a Dove upon him who was the Son of God So thirdly they were the same in effect and efficacy For John preached and practised the baptisme of Repentance for or unto the Remission of Sins Marke 1.4 the same which the Apostles did in and by their administration of baptisme And Christ himself testifieth that the baptisme of John pertained to the fulfilling of righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 and that the Publicans and People being baptised of John Justified God But the Phariseet despising the Counsel of God were not baptised Luke 7.29 Whereby it appears that Johns baptisme was a part of that All Righteousnesse a piece of the whole Counsel of God which they that partaked of Justified and declared God to be good and righteous Were it not so the Apostles themselves might be questioned whether truly baptised as who were no doubt baptised of John some of them being first his Disciples for where else should they be baptised seeing Christ with his own hands baptised none unlesse one of them should baptise another which is not probable And Lastly If Johns baptisme were not one and the same with ours that we have of Christs how do we injoy the same common baptisme with Christ who was baptised of John It will follow That Christ was baptised with another baptism than we are and so that our baptisme was not sanctified in the person and flesh of Christ like as the Jews circumcision was and so it will abate much of our Comfort that we have Christian Baptisme the members one and the same Baptisme with our head Thus I have driven you off this shoar of Jordan John Baptists Wharf where you see you cannot land or ground your dipping of Christians or your Rebaptising of Christened people as we speak Though I must withall prompt you here that our Quaere is in these tearms twixt Anabaptists and us Whether the baptism of Christ which is given to and received by infant Caristians or Christian infants may be iterated and you and they bring a Text to shew that the baptism of Iohn was iterated which as it is not to the scope and purpose so neither can you shew the same was iterated ever in the twelve Disciples or any other baptised of Iohn I say so long as you hold the baptism of Iohn and Christ to be two different and repagnant baptismes you cannot inforce upon us from Iohns baptismes iterated suppose so Christs baptism to be iterated It will be best for you therefore see how still and ever I am ready to give the best counsell I can to yeeld to the identity of both Iohns and Christs baptism as to the nature and substance of them and so indeed you may argue from the one to the other Hale in therefore again your Fly-boat to Iohn Baptists shoar and see if you can land there any thing to your purpose cast on this right side your net again into Iordan catch a frog Whatsoever you get you then and thus will lose your new and true friends the Papists and Jesuites for they row hard against you and these throw their nets on the other side holding that Iohn and Christs baptism are very far asunder and different in the very Essentials and do and will accurse you with Tridentine Book Bell and Candle and Lantern too of their ship none of which I know you can abide especially not the Book and Bell and Anathematise all who say that Iohn and Christs baptism are the same for substance and of the same force It is like to be a hot sea-fight as most an end the hottest fights are upon the water and there is most fire spit out or rather a cold River skirmish twixt you which I for my part do not intend to stand looking on though I have set you together by the ears but will thus leave you to fight it out to the last man and will passe away and on to another Text pressed and squeezed by some of your party for the Rebaptising of baptised ones It is Heb. 6.2 Where there is mention made amongst other Principles of the Doctrine of Christ The Doctrine of Baptismes Lo say they Here are Baptismes in the plurall as well as one Baptism in the singular and if your reason were good why the Apostle called it one Baptism because it is to be but once given and received may not we say say they our reason is good why the same Apostle calleth Many Baptismes two at least and so baptise you your Infants in their Infancy and we will baptise ours in their growth when they can make profession of Faith And so here are baptismes Truely this is somewhat like the discourse the Saduces had with Christ about one Woman who had seaven Husbands whose Wife she shall be of the seaven in the Resurrection I say and answer in Generall as Christ did Are yee not therefore deceived and do err because you know not the Scripture I could tell you here of the baptismes that of Iohn and the other of Christ to be here meant and you may remember if
is a great deal of distance and difference twixt a Warrant out of Gods word and a Command or Precept out of the same I shall I hope bring you forth some warrants out of the word for our Baptizing Infants but for a Precept or Command for the same I am not engaged no nor required to give by this your Quaere Warrants enough and those from the word I shall serve upon you for though a Warrant from a Justice be a Precept Missive yet a Permissive will of God which is no Precept for it may be a Warrant of an Action and such are and may be any solid Reason or good Consequence or like example drawn there from which though it will not be admitted for a Precept may serve for a Warrant A. first Warrant shall be this Reason which is but a recollection or recapitulation of somewhat immediatly said before If Infants of Christians are all of them capable and some of them partakers of the Spirit and Faith and other inward Graces Then they may and ought to be Baptized This is warranted out of the word and those Texts Act. 8.36 Act. 10.47 The one warranting Baptism to a believer the other to him who hath received the Holy Ghost whether young or old Infant or grown person If Thou believest saith Philip thou mayest be Baptized when the Eunuch asked what doth hinder me so Faith it was that made him capable and removed the hindrance though upon his confession of his Faith it being not otherwise discernable he having no other right pleadable he being one o' the Gentiles He was actually Baptized So can any man forbid water that these should not be Baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as we and so he Commanded them to be Baptized That particular Hypothetical if thou believest c. thou may'st be Baptized may and must be resolved into this general Categorical whosoever Believeth may be Baptized Man or Child Young or Old and howsoever Cornelius and the rest their receiving of the Spirit was in the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit then manifesting it self that way yet any other manifestation of the Spirit any word or act of God declaring that Persons do belong to Gods Covenant as some or other way the Spirit doth manifest it self in all that do belong to Gods Covenant is to us and ought to be to you a sufficient Warrant without any danger of will-worship to account them such and therefore to Baptize them be it this pouring out of extraordinary gists as here upon Cornelius and others or the Consession of Faith as in Philip or Repentance as in those that came to John the Baptist or be it a promise to believing Parents-and their Seed to be their God or Gods owning them as Persons belonging to the Church or any other ordinary Gifts and Graces of the Spirit or the Spirits supplying their infirmities in these cases can any man forbid water that these should not be Baptized This Interrogative and quaestionipropounding Speech may and must be resolved into a Nagative-Answer absolutely No man can forbid water rightly for that 's done that is rightly done or done of Right anless he will forbid that which God hath Commanded and some of these we have abundantly for the Infants of believing Parents where no man can forbid there God Commands that they who have received the Holy Gholst should be Baptized The resule also out of this is this general Proposition whoseever whether Infant or grown Person hath received the Holy Ghost whether apparently or secretly ordinarily or miraculously whether in sight or Faith hath a right to Baptism no man can forbid it and in one of the particulars Peter here Commands it See how I have gratified you beyond a Warrant with a little less than a Command for the Baptizing of Infants if having Faith and the Spirit as many yea all the Elect of them have whom we not able to know one from the other particularly do therefore Baptize all under the Covenant with God More briefly and syllogistically thus take it as I recollect it All Persons who have received the Holy Spirit or have Faith are Commanded by God in Scripture to be Baptized as appears by the two Texts here cited But some Infants of Christians have received the Holy Spirit or have Faith as appears by many Texts formerly cited Therefore some Infants are Commanded by God in Scripture to be Baptized A Second Warrant is This Reason It Infants of Christian Parents be in the Holy Covenant of God and have the same engraven upon them and established with them Then they are to be Baptized and to receive Baptism as the initial seal thereof This Reason is warranted or this warrant may be reasoned out of the word Gen. 17.9 c. and Rom. 4.11 for it s there apparent and the light there shining dazzles all Antipaedobaptists they cannot abide to look thereon that as Abraham and his Proselytes grown men upon their profession of their Faith were Circumcised so the seed or Children of Abraham and those Proselytes were Circumcised as Children of Parents in Covenant and joyned together with them in covenant and both these are there expresly Commanded and so this also that the seed of Abraham and his Proselytes should be Circumcised by vertue and reason of Gods Covenant with them which was to be sealed unto them by Circumcision Now as the Being of Infants in Covenant under the Law made them capable of and gave them a due Right to Circumcision the Initial seal of that Covenant under the Law so the being of Infants in Covenant under the Gospel makes them capable of and gives them a due or Right to Baptism the Initial seal of the Covenant under the Gospel The Covenant being the same for substance and in relation to the eternal wel are of the Soul as in the nâ—x I shall shew which being so if Anabaptists passing by this reason from the Covenant will insist still upon the meer and sole Commandement of God I must tell them the Text saith not Thou shalt keep my Command but thou shalt keep my Covenant implying that this Command of Circumcision had reference to the Covenant and was part of it For here God is to be considered not in his absolute Prerogative commanding but as God in respective mercy Covenanting with his people and all his Commands are to be taken as branches of his Covenant and all prounded upon his Free-grace in Jesus Christ therefore Gen. 17.10 and 13. God calls expresly Circumcision by the name of his Covenant to teach you and all others that will learn that the Covenant made Infants capable of the Seal and not Gods meer Commandement as you and your notional and metaphysical Masters do abstract who love to play with your own Fancies and Imaginations whereas the Seal is nothing but the confirmation of the Covenant and appointed and commanded so to be of God But the Covenant in order of Nature going before the Seal thereof
your mean drugs of Exposition with such high and extream Praises and Titles as if it were according to the minde of the Holy Ghost is not this to sound a loud trumpet before a poor alins given as the hypocrites do Matth. 6.3 Is not this one kinde of boasting of things without your measure 2 Cor. 10.15 and this one thing The minde of the Holy Ghost in this and that Scripture and peremptorily saying your Exposition to be according to the same this is that the Spirit indeed speaketh expresly that in the Latter days some shall be lovers of themselves proud boasters 2 Tim. 3 1 Tim. 4. and boasters of the Spirit having not the Spirit these be they who separate themselve as Jude telleth you now again verse 19. O the depth of the riches both of the knowledge and wisdome of God for who hath known the minde of the Lord Rom. 11.34 Behold the man who expounds according to the minde of the Holy Ghost in that Scripture at leastwise No Sir you do not you are confounded already who presume to be of the Council of the most High and of the minde of the Holy Ghost see how you falter and stagger at the first step and setting out to your Exposition for the meek will he guide in judgement and the meek will he teach his way Psal 25.9 God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble James 4.6 for you chop and change the words of the Holy Ghost whose own words do best express its own minde turning holy as you should write it but that you are so holly or hollow into clean as if you would teach the Spirit of God the words it should use and then indeed you may the sooner know the minde of the Spirit speaking in your own words Sir are you like to expound this Text according to the mind of the Holy Spirit who refuse the words of the Spirit by which it signified its minde and bring and add another word which expresseth your minde better besides that in the ciring the words of the Spirit you twice add Believing believing as if you would teach the Spirit to express its minde more fully and plainly than of himself he doth putting words into his mouth which he left out though I acknowledge the words aee twice necessarily implied But I would you could once teach your self to write English and speak sense your self so far are you from expounding according to the minde or words of the Holy Ghost Look agian upon what followeth of yours This Scripture is owne one of the main props that Mr. Wsinell buildeth his Infant Baptism upon gounding rom hence That children are holy because there their fatheâ— and there their mother are lawfully married for that is the Apostles meaning in this Text namely the holiness of the child or uncleanness of it according to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the marage marriage of the Parents and so the the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified by the believing husband or wife being lawfully marid married as the holy Ghost saith Vnto the pure all things are pure Titus 1.15 Rom. 14.20 and so an inpure impure or unbelieving wife or child is sanctified or pure to the pure or believing husband and so likewise the husband to the wife being lawfully maryed married or joyned together according to Gods Ordynance Ordinance or may of maryage Heb. 13.4 and so their children are holy or clean otherwise they ware were unholy or unthan or bastards and they themselves made whoremongers and adulterers whom God will judge First I pray Sir poine your two first lines and make your flops for the whole two Verses seem to relate Mr. Wyness opinion and grounding childrens holiness upon their father and mothers being lawfully married as if that were the Apostles meaning The which Mr. Wynell disclaimeth as his grounding or the Apostles meaning Seeing then it is your gounding and expounding put it into such words or dress it in such clothes that I may know it and you own it for your Child or child ish opinion whether it prove a legitimate or bastard for so I see you intend to make of the Apostles holy children only legitimates and of the unclean onely bastards And I am farther glad to see you are willing to look into any of our Writers and Books that treat of Infant-Baptism as here Mr. Wynell whose Treatise as I remember I sent either to you or to a friend to shew you and the rather because your Provincial Anabaptists like as the Provincial Jesuites do forbid unto their new Converts and old Catholiques as they call them the reading of our Protestant Books are cautious that our Oathodox Teactates come not into the hands and view of their Catechumen Proselytes It appears to me you have not so much as read Mr. Wynell about this Text so far are you from reading over his Book or not read so much as he wrote about it because you pass by his Exposition of it and his Reasons and your Answers to them and spend your time in drawing out of your self and your own bowels as a Spider those Cobweb-Consideration of your own spread out to catch Flyes that will come into them Well suppose it one of Mr. Wynell's main props or pillars he hath more besides and I thought that such a Sampson as you are would have laid hold on both or all the pillars of the house and pulled them down but instead of pulling down his you set up first a prop and pillar of your own by his and do interpret the Aposltes meaning of children being holy to be onely from a Matrimonial holiness as born in lawfull wedlock and so to be nothing else in a manner but a legitimation of birth And here you cite Rom. 4 20. which speaks of lawfulness and purity of meats to Believers and Titns 1.15 which speaks of faith purifying the heart and all things after to the pure and Heb. 13.4 which sheweth Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled all to what purpose forsooth to prove that the holiness spoken of children by the Apostle was meant of a legitimation of birth and the sanctification there mentioned of a Matrimonial sanctification were they not rather to this purpose to shew that a good memory and a good wit have not met in your head who shew your good memory to cite many Texts of Scripture but no good wit to apply them or to prove that out of them for which you bring them Next you infer it from the scope of the words For say you the words are part of an Answeare Answer to a Question put by the believing Corimhians Whether that they which were converted by the preaching of the Gospel might live with there their husbands or wives which were not converted Now the Apostle answer thus If the unbelieving husband or wife will dwell with the believing husband or wife is sanctified to or by the unbelieving husband or wife else ware your children
persons in the Church holy and so reputed by the Apostle to be by their being in and under the holy Covenant of God or by being children of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant may and ought to have the holy Initial Seal of that Covenant which in the Gospel is Baptism But all infants in the Church of believing Parents are such persons holy and so reputed by the Apostle to be by their being in and under the holy Covenant or by being children of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant Therefore all infants in the Church may and ought to have the holy initial Seal of the Covenant which in the Gospel is Baptism You will now Sir of your self I shall not need to urge or advise you being experienced and practised often before therein now the eighth time with much facility deny the conclusion For the first Proposition you cannot deny it being grounded out of that Text Act. 10.47 where Peter saith Can any man forbid water that those should not be Baptized who have received the holy Spirit and as is largely explained and proved before as also upon this Reason deducible hence that where holiness is the Spirit is and where the Spirit is Christ is and where Christ is the Covenant is and where the Covenant is the Seal initial namely Baptism may and ought to be For the second Proposition you cannot deny it being the expresse affertion of Paul here But now they are holy namely their children And whereas I have put in my whole Discourse all these my eight or nine Arguments into the form of a Syllogism I have done is the better to inform you to which you pretend to be willing in the close of your Letter I hope you will taste it now at last the better though savouring much of our University Arts and Humane learning as consonant and agreeing subservient and conducing to the Divine wisedom and of good use for the understanding and Expounding of the Scriptures written in the learned Tongues and Languages and often referring to Moral and Phylosophical matters of which I have spoken largely before and should not have mentioned again but that you have another fling at the same in the close of your Letter saying that it appears that the most learned by Humane learning want the learning of the Spirit to interperate interpret Scripture It is true that some of the learned by Humane learning may and do want the learning of the Spirit to interpret Scripture but do not more of the ignorant by their Humane ignorance much more want the same yet none of the learned and much less of the most learned do by humane learning as you must mean though you point not your words with any Comae's or Colons for want of Humane learning by Humane learning I say want the learning of the Spirit seeing the Spirit of God hath both taught it at first as the Author of it and made much use of it practising some of it in the Scripture and as Hagar and Sarah may dwell together in the same house humane learning as you call it and the learning of the Spirit may keep together in the same head-house so long as Hagar is an obedient handmaid to her Mistris Sarah and Humane learning humbly submits and is servant or subservient unto the learning of the Spirit and the Misteries of it But of this matter there is enough written before and how it should now at the last appear to you that the most learned by Humane learning do want the learning of the Spirit to interpret Scripture if you mean it of those who interpret the Scriptures for Infant-Baptism against you it is marvelous to me for I will instance but in this one and last interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 But now they are holy We interpret it holy federally as who are born in Covenant with God and of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant with God and so are not unclean as the Gentiles out of Covenant but you interpret it holy legitimally as who are lawfully born of Parents in wedlock according to the Law and so are not unclean as bastards born out of wedlock now do you remember your words four times repeated in one of your pages I will repeat them once more for you but to you Judge you but judge you righteous judgement for God will judge you I say whether of the interpretations savours most of Humane learning or the learning of the Spirit yours or ours doth it not clearly appear to your eyes that your interpretation is a meer Humane natural carnal political interpretation and such as you can bring no word or example for from the learning of the Spirit the Scriptures where holy are called or meant legitimates and unclean bastards and therefore it is a meer Humane learning and not agreeable to the learning of the Spirit nay repugnant to it for by the learning of the Spirit all bastards are not unclean nor all legitimates holy But our interpretation is a very Divine gracious spiritual Ecclesiastical interpretation and such as I have brought both word and example for from the Scriptures the learning of the Scriptures where all in Covenant with God or born of Christians or one Christian Parent are stiled holy and all childeren born out of Covenant or of Parents both Heathens are called unclean and therefore ours is the very learning of the Spirit to take your words now out of your mouth and put them into ours as justly I may according to the minde of the Spirit as who declared unto us in the Scriptures and we from it to you that all Covenanters born of Covenanters with God are holy and all out of Covenant and born of such as are out of Covenant are unclean And so now by this as indeed by all or most of the Scriptures that you have made use of throughout your whole Letter which rather you have made an abuse of it will appear yea doth that your self is one of them the most learned by Humane learning certainly Sir for all your talk against it you have been at the University and gotten up some Humane learning and are a great Practitioner therein as appears by this and your other interpretations yea I take you to be a man if not a Master of Arts and Humane learning more than of the learning of the Spirit though pretending to this more a better Humanist than Divine or rather an Alchymist who can extract out of the Spirits holy in Scripture the spirit and flesh to a child lawfully born and out of spirits unclean the quintessence of a bastard Do you call this the learning of the Spirit to Interperate Scriptures with all for so you write and shew your self to be good at expounding as you are at spelling your Orthography and Orthodoxy being both alike do you interpret the Scripture by your learning of the Spirit no sure you Interperate interpret Scripture rather by the ignorance and illiterature of
give repentance to the acknowledging of the truth 2 Tim. 2.24 25. 1. The children of Israel are said to be all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea 1 Cor. 10.2 the Red sea being an antitype of the Waters of Baptism and the cloudy pillar an antitype of the Spirit yet were they not dipped in the cloud dashed they might be and wetted with the cloud and some showers or drops falling from it as they passed under it going before them and behinde them at times as Exod. 14.22 but dipped or immerged in or into it you will not say I suppose nor can you say I think that the Israelites were dipped in or under the waters of the Red Sea as which were a wall unto them both on the right hand and on the left so that they walked dry foot and dry shod through the same sprinkled they might be and washed a little with some droppings and aspersions from the walls but dipped and immerged they were not in them and yet baptized I the rather and at first instance in this because the Apostle doth himself call this a figure or example of our Baptism at the 6. and 10. verses for as in that passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea they were preserved and their enemies the Egyptians drowned so by our undergoing and partaking of Baptism the water whereof representeth the blood of Christ to us our fouls are saved and our enemies sin and our natural corruption are enfeebled and overthrown so as remitted unto us thereby it cannot have dominion or bring damnation 2. Our Saviour asketh the two ambitious Suitors Can ye be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with and foretelleth them With the Baptism that I am baptized with shall ye be baptized Mark 10.38 39. What did he mean that either himself or those two Apostles should be dipped all over in blood and immerged therein no rather but that they should be sprinkled with the drops thereof and besmeared with the same so himself Though blood trickled down his head by the pricking of the Thorns and blood ran down his back by the cuttings of the scourge and blood issued out with water out of his side by the piercings of the spear and blood fell out of his hands and feet by the wounding of the spikes and nailes sprinkled he might be and aspersed in body and so was with blood but dipt and immerged he was not and yet baptized with the baptism thereof and as for the two Brothers James was killed of Herod with the sword Act. 12.2 and so he was baptized in blood but not dipt in it and John was banished by Domitian into the Isle of Patmos in the 90 year of the Nativity of Christ which was as every persecution is a kind of such baptism as is here meant by our Saviour where he endured Exile nine or ten years and there wrote the Revelation to the Churches but being after released by Trajanus he returned to Ephesus and there wrote his Gospel and there dyed in the 100. year after the Nativity he onely amongst all the Aposties being the Survivor of them all siccâ morte sine sanguine as some say though Augustine Libro Soliloq Cap. 29. Tom. 9. hath these words Veneni poculum Johanues intrepidus potavit He was forced to drink a cup of poyson but he saith not that he died thereof so if he were not baptized with the baptism that Christ was he drank of the cup which Christ did and foretold he should die also in the same Text. 3. John the Baptist told the people that He who came after him meaning Christ should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire Mat. 3.11 and Christ himself foretold the Apostles they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many dayes hence Acts 1.5 and so they were on the day of Pentecost following when there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and sat upon each of them and they were all filled with the holy Ghost Acts 2.3 4. thus were they baptized with fire and the holy Ghost but not dipped or immerged in that fire but rather aspersed or superfused according to the phrase of Scripture I will pour out my spirit Joel 2.28 and the spirit was shed abundantly Titus 3.6 I could tell you of more baptizings for so the word is in the original of Cups Tables and Beds as they are mentioned in the Evangelist Mark 7.4 The which howsoever they may fit you well as being Pharisaical and Hypocritical and me also as wherein there was no dipping or immerging but onely washing and rubbing I passe by for brevity sake as also that which the Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called since the Baptism of Repentance in which they were not merged or drowned in tears that 's but a metaphorical phrase to shew an abundance of their weeping but onely sprinkled and perfused with tears by which they did seek and desire the remission of their sins and also found and obtained the same 4. I will add but one more 1 Cor. 15.29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead whether it be taken passively according to the translation for those who were baptized with water for dead i.e. given over for dead or ready to die or whether Actively and Passively for those who did baptize and also were baptized over the dead i upon the graves of the dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being oft as here put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as learned Beza observeth upon Mat. 17.27 and Mark 10.48 or whether it be meant who are washed for dead their dead bodies are washed according to the custom of the Patriarchs as yet then retained in the Church and mentioned to be done unto Dorcas Acts 9.37 who being dead they washed and laid in an upper chamber which way soever that Baptizing with water be meant it cannot imply any dipping or immerging as being unto dying persons or unto persons baptized over graves or unto dead bodies And thus I have shewed you that there may be baptizings where there are no dippings and immergings and that this derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification then its original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the general and therefore that it can be no Argument to prove your dipping to be the baptizing because baptism is a derivative word from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to dip And so I come now to the very particular work in hand and shall take it not onely in the Grammatical and Theological sense but in the very Sacramental and Mystical meaning the properly baptizing with water In the Name of the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost so as John the Baptist Peter and Paul and Philip and the Deacons and the 72 Disciples gave and ministred its so as Jerusalem and all Judea round about Jordan Christ and the Apostles the 3000. the 5000. the Eunuch Lydia
hurtful neither is it prejudicial to the baptized party whether it be once or thrice dipped and immerged but so much I have said to shew the vanity of your boast of the good old way of your dipping insomuch as you have thrice digressed from Antiquity therein as is hitherto proved Yea you are gone from the present way of your Mother and not onely Brother-church of Rome which hath lately sided with you gone cheek by joyl with you sided said I nay rather headed you and the other Sects amongst us for so she hath given over her old way of the Trine-immersion and is upon the new path of Trine-aspersion and you have left her also in both both in the number of Trine or thrice as also in the matter of aspersion or sprinkling in this your once dipping and immerging and thus you forsaking your friends walking alone by your selves yet going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it yea compassing sea and land to get proselytes your friends may perhaps at last forsake you and leave you to your selves and your bad new way to walk alone and wilder your selves But I come to a fourth and last difference 4. The Ancients dipped and immerged and though they made it mysterious and significant yet they the learnedest of them thought it not absolutely necessary but adiaphorous and therefore held it but as an Ecclesiastical custom and tradition as Hierom. dial adver Lucif whom I cited but even now expresly calls it such morem traditionem Ecclesiae and so Basil lib. de Spiritu sancto cap. 27. by way of Question demands this of the thrice dipping how came it to us and that other of renouncing the devil and his angels from what Scripture have we it and then answereth it by an affirmative in a negative interrogation have we it not rather from an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from a private and secret instruction or tradition for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to the liberty of it and no necessity hereof being a consequence hereupon I shall say more afterwards As for those that owned and held this dipping and especially the thrice dipping to be either a Divine precept or an Apostolical tradition unwritten and nonscript they were either minoris vel nulliusfidei as the Canons of the Apostles as they are called Can. 50. and Basilius is cited by the Papists in the Book before alledged by me for making the thrice dipping an Apostolical and necessary tradition but it 's answered by Whitakers desc cont 1 quest 6. and so also by Rivet in his Criticus cap. 20. who both acknowledge they had it from Erasmus in Epist aa Johannem Episc Culmensem that that Book de Spiritu sancto is not any true and genuine work of the great Basil but a spurious and supposititious one especially in the later half thereof by some one that would be great in Basil and therefore though I cited a testimony a little before out of the 27 Cap. of that Book de Spiritu sancto bearing the name of the great Basil like as Vessius and others do yet I will not stand upon it as I need not having another Authentique one standing by him which is that of Hierom for that I hear of it by those learned above mentioned and read also my self in that 27 Chapter for though the words that I have cited thereout may bear a good sense by themselves yet finding the drift of that 27 Chapter being to equal or to adjoin Traditions of which a great many are there named and this amongst the rest unto the written word of the holy Spirit as Apostolical and necessary I do suspect those words before of private and secret or hidden doctrine as I rendred them to bend and incline that way Others lesse credible Ancient Authors there are who make this Trine immersion and Apostolical tradition yea precept as Pelagius Papa Anno 510. who is cited by Gratian de consec dist 4. can 10. makes it a precept in those words because of the three Persons named in the Precept Go baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost and Theodoretus l. 4. haeret Fabular Which book is thought to be none of his by reason of some fabulous things in it and so this way generally the opinion of the later Roman Church whilst they held to the Trine-immersion that it was a necessary Apostolical tradition and the like I beleeve they are as ready to say now they have left that of their Trine aspersion to which they have be taken themselves now at last And you also and yours are of the same opinion for your once dipping and immerging that it is of Divine prescription and Apostolical tradition who adhere so peremptorily to it disallowing and condemning all of us and other Churches who practise aspersion and sprinkling for heretical and antichristian and our baptism for unlawful and invalid And therefore I shall now also give you a little of Antiquity to 〈◊〉 for our sprinkling and aspersing of water with the hand upon the party baptized or our pouring or laying on of water upon some part head or face of the same whereby it shall be made to appear to be also a good and old way of baptizing But shall I need to add any more of this I have given you already the Testimonies of some of the Ancients for the same in the third difference I made 'twixt your and the Ancients dipping and immerging and the Example of Laurentius so baptizing Lucillus by pouring water upon his head and so also he baptized one of the Souldiers who brought Vrceum cum aqua and took his time and offered it to St. Laurence that so he might be that Souldier baptized of him which could be no otherwise then by taking water out of the Pitcher or Pail or Kettle with his hands and pouring it upon him even his head and this was much about Cyprians time in year 250. And therefore sure it was the practice in Cyprians time yea and it was his very judgement given hereupon to one by name Magnus Epist 76. who propounded the Question to him whether the weak and sick who could not be dipt but were onely perfusi sprinkled or aspersed with water were truly Christians and obtained grace He answered Let it not move any quod aspergi vel perfundi videantur aegri that the sick are aspersed or poured upon with water at their Baptism for that also they partake of the Lords grace seeing the holy Scripture by the Prophet Ezekiel saith I will sprinkle upon you pure water and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness of which Text I have made use before to the same purpose So likewise I have shewed the Antiquity thereof from Eunomius and the Eunomians who living about the year 360. did wet the head down to the breast in their baptizing and I have pressed it out of the Greek word which
Theodoret useth who relateth it that they did it by pouring or sprinkling of water upon their head those Heretiques imitating therein as their manner is in those things there is no difference the Custom of the Orthodox And yet before these Athanasius who lived about 325. Orat. 3. Contra Arianos hath another more express testimony where having shewed that the Arians could not give a true and perfect baptism because they erred in the foundation and essence of it as who though they pronounced the words I baptize thee in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost believed not in the sacred Trinity as who deny the Son he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that those who are sprinkled and aspersed of them that is baptized are rather polluted and defiled with ungodliness then washed for so I think the word ought rather to be rendred as having reference to baptism according to the sense and purpose of Athanasius in this place then as Petras Nannius doth Redeemed for though the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie also to be redeemed yet he shewed him self a true Translator indeed of the word in General but not so good an Interpreter of the sense nor word here in this particular which also signifieth and here must to be washed for the reason above I have given and so Vossius saith elegantly as pertinently polluere ait non abluere rather polluted then washed as I rendred it but that which comes hence to my purpose that Athanasius calleth and maketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sprinkling and aspersion of water in the right form to be baptism and that it is good and true baptism which is given in that way and manner But I can bring forth a testimony far beyond these for the Antiquity of aspersing or perfusion in baptism and that is of Tertullian living about the year 190 lib. de poenit cap. 6. I deny not saith he but that the Divine benefit Ablutio delictorum the washing of sin should be ready and safe to all that come to the water and then he addeth but they must labour also to come thither for otherwise saith he Quis tibi tam infidae paenitentiae viro asperginem unam cujustibet aquae commodabit if thou beest a man untrue to thy repentance thou makest who will let thee have one sprinkling of water in opposition or allusion to the Trine immersion as I suppose and meaning that if he would not come to the waters being in health to be dipt thrice he deserved not to be come unto in sickness to be once aspersed and sprinkled so speaking plain enough for sprinkling and aspersing the sick and weak especially the which also Cornelius a Byshop of Rome in Cyprians time maketh mention of in an Epistle to Fab. Antioch which is in Euseb lib. 6. cap. 43. where he likewise relates of Novatus the Heretique that when he was freed from the evil spirit and fell into a grievous disease upon his bed desired baptism and so was in his bed baptized i. e. perfusus aqua by water poured sprinkled upon him This was so customary amongst the Ancient to sprinkle and asperse the sick in bed if there they came to their first conversion that it was called Baptismus Clinicorum the baptism of the bedrid though they did not so highly esteem of such as were so baptized in bed upon sickness yea they debarred such from being of the Clergy because they thought they become Christians rather of necessity then good will And because I have mentioned such a thing as the Baptism of the Clinicks or such as were converted and baptized in their sickness and death beds I will put you a Quaere upon a supposition which often falleth out knowing you will presently run to your master of quaeres for answer and resolution Suppose one of your children or his or any your other brethren who by vertue or vice rather of your opinion hath been kept and detained from it's baptism during it's infancy and minority should be at 13 or 14 years of age visited of God with sickness and so scholed and enlightned by him therein and thereby for schola crucis est schola lucis that he should come to a good measure of knowledge of himself and God of his sins traduced at his birth and committed in his life of Gods mercies promised in his word and covenanted in Christ and so lying in bed under great distempers even fore-going death should upon and after confession of his sins and profession of his faith in Christ earnestly desire and require baptism as the Seal of Gods Covenanted Mercy and as a confirmation of his faith therein and a strengthening of him against the fears of death before and at his departure out of this world What would you now do here Dare you deny still and withhold baptism from him in this condition when as it may be and ought to be ministred unto him then will you be and are you guilty before God of a plain and palpable contempt of the ordinance of baptism which is and will be damnable to whomsoever Gen. 17.24 Exod. 4.24 25. And if you think it now needful for him to have baptism for that he is now capable of it according to your own tenet and the thing is now feizable and possible to be had I ask how and which way shall baptism be given and conferred unto him Will you remove him out of his bed in his clothes or in his bed and its cloathes to your Pond or cause to be brought to the bed-side some big Vessel or Tub of water which later is more then I need grant unto you in the point betwixt us and so either the one or the other way 〈◊〉 immerge his whole body in the cloathes or out of the cloathes which is still more then I need yeeld Then in all probability may and will you be guilty both before God and man of the death and destruction of the party the which is and will be as damnable to whomsoever Now advise and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me You cannot but see and say as David once you are in a great straight 2 Sam. 24.13 14. For according to your opinion and practice you must either let your child depart the world without baptism when it might have it if you would which will be prejudicial to your soul and your salvation or you must give it your dipping baptism which will be prejudicial to its body and its preservation as causing it to depart the world sooner then otherwise it would The onely way to come out of your straights is straightway to fall now into the hands of the Lord God with David and laying down your imaginations and every high thing of yours that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God 2 Cor. 10.5 to call for and suffer some lawful Minister of God to come and after such confession and profession heard by him
OF BAPTISME Your Quaeres about Baptism are three and these 1. What warrant you have from the words of Christ for your baptising of Infants before they do actually believe 2. Whether Baptism maketh a Man or Woman a Christian without Faith and following of Christ in all his Commands and steps left upon Record for our Imitation 3. Whether the baptising of Beleevers is not the Command of Christ practised by the Apostles yea or no and left upon Record for us to follow and Imitate till his second comming I Will begin with this your Last Quaere For I perceive that the baptising of Beleevers doth keep such a buzzing in your ears that till it be granted you nothing will be heard Sir for quietnesse and brevity sake I grant it and this is all my answer to this your Quaere Yea I granted as much to you in the beginning if you remember and so thus also briefly and quietly I have answered almost a side of your second sheet wherein are four Considerations brought to prove the lawfulnesse the usefulnesse the necessity of this practise of Baptising Beleevers with these solemn words at the end of every consideration four times repeated Judge ye and Judge Righteous Judgement for God will Section I. Of Baptisme of Infants I hope you will think me to judge Righteous Judgement if I Judge according to your Judgement That the Word of God doth allow and authorize baptising of Beleevers but then I must differ from your judgement in another That the Baptising of Beleevers doth not disallow or exauthorate the Baptising the Infants of Beleevers and that the one leadeth in the other as it were by the Hand if you had no more to say and dispute against the Baptising of Infants of beleeving Parents than against the baptising of beleevers the difference betwixt us had never begun If I speak Parables unto you it is because you know not the Scriptures not the very Scriptures your self doth here quote Matth 28.19 Acts 238. Acts 8.38 Acts 10 47. Acts 22.16 c. What do they all import but that Those Jewes or Heathens who were grown persons aliens from the Covenant had embraced the Gospel and became beleevers were presently baptised or became baptiseable And now that this is no barr or contradiction to the Baptising of Infants appears for that the Infants of those beleevers baptised and entred into Covenant if they had any had likewise a right unto baptisme being in the same Covenant with their beleeving Parents and either were in present baptised or were of right baptiseable So that the baptisme of beleevers makes way and gives ground for the baptisme of their Infants whence in other texts such and such beleevers were baptised they and all their House which is according to the Tenor of the Cov nane in which God is the God of the beleever and his seed so that the one hath as good right to the Seal thereof as the other by vertue of the Covenant God having Covenanted with both together I have formerly suggested unto you the only word that must help you here to make the baptisme of beleevers strong against the baptisme of Infants and it is the Word only for if there were such a precept or practice to be found in Scripture of Baptising Beleevers only then you would write something near the matter but yet should not so carry it away to the overthrowing of the baptising of the Infants of beleevers the Scripture no where calling them unbeleevers But none of the Scriptures you cite none of your considerations you mention do so much as mention much lesse infer the baptising of Beleevers onely Therefore now Judge you but Judge Righteous Judgement even as Good doth you see in your own Texts Or do you mean another matter as I ghesse it That Infants of beleevers born within the Church and Covenant and baptised in their minority when afterwards they attain to some ripenesse of knowledge and profession of faith of Christ should then as beleevers themselves be baptised again Then I must tell you that which you call the first and great Ordinance of the New Testament is neither great nor first nor Ordinance namely such Baptising of Beleevers Nay then I must tell you such baptising of beleevers is not only to be neglected and omitted but slighted and rejected yea preached against and confuted as now in present it shal be For what is this your baptising of beleevers but a rebaptising of them who were baptised before rightly and for any thing you know beleevers also For first God having given the Infants of beleeving Parents Right unto the Sacrament of Baptisme by speciall priviledge of their Birth within the bosome of the holy Church and the Minister having administred the Sacrament of Baptisme unto such in the true Element of Water with the Evangelical words In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost according to Christs institution Containing in them the matter form and so the very essence of outward baptism such baptism is good sufficient effectual and avayleable to Gods Children and they ought not to be rebaptised especially there being the devout invocation made to God for his blessing also a serious application of both the Element and Word unto the party who receiveth both and that secret reference which this action hath to life and remision of sins by vertue of Christs own compact made solemnly with his Church there is not any thing more required to the mysticall perfection of baptisme outwardly within the Church of God constituted and planted Now that such Baptisme is not to be reiterated that Infants thus baptised are not to be rebaptised I shall prove unto you both by the Word of God and some reasons thence deduced Eph. 4.5 There is one Lord one Faith one Baptisme one Baptisme not onely 1. Because it hath every where one and the same substance consisting in one and the same matter one and the same form for we are not to use any other Elemental matter but Water if it may be had nor any other verbal form but this I baptise thee in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost not onely 2. Because it offreth unto all men one and the same grace even one saith of one Lord into which we are baptised but One also for that it ought not to be received of any one man above once even as we serve that Lord which is but one because no other can be joyned with him imbrace that faithwhich is but one because it admiteth no inovation so we receive haptism which is but one because it cannot and must not be received often Thus all the Pious Learned and Primitive Professors have interpreted this Text and conceived of this matter the Iteration of Baptisme once given to be a manifest contempt and violation of this Apostolical axiom and Aphorisme insomuch that though the baptising minister were a Scismatick or Heretick or a
as without Faith Faith without Baptism may make an invisible Christian but incompleatly as without Baptism Faith and Baptism together both make a Christian compleatly and that both Visible and Invisible Are not Children of the Heathens born Heathens and why then are not Children of Christians born Christians I mean it is theiri Birthright to be so esteemed or they are to be esteemed such by their Birth-right to be reputed within the Covenant of Grace or members of the visible Church Is the condition of a Christians Child worse now under the Gospel than a Jewes Child was under the Law the Children of the Jewes were born Jewes and it was their Birth-right to be Israelites visible members of the Church of Israel whereupon the Apostle calleth them Jews by Nature Gal. 5.15 As before I have said and Rom. 11.24 He calls the whole Nation of the Jewes the Natural branches of the Olive-tree in that they were the vifible Church of God so the 1 Cor. 7. Those that are born of holy Parents are called holy yet sinners but in divers respects by Nature and as generated of their Parents so sinners for Parents do not generate by Grace but Nature but by Grace and as received by God into Covenant so Holy for God said I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and if the root be holy then are the brancher no repugnancy here like as the Circumcised generateth an Infant with a fore-skin and as wheat dressed and clean bringeth forh wheat with chaffe upon it so a Christian bringeth forth one that is not a Christian who is therefore Baptized that he may be made Christian which is when he is Ingrafted into the body of Christ And whereas the Apostle saith Eph. 2.3 That we were by Nature the Children of wrath as well as others it doth not contradict we may be such and yet born Christians too and Holy in an externall Covenant being born of believing Parents if you would but remember the ordinary distinctions that are given they would disperse this mist before your eyes and cleer them matter to you I will give them you as thus as there is a Jew so there is a Christian without and in open view of the Church and as Jew so a Christian within and in secret before the face of God as none were born Jewes so none are born Christians in this second and later senss thus we must be made Christians neither could or can we claim it by Birth-right but in the first sens which is that whereof the Assertion is we may even all that have a visible Birth and standing under the Covenant of Grace are Christians and Holy in the face of the visible Church though perhaps not so in the face of God but many for all this may be Children of wrath Your mind as your words runneth onely upon the Internal part of the Covenant which are inward saving graces which belong only to the Elect and because we know not what these Infants are born with we say not that thus they are born Christians where you should take notice of an external part of the Covenant which is a true visible membership and Birth-Holiness which known to us and appearing to all we call them born Christians as who from their Birth are to be accounted and reputed visible members and patts of the Church For the Covenant of Grace is largely to be understood and Taken for the whole dispensation of it in-outward Ordinances and under the Notion of its external Privileges as well as in inward Graces and under the notion of its internal powers You most an end and in this Quaere especially use the Covenant as Hanun did the servants of David sent to comfort Hanun and to honour his deceased Father who shaved off the one half of their Beards and cut off the half of their Garments and so sent them away 2 Sam. 10.4 So do you and yours you leave out in your writing and discourses the one half of the Covenant and still restrain it to the inward and spiritual part thereof whereas it was sent whole and entire of God with an outward and external part also for the further Honour and Comfort of the believing Parents and their Children But I come to the last your first Queare of the three about Baptism as you propound them but my last of the three as I handle your matters and this it is Sect. III. Of Baptizing of Infants WHat warrant you have from the words of Christ for your Baptizing of Infants before they do actually believe What warrant I thank you for this word a gentle and general word I looked for no less than what command or precept have you such a severe and special word as a command to be demanded of me Did you keep such a blustring in seven whole Quaeres together about the commands and precepts of Christ his Apostles and their examples which I took as your preparative and Preface unto this your particular Quaere of Infant-Baptism and doth the wind go down in this soft and still voyce What warrant have you for it After all your former Thundrings out the Commands of God against us as if we of the Church of England had broken them all and had pieced them up with our Human Inventions and additions as Infant-Baptism and the rest is this your only Thunderbolt you have to strike us down with what warrant have you for it out of the word Your friends and fellowes lowes will give you no thanks for this word if it were not they that gave it you word and work and all who as the Jewes cryed The Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord so they go up and down and cry a Precept of the word a Precept of the word for your Infant-Baptism and do you come after them and behind and so softly speak for fear they should hear you a Warrant out of the word a Warrant out of the word for the same This made me look back over your other Quaeres about our Ministery our maintenance and I find upon such Review that this word Warrant is used and prefixed before them all and not a word of a Precept or Command I see I have been much mistaken who when I might have put off you and all your Quaeres with a Warrant according to your demand have put my self to such trouble as to search the Scriptures and send you Precepts and Commands out of the same for every particular You are beholding to me for I have gratified you herein in giving you more than you required and in spending more upon you than you desired I will not say deserved I hope you will make good use of my Indulgence herein and not expect for time to come that I shall do the like still No you will now give me Leave to take and make my advantage of the word which I have lost hitherto and you have gained hereby For I take it there
and constant custom of the Primitive and the succeeding Churches throughout the several ages to Baptize the Children of believing Parents in their Infancy then it ought to be so still continued accustomed and practised This Warrant may be Reasoned out of the word or the Reason warranted out of Matth. 19.4.9 where Christ in case of a point of difference about divorce himself argueth and reasoneth from the Ancient times and the beginning of the Church of God So out of 1 Cor. 11.16 if any man seem to be Contentious we have no such Custom neither the Churches of God Where you and I may see the case there and here to be much alike The Corinthians had got up a fashion of their mens praying covered in their long Hair and their women praying uncovered in their shorn Hair you likewise have taken up a practice of baptizing onely believers when grown persons they make profession and have shut out Infants from their right to the Seal of Baptism being Covenanters with their Parents Saint Paul refuteth that their fashion by divers arguments drawn from the headship of man over the woman from the dishonouring of the head from the shamesulness and the uncomeliness of it from the Presence of the Angels from the light of nature five good and sound arguments and when he perceived for all those that they were contentious and quarrelsome with him about and for their fashion He clappeth upon them as his last argument this taken from the Churches of God that have been before us In like manner I have refelled your Practice by sundry Warrants and Reasons raysed out of the word from such Infants some of them having the spirit and faith in some degrees from their being in the same Holy Covenant of Grace with their Parents from the proportion and succession of Baptism unto Circumcision from Baptisme's being a remedy against Original sin especially from Infants capableness of the ends effects and benefits of Baptism five good and warrantable reasons out of the word and supposing for all this you will not be conquered though overcome but will still strive and contend contrary to 2 Tim. 2.24 Now I urge upon you in the last place this Reason which is the Custom of the Church both Modern we have such a Custom of Baptizing Infants of Believing Patents and we have no Custom approved or General of Baptizing onely Grown Believers As also Ancient Neither the Churches of God have had any such For so though Saint Paul argue N gatively onely the Reason is of as much force and weight affirmatively and the Custom of the Ancient and Modern Church's is good and pleadable both against the New Lights of late scismatical Innovators as also for the old Light of former and present Orthodex Professours As for the Negative the Not or No Custom Primitive and practice Apostolieal of Baptizing again at their growth upon Confession of Faith such as had been Baptized before in their Infancy I do reserve it for at other Place your Dipping Pond of which I shall speak at last onely here I shall bring in the Affirmative That the Ancient Prinritive Churchès succeeding the Apostles what the Apostles themselve did do and practied shall hereafter soon follow did hold and practice the Baptizing of Infants And though I think it will but disturb your Brain and cause you to stop your Nostrils and Mouth who small no sweet Savour or Odour of Antiquity as being one of the New Sent or unsent rather yet notwichstanding I shall and relate the Dictates of some of the Ancient Apostles succeeding Pastors and Fathers of the Church of old and I will do it for others sake who are Lovers of Antiquity but I will do it in English for your sake whom I am Instructing who are no lover of Languages more than you can speak I know you will not take this General Custom and Practice of the Church upon my bare word and present Assertion nor do I desire you should Therefore Remember the dayes of old consider the years of many Generations ask thy Father and he will shew thee thy Elders and they will tell thee ask now of the dayes that are past which were before wheâ—â—er there hath been any such thing as the Baptizing of Infants of Believers You shall readily find the same attested by the Reverend Fathers of the Church the Bishops and Doctors of the dayes of old and years of former Generations to have been so to be the Custom and Practice In a matter of Fact or Practice one Good and Creditable witness is sufficient and that I am sure I have Saint Augustine I mean not onely for the General Practice of Infant Baptism in his dayes and those present tim 's wherein he lived as might easily be shewed our of his Books of Original Sin Chap. 40. Third Book of the Merit of Sin and Remission Chap. 9. Third Book against Julian fourth Book of Baprism against the Donatists c. But also for the former and praeceding Churches up to the Primitive dayes For so Augustine who lived in the year after the Nativity of Christ 39â— and was Presbyter first and after Bishop of Hippo saith thus in his third Epistle to Volusian The Custom of the Mother Church in Baptizing little ones is in no wise to be despised not to be thought needless and were not to be believed but that it was as Apostolicall Tradition This is a very full and clear evidence of an Ecclesiastical Custom an Apostolical Tradition whether written or unwritten that infringeth it not according to that of the Apostle 2 Thest 2.15 hold the Traditons which ye have been taught whether by word or Epistle not to be despised but believed Nor did Augustine utter this suddenly but advisedly and therefore upon second thoughts saith it over again and the more Resolutely in his 15. Sermon of the words of the Apostle Let no man saith he buz or whisper into our eares any Doctrine to the Contrary This Practice of Baptizing Ghildren The Church alwayes had this it hath this it alwayes held this it hath received from the Faith or fidelity of our Ancestors and this it keeps Constantly to the end Therefore doth the same Father so often and so much press this Argument The Churches Practice of Baptizing-Infants upon Pelagius and his followers who were Contemporary with Augustine holding Infants were not taken or tainted with original Corruption and Sin by propagation but only contracted the same by Imitation as in his 150 Epistle unto Sixtus in his second Book of Marriage and Concup 18. Chap. in his first Book against Crescon the Grammarian cap 30. in his fourth Book against the Donat. c. 23. in his sixth Book against Julian one of Pelagius his Schollars or his opinions Now if this had not been truly and undeniably The Custom and Practice of the Church even up to the first and Primitive times as Augustine affitmed Pelagius and his Disciples would soon have fallen foul upon
unclean or unholy But now saith he by your dwelling tegether and owning your former marriage which was lawfull they are holy and clean This in short is the genuen genuine meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture This neither in short nor at length is the meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture for according to this meaning all the children of Heathens and Pagan-Parents lawfully married as they may be and many of them be may be said to be holy and each of the Parents sanctified to the other by their dwelling together and owning their Marriage which was lawfull Which things are nothing pertinent to the Corinthians Question or the Apostles Answer and quite wide and fardistant if not wholly repugnant to the scope of the words and meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture To let pass the non-sense of some part of your Relation and the confusions thereof as to the Question and Answer and your shortning or rather curtailing of them I will set it down to the full because upon this depends as upon a prop or pillar the Frame and Fabrick of all Reasons and Arguments These Corinthians before they received the Gospel and their conversion were of the civil Heathens and Pagans amongst whom the men had their wives and wives their husbands joyned together in lawful Matrimony according to the Customs and Laws amongst them Now when amongst these married couplet sometimes the husband was converted to Christ and became a believer the wife abiding in her unbelief and sometimes the wife was converted to Christ and became a believer the husband rentaining in his Idolatry the Spirit blowing where it listed and grace being free the believing party began to have some scruple of Conscience occasioned it may be upon their knowledge of the Law in Hug. 2.12 and 13. or remembring the fact of Ezra 9 and 10. Chapters or considering its faith and the others infidelity how ill they would comply together and thereupon sent to the Apostle to have his resolution and answer whether they might retain dwell and live with their unbelieving consorts to which the Apostle answereth that if the unbelieving party be pleased and willing to live and dwell with the believing parcy the believing party should not depart and leave the other and giveth them this reason for that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing party the which he asserts by this reason Else were your children unclean but now they are holy Or else this may go for a second doubt and scruple of the Corinthians resolved here by the Apostle for so sure when they scrupled whether their married society as husband wife were lawful in this respect because one party was an Infidel and unclean they doubted next concerning their children whether they should be holy with the believing Parent which was within or unclean with the unbelieving who was without the Church and its Privileges and therefore the Apostle in his answer speaketh to the Case of children also so born as well as he had done to the other concerning the Parents that their children also were holy and not unclean Now it seems the Corinthians rested well satisfied in their Consciences with this Apostolical resolution of this double doubtful Case for he spake as unto wise men able to judge what he said and meant as himself testifieth of them 1 Cor. 10.15 But we have sought out many inventions and though they might be plain Cases with us being thus determined aforchand long ago by an Apostle we have folded them and perplexed them with many intricacies about the senses and meaning of the Canons of that Apostle As what is that sanctification and how the unbelieving wise is sanctified by the believing husband and what is this holiness and how the children of such Parents are said to be holy and not unclean You have already and soon shot your bolts at both at once and thus give the Genuine sense and meaning as you boast of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture that the former resolution Apostolical is to be taken of Matrimonial sanctification as thus the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband so that they are lawfully Husband and Wife And the latter resolution Apostolical is to be taken of Natural holiness as you call it in your third Consideration so as the children of such Parents were not unclean but holy that is not bastards but Legitimates And now I must skip over to that third Consideration mentioned to finde out either some Text of Scripture or some sound of reason there being none betwixt this and that There indeed I finde cited by you 1 Thess 4.3 4. Wherein thus you proceed in the 3. verse the Apostle saith For this is the will of God even your sanctificaion or holinesse What is this sanctification or holinesse it is laid down in the latter part of the verse in those words that you should abstam from Fornication so that from hence it appears what holinesse the Apostle meant before even a Natural holinesse or clean eâ— cleanness that is not born of Fornication and the reason is in the 4. verse that every one of you should know how to posese possesse his vesel vessel in sanctification and honour speaking of Natural holinesse and cleanness of keeping their body c. and so their children come to be clean and holy else were they unclean and unholy First What a Reasoner are you your self may see by making the 4 verse a reason of the 3. verse which is only an explication of it as to the persons to whom he prescribed the duty of abstaining from Fornication and to the means thereof that every one should keep his vessel or body in sanctification c. which is the same thing in substance with the former Secondly You mis-name the thing as well as mistake the reason For it is not a natural holiness or cleanness that the Apostle speaks of or for but a conjugal or civil or moral one nor is Fornication or uncleanness here any natural but a moral civil or conjugal thing or otherwise an unconjugal uncivil and immoral as all other vices and sins are Thirdly If this Text must prove the former Text of the Corinthians to be meant only of Matrimonial sanctification for I hope now you will leave off your Natural holiness Why then this text of the Thessalonians I mean and the uncleanness and holiness there must be restrained to Fornication and chastity but this cannot be because other sans are named and mentioned in that place besides it as that no man go beyond defraud his brother in any matter at the 6. verse and then the Apostle at the 7. verse gives this as a reason common to both and all particulars because God hath not called us to uncleanness but to holiness so that by holiness there is meant not only chastity but justice also and integrity and by uncleanness in justice also fraudulency For the will of God is first
generally set down at the 3. verse and specified in two particulars the one of chastity along to the 6. verse in whcih verse is another particular of justice and at the 7 verse the reason of both is yielded For God hath not called us to uncleanness but holiness which if understood only of Matrimonial uncleannes which is Fornication and holiness which is chastity then the Argument must run thus let no man go beyond his brother in bargining for God hath not called us to fornication but to chastity and so you alone shall run with it for me and follow the consequence thereof which I hold to be of no consquence And fourthly Such another consequence is this uncleanness and holiness or sanctification is put by St. Paul to the Thessalonians for fornication and chastity suppose it so though I grant it not so and therefore the same is meant by St. Paul to the Corinthian when he saith the husband is sanctified by or in or to the wife else the children were unclean but now they are holy as if the same words may not bear divers senses in scveral Text of Scriptures according to the diversity of the matter and scope and how will you shew that chastity among the Heathens and unbelievers is ever called sanctification in Scripture the spirit only being the Spirit of sanctification and the bodies of Heathens and unbelievers being not the Temples of the Holy Spirit and yet you see the Heathen or unbelieving husband or wife is said to be sanctified in or by the believing wife or husband And Fiftly and lastly The Apostle speaketh to the Thessalonians grown persons converted to Christ and tells them for the present and time to come that it is the will of God they should abstain from uncleanness and fornication from fraud and injustice for the one of which you cite Heb. 13.4 also the only tâ—xt you ciâ—e according the sense of it and what 's all this to the unbelievers being sanctified by the believers or their childrens being holy Here was no such mixt conjugal societies of Christians and Gentiles or Heathens and children born of them as appears in that the Apostles saith Let every one of you possesse his vessel in sanctification and not in the lust of Concupisence even as the Gentiles which know not God I am sure the Apostle neither speaks nor means a natural holiness or cleanness that is not born of Fornication as you strangly and inconsiderately blurt out which words I leave to you to put into some Genitive Case for the birth of I know not whom the fathers or children of these Thessalonians for you make no Genuine sense here either of fathers or childrens Natural holiness or cleanness There is a parcel of your third Consideration clapt in by you not belonging to the matter in hand there which according to my custom of right ordering and methodising of your confused stuffe I reserve untill anon to come in its due and proper place I proceed now that I have answered your Allegation for a Natural you would say if you were acquainted with the best spoken of your Sect Matrimonial sanctification Holiness and cleanness to give you my Reasons to the contrary of your Opinion 1. When the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife c. and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband this cannot be meant of Matrimonial sanctity and holiness that their Marriage was good and lawful and chaste for both parties knew that of themselves before nor needed they nor did they here propound any such Quaere unto the Apostle Whether they were at first or still rightly man and wife or were joyned in lawful way of Wedlock whilest they were Heathens And that case was also determined before by the Apostle as the 9 and 10. verses let not the wife depart from the husband and let not the husband put away his wife But the Quaere here was whether the believing party might depart and seperate from the unbelieving party a Brother or a Sister as its more explicated at the 12 and 13. verses so that it seems this Quaere arose from something in difference of Religion that troubled the Conscience of the believing party after his or her conversion as whether it would not be defiled in remaining joyned to Idolaters and Infidels Now suppose the Quaere had been sent to you for answer for I will see how good you are at answers who are so much in Quaeres what will you answer to these Corinthians why thus you do Be content Sirs you have a natural holiness cleanness or your Matrimony is lawful notwithstanding the difference in faith you may live together for all that you are no Adulterers and Adulteresses increase and multiply your children are no bastards but Legitimates But Sir do you think this would have answered their Quaere satisfied their scruple or pacified their Conscience would they not have replyed to you in the words of Job to his Friends We have heard many such things miseralbe Comforters are ye all Job 16.2 Tell us that we know not answer us to that we Quaere you speak that we have not heard we have heard many such things we know all this that we are lawfully man and wife and our children are no Bastards but Legitimater if this be all you can say as good hold your peace for you speak no peace to Conscience Miserable comforters of Conscience are ye all or as in the margent troublesome comforters of conscience are ye all and by this your resolution make our Consciences more troublesome and miserable than before they were Our doubts are whether we that are converts and believers may put away or go from our husbands or wives which are Infidels and unconverted and also his or her children as not belonging to God for part of his people or seed and being as a grief and vexation if not pollutionto us what do you tell us of lawfulness of our Marriages or Legitimacy of our children Can you shew us there is any sanctification betwixt us and our unbelieving consorts whereby we may be induced to live and dewell together any holinesse of our off-spring and children that we may own them as members of the Church of God do this and do somthing else it s nothing you say But I will take off these Corinthians from you Sir and from baiting of you for which you may thank me and will direct them to a more happy and peaceable Comforter ever their own Apostle St. Paul who here fully answereth their doubts and quiets their Consciences telling them that the unbelieving husband is sanctisied by or in the word in the Original beareth all the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by or in the husband meaning though not expressed the believing husband and the believing wife I blamed you Sir before for expressing it in the text where the word believing is not for mentioning it as the fense and scope which my self
now do for the question is what the believing wife or husband is to do with the unbelieving husband and wife Now this goeth and speaketh to the heart as the Hebrews say of these Corinthians and bringeth a calme upon their troubled spirits now if the unbelieving husband bepleased to dwell with his believing wife she is well coutented for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by or in the wife and if the unbelieving wife be content to keep with her believing husband he is as well pleased for the unbelieving wife is sanctified in and by the husband and now also their children are not unclean but holy This of sanctification is such a privilege as is not common to all married folks but peculiar to believing persons so that these may reap such comfort and benefit hereby that their unbelieving consorts are sanctified to or by themselves and they may have not only a lawful enjoyment but also a holy use of their unbelieving yoke-fellows for that God esteems the seed of such to be a holy seed as truly as if both were believers Thus the Apostle his resolution removes that scruple of Conscience telling them the believing husband or wife they were not defiled by remaining joyned with the unbelieving consort but rather that the unbelieving consort was sanctified in or by the believing husband wife he which your sense of natural or Matrimonial chastity or sarctification if you will have the word also is nothing so satisfactory to or answerable for For again if so it should be meant and understood the Reason would have been as good The unbelieving wife or husband is sanctisied by or in the unbelieving husband and wife or the believing Consort is sanctified in and by an unbelieving Consort or the husband is sanctified by the wife and the wife by the husband Let them be what they will believers or unbelievers according to your sense as betwixt whom there is your matrimonial Chastity or lawful Marriage But then it would not have been so true every way as now it is according to my sense for to the pure all things are pure but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their minde and conscience is defiled Titus 1.15 Nay more whereas the believing Consort sanctifieth the unbelieving Consort and not the other way the unbelieving Consort sanctifieth the believing one if matrimonial Chastity or your natural Sanctity were here understood both Consorts would here be sanctified yea both the believing one and also the unbelieving one would be and were hereby sanctified in themselves not by or in one the other for Marriage is honourable amongst all and the bed undefiled Heb. 13.4 And then you may alter the Text of Titus and say to the impure and unbelieving husband or wife also all things are pure 3. they are sanctified even in themselves by their matrimonial Sanctity and natural Chastity and even their minde and conscience is undefiled Besides what an incongruity and inconsistency is there in such a reddition and interpretation the unbelieving wife is sanctified by or in the believing husband that is chastified or matrimonially holy Said I not but even now That chastity amongst the Heathen or spoken of them as here you will have it of the unbelieving is never called Sanctification or Sanctity in Scripture Turn down to your self the one Text and then turn it over to me I gave you also reason for it because their bodies are not the Temples of the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Sanctification and Sanctity But I pray shew me also that one Consort or yoke-fellow doth chastifie or make chaste the other like as the Apostle sheweth you that one doth sanctifie and make holy the other and if so be both Consorts be not chaste how are they made chaste or chastified each by or in other or if but one be unchaste how is he or she chastified or made chaste by or in the other chaste one be it he or she Truly Sir this opinion of yours and your sense here deserves a little to be chastised till it be more sensible yea and chastified too as which doth adulterate and corrupt the purity of the Word and the sanctification of this Text. It may something recreate the Reader if any come to reade these sheetâ— besides your self who do concreate iâ— to intersert what a great Champion of Infant-Baptism hath related of as great an opposer of it about the interpretation of this Text which he holding as you do it to be meant of matrimonial chastity and holiness bringeth forth as a parallel Text the 34 Verse of this Chapter I pray look the Verse it is too longton me to write out twice and he thus rendreth and meaneth it The unmarried cares for the things of God that she may be holy in body and Spirit i.e. That she may be chaste but she that is married cares for the things of the world that she may please her husband The Relator saith of it onely this That in truth it is a pretty odd sense thus invented and that which I onely shall adde is That if thus invented it is hardly in truth and though pretty it is not chaste but holy that the Apostle aimeth at That she being unmarried and free from worldly cares careth the more for the things of God that she may be godly and holy and whether the sense be even or odd I pass not it is odd indeed that the unmarried careth for the things of God that she may be chaste I will make it even and say with the Apostle The unmarried careth for the things of God how she may be holy If you ask me now for my sense and interpretation of S. Paul here to the Corinthians saying The unbelieving Consort is sanctified by or to the believing Consort I gave it you but a little before to be this plainly You believing Consorts may have and have if you dwell together not onely a lawfull enjoyment but a holy use of your unbelieving Consort This I shall elucidate by comparing it with 1 Tim. 4.5 where the creature is said to be sanctified by the word and prayer unto the pure and Believer You may as well limit and restrain the Sanctification here onely to a lawfull use of the Creatures to Believers and unbelievers as you do the other former sanctification onely to the lawfull marriage of the unbelievers and Believers But as I have shewed you the one so I shall now prove that the other holdeth out more to your eyes if you will open them and look on because the Heathens and unbelievers had a lawfull use of the Creatures but S. Paul here to Timothy speaks of such an use of the Creatures as they had not and is appliable onely to Believers and therefore is a holy and sanctified use also not lawfull onely as appears by that which followeth for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer they have the Word to Warrant the use of
doth fully remove those jealousies that might arise in their minds from another Text perhaps they knew of Deut. 7.4 3. ver I shut up the Point with this That howsoever the just and righteous man shall live by his faith yet as the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified by his wife and the unbelieving wife by her husband though it may be not to life or salvation this sanctifying which the Apostle mentions of the unbelieving party is a result of the faith of the believing Consort so the unbeliever is twice said to be sanctified but not the Believer and the Believer doth sanctifie the unbeliever or else I can make no sense of the Apostles Argument And so now by a kinde of back skip I shall return from your third Consideration where you ended about the unbelieving Consorts sanctification by the believing one unto your first Consideration where you begin about their childrens being unclean or holy Do you not see what a great deal of trouble your want of good order and method your ignorance of our University Arts and Learning doth create to me Truly you might pitty me as much for the one as I do you for the other For so the next Quaere or scruple of Conscience in the Corinthian Believers unto the Apostle was what they should do about their children they had or should have begotten of their Infidel husbands or wives whilest they lived and remained in wedlock with these and whether they should look upon them their children as any part of Gods people belonging to the Church and so what he thought of them To which the Apostle answereth they were not unclean but holy But the words are not barely propounded as his Resolution of the Corinthians second Doubt or Quaere but as an addition or proof unto their first Quaere or doubt as the form and manner of the speech sheweth Else were they unclean but now they are holy The like is 1 Cor. 15.29 Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not So here The unbelieving husband is sanctified by his wife c. else were your children unclean but now they are holy As who should say This farther proves that Sanctification because your children are holy which else would be unclean Thus the Apostle here one of these Doubts or Quaeres necessarily flowing from another as one sore breaking out by another by the resolution of the second as it were a Playster laid upon it both salveth that and also spreads and dilateth the same to the more perfect cure of the first But I will give you the precedency of speech as who love to hear you speak first and it is indeed my place to be but an Answerer and so to take into consideration what you put to me Say on therefore and speak out Consider farther first if this holiness here spoken of be a holiness of sanctification such as is the way to heaven and salvation as some will affirm then I pray let me ask you this question from whence this holiness cometh What some will affirm I know not do you then you know the future opinions of some as well and indeed as well as the present minde of the Spirit in this Text. But it s not material to my answering of you what some men will affirm let me hear what either they or you do affirm or tell me the names of those some and then I shall tell whether they do affirm but what they will affirm I leave it to you to foretell and from henceforth to begin to be a Prognosticator or foreteller of weather which you may be better than of the wills of men Again holiness of sanctification Manhu what is this I do not think any will affirm it besides your self either to speak such words being both one not distinct things holiness being the quality or habit and sanctification being but the act and operation of the same so that rather both you and they should have said if you would speak right English or sense The sanctification of holiness than The holiness of sactification But now farther neither is holiness of sanctification here spoken of as to the children in question and under doubt for because you do not specisie whom you speak of and of whom you affirm or deny this your holiness of sanctification let me I pray ask you this question Of whom Parents or their children sure of the children and their holiness for of the unbelieving Parents and their sanctification you have done speaking and your asking me whence this holiness of sanctification cometh and your answering your self Either from the lawfulness of the marriage of their Parents or from the faith of the Parents or from the Covenant these do make clear what you held in obscurity that the holiness here spoken of to be a holiness of sanctification such as is the way to Heaven and Salvation as some will affirm no matter who is intended by you to be or at least questioned if not refuted as to the being of it in the children of Parents whereof one is an unbeliever And now I have another question to ask you Why you joyn together in the children onely sanctification of holiness when as the Apostle divided them betwixt the Parents and their children giving sanctification to the Parents the unbelieving wife or husband is sanctified by the believing Consort and leaving holiness to their children Else were they unclean but now they are holy And lastly for I cannot forget how when time and place was you wearied and tired me with your quaeres I ask you another question If your conjunction holiness of sanctification be not a tautologie or vain repetition whether your limitation following such as is the way to Heaven and Salvation be not a Battologie or needless restriction For is there any holiness or sanctification which is not the way or tending to Heaven and Salvation And now Sir to your question you ask me From whence this holiness that is of children cometh and as soon as you asked this question and before I could open my mouth to make you answer from whence away you are gone to your suppositions If it come from the marriage of the Parents or if from their faith or if from the Covenant and who are you like to herein I will not give you neither time or scope to answer but without all supposition shall say you are like to Pilate who asked Christ this question What is Truth and as soon as he had said it went out unto the Jews as not having the patience to stay for the Answer John 8.38 Whether Pilate were able to answer that question himself What is Truth I know not it seems you are and therefore made such haste away from me to take my breath as it were out of my mouth or rather to stop it and to undertake the answer your self for presently you follow on If it cometh from the lawfulness of the
this sanctification of the believing consort which I put off again from him to you now you ascribe unto him and others and that rightly a foederal holiness to be held of them as meant by the Apostle and if you can and will shew me who hold with him the same foederal holiness that it is not meant but only a legitimal holiness I will be your lawful Atturney to follow this matter in your name and moreover your confederate friends But if I can and shall shew you who with the others of your Sect hold only a Legitimal holiness that it is not here meant but only a foederal holiness then you shall be my confederate friend and moreover my lawful Atturny to prosecute this business in my name it is agreed begin you first so you have already but not to prove any thing either for your holiness of legitimation or against our holiness of federality and thus you say If it be a federal holiness you desire to know whether any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any priviledge of the Church upon any such account without or before they had a commaund for it ware they Circumcised or did they eate the paschal Lambe before they had a commaund for it What! still more rattling without reasoning and prattling without pressing I would you were as desirous to know as here you pretend you would then soon know that your desire to know is not a refuting of what others know nor is your putting forth a Quaere a putting down of our Answer of the foederal holiness of children But what do you desire to know whether any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any privilege of the Church upon any such account of the Covenant you must mean without or before they had a command for it yes Sir all the seed of Abraham did enjoy this holiness they were a holy seed and people unto God because of the Covenant of God made with them and so were a peculiar people and privileged Church before and without a command as for your instance which you bring for proof were they Circumcised or did they eat the paschal Lamb be fore they had a Commaund for it it is as pittiful a proof as the instance is impertinent for our discourse is about holiness from or under the Covenant and your return upon it is about Circumcission and the paschal Lamb the Seals of the Covenant from and under command so according to the proverb whilest we ask the question of Onione you make answer of Garlick other impertinent instances And the proof is as pittiful for though we should grant it that none were Cir. cumcised or did eat the Paschal without or before a Commandement yet were they holy by vertue of Gods Covenant without and before that Commandement yea before and without their being Circumcised all the seven daies before they came under the Seal they enjoyed that Church-privilege of holiness and were holy from the very Womb and birth and some also sanctified in the Womb yea why not all there saederally holy being the seed of faithful Parents and so the seed of David because you mention it the child that died the seventh day and so a day before Circumeifion enjoyed the same Church-privilege of holiness from the Covenant otherwise David could not nor would have said I shall go to it declaring his hopeful assurance of its happiness and being with God from its birth-Covenant holiness knowing that no unclean or unholy thing can enter into Heaven 2 Sam. 12.23 I deny not but children of the Jews were holy also by Circumcision the Seal of the Covenant which was commanded them but they were holy too before that by the Covenant of Grace which was promised them and to argue from their signal or Sacramental holiness to the denial of their foederal or Covenantal holiness when as children have both holinesseâ— is to strain or winde up one bow-string to the snapping asunder of the other bow-string when a man hath two strings to his bow But it seems you would have a command also for childrens holiness by Covenant do you make so little account of Gods holy Covenant as it children upon that account of their entrance and being in Covenant with God could not or should not be accounted holy is Gods Commandement only able to joy them of a Church-privilege and to make them enjoy it and not Gods Covenant and Promise when as the Commandement of God for the holy Seal to be annexed is but a branch of the Promise or Covenant of God and the Covenant goeth before the command and is as a first step or forerunner precedent of holiness as I may so say unto children The first holy Church-privilege is the Promise and Covenant it self and the next is the Seals of the Covenant Holiness is more intrinsical to the Covenant and more extrinsical to the Seal as manifesting a discrimination and difference of holy people from prophane and heathenish so that children of believers may be both waies holy in their order and times but primarily and principally holy by Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are the words and tenour of the Covenant and Promise and they ar eof force and efficacy to pronounce and make holy both father and children that are taken thereinto yea more because I am willing to give you full satisfaction in all your queres and quirkes there is a Commandement also for childrens holiness in those words though they belong to a part of the Covenant interwoven with them Thou shalt be my people thou shalt be a holy Nation a holy seed whereupon the Apostle Rom. 9.4 being to prove the holy privileges of the Church and Nation of the Israelites saith that to them pertaineth the Adoption the Covenants or Testament the giving of the Law the service of God and the Promises and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came all which and especially the Covenant and Promises were sanctifying Ordinances to the Parents and their seed But I hasten to an end and will give over spending my precious time about your nifles and trifles only I cannot but observe you speaking of children and their holiness how you joyn together their being Circumcised and their eating the paschal Lamb and both by a Commandement Take heed what you say children of the Jews did they eat of the paschal Lamb by Commandement of God I shall be ready to give you a fir caution lest you give occasion to a foul notion First therefore be sure of your Commandement to have it in a readiness to shew shew it now and then it willb e in more readiness I have read over the whole institution of the Passeover and cannot finde a syllable of such a command for nor a footstep of such an example of children eating of the paschal Lamb It may be you may finde some tuch thing au-ongst the Rabbins and Doctors of the Synagogues but you I suppofe
so many of them as he did and I would wish you to be very wary when you go over to the Savages in New England and the Pagans in our West Indes that you broach not this either doctrine or interpretation amongst them lest the Parents there and husbands and especially the mothers and wifes fly in your face and all to scratch you and scald you for calling and making their children bastards and left the children 〈◊〉 come forth out of the Cities and mock you and throw stones at you or words as hard Go up thou baldhead he interpretation is bald indeed and hath not one hair of a rational Writer whatsoever the head is or hath under the cap I know not and the she Bears come out of the Wood and tear the false Prophet and interpreter instead of the true children and no bastards What a man are you Sir that thus fill the world with bastards by such your interpretation I mean the world of Pagans and Heathens where man and wife being neither of them believers and so neither sanctified by the other their children must be unclean bastards according to your doctrine and Exposition thus instead of satisfying and pacifying the doubtful and scrupulous consciences of some converted yoke fellows the other remaining unconverted you will trouble and disquiet a world of consciences or the conscience of the greater part of the world which being unconverted and lying in infidelity must sadly look upon their issue as bastardly and illegitimate because unclean Yea this will make such mutinies insurrections in those Kingdoms that there will be no Conscience of peace made as no peace of conscience successions in them and all inheritances may be hereby questioned and overthrown by this your Divinity although it be not good Humanity Yea those worthy Primitive Christians converted by the Apostles who were born in Paganism of both Infidel Parents must lie under your censure and sense of bastardy until you release them and the very father of the faithful Abraham himself cannot escape you but by your exposition must be a bastard too as whose Parents were Idolaters both and servers of other gods than the true one Jos 24.2 I pray you Sir you that pretend so much to the language of the Spirit as if it were your Mother-Tongue the cloven Tongue of the Spirit as also to exposition according to the minde of the Spirit as you said of your self even now as if you were the Spirits Secretary or Clerk of its Closet shew me such a language of the Spirit such a minde of the Spirit in any one Text throughout the whole Bible for this in hand fails of it where a child or children of two unbelieving or Infidel Parents lawfully married together are called or but intimated bastards and will you have the face and impudency without any exemplary Text or parallel Scripture or miraculous gift of Prophesie it would be miraculous indeed if you were so gifted but indeed miraculous gifts are ceased and they were for confirmation of Truths not for confusion of them as are your prophesyings to affirm such children bastards as you cannot avoyd it whilest you interpret the children in St. Paul whereof but one of the Parents in lawful wedlock is an Infidel or unbeliever are therefore caleld holy because they are legitimates or lawfully born and not bastards and when you have done it or before you do it to call it the genuine sense and meaning of the Text and to father it as it were upon the Spirit to be an exposition according to the minde thereof And so now having gone thus far against your interpretation of bastardly uncleanness and legitimal holiness I shall now come back to mine which is also the Exposition generally of all Orthodox Baptist Protestants and I may adde more truly an Exposition according to the minde of the Spirit and the very genuine sense of the Text. For I suppose you will not deny but the minde of the Spirit was in Paul Now Paul was of this minde you must confesse it That children of though but one Christian Parent were holy in the Scripture phrase in the Spirits language in the Churchs relation and if they be judged and reputed such esteemed and spoken of as such by Paul I shall not hereafter much minde or regard what they are in your or others mindes and meanings expositions and interpretations For if the Apostle reputeth them so then God reputeth them so in some things the Apostle said I but not the Lord 1 Cor. 7.10 in other not I but the Lord 12 ver but in this I and the Lord for not I saith he i.e. I onely but the Lord also verse 14. the believing wife is sanctified by the husband c. else were your children unclean but now they are holy I said before that such holiness is here meant and spoken of as is opposite to uncleanness as appears in the very words placed and set in opposition one to the other else they were unclean but now they are holy but to what uncelanness not to the uncleanness of bastardy as you will have it to make up a holiness onely of legitimation both which I have refelled but the uncleanness of infidelity or a state out of Covenant as our Divines will have it to make up the holiness of these children a holiness of federation or federal holiness For so this state out of Covenant as Infidelity and Paganism and Idolatry is very often stiled and called uncleanness as I touched before and such Infidel and Idolatrous Parents or people are even named Adulterers and Fornicators and said to go a Whoring after strange gods or Idols and so it s the condition and denomination of their children to be called unclean all after a Spiritual or Ecclesiastical sense But you cannot shew me where by unclean are meant bastards though bastards may be called unclean for where the unclean persons are reckoned up bastards are not mentioned But if this must go for an Exposition of the Text and that according to the minde of the Spirit as thus unclean i.e. Bastards then the terms or words must go or run true both waies backward and forward that bastards are unclean and the unclean are bastards And whereas bastards amongst the Jews might not by their Laws bear any Office in Magistracy ordinarily for Jephthah was extraordinarily chosen by God and the people for this valour nor sit in the Sanctuary nor execute any Priestly Office as over the Congregation of the Lord Deut. 13.7 like as by the Civil Laws they could not enjoy Inheritances yet they were Circumcised and might eat the Passeover and had free accesse to the Temple and Tabernacle to perform worship and hear the Law and were federally holy as any legitimates But for the particular of infants holiness I say 1. in general Any person or family for so it was at first in Abraham or Nation as afterwards it was with the Jews and is now with the
Gentiles that are in Covenant with God and enjoy the Ordinances of his grace and mercy do also by vertue of Gods Promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed convey to their issue and posterity a state and privilege and so rather it is the joynt Covenant made by God with both together the Parent and his issue and posterity to be reputed of a holy and clean society and Congregation before God from the other Pagan and heathenish world and so the child or children born of such Parents in Covenant to be truly holy like as the Parent because of the Covenant Not that insants have any real personal qualitative holiness in them which is and must be in all true believers whither Parents or children to make them acceptable to God as to justification and Salvation whom I confess though born within the Church and of believing Parents to be born in sin naturally and be unclean children of wrath by nature as well as others the children of Pagans without the Church But I say they have a federal and parental so it may be called by a savory mouth and relative or imputative holiness put upon them by the Covenant of God and brought forth or executed on them by or at their birth of believing Parents which is sufficient and enough to make them passe in the eyes of God and in the face of the visible Church for clean and holy or if not their professions of the faith of Christ for you will not deny them to be professors of Christ and members of the Church in part and in kinde at leastwise by the mouth of their Sureties presenting them and speaking for them this will bear them out to be holy likewise And what if I should tell you in your ear that Christian infants in Covenant with God are holy too by an inward holiness also are not all inward sanctifying graces effects of Gods Covenant and who knoweth when God as where he effects them you perhaps would stop that ear cry out Then grace which onely maketh holy cometh successively and is derived by nature and Parents shall be the authors and conveighers of grace and holiness to their children No such matter Sir For the children are primitively holy with the Parents by the Covenant as co-partners and confederates with them therein I will be thy God and the God of thy seed not derivatively holy from the Parents as solely or first partners and prefederates without these Christian Parents and children are both joynt confederates I say and do both draw and derive together their holiness as other privileges from the Covenant and Tenour of grace therein and not successively from one another children from Parents derivatively as you fondly fansie to your self and erroniously imagine The which truth may also serve much to clear off those cloudy difficulties so much pressed by the Anabaptistical party from the Jesuitical side about infants being Baptized sanctified saved by the faith of their Parents as they use to blate and bâ—â—e abroad You like enough before you will believe any holiness in them would have them shew some such thing either in words before they can speak and whilest they are infants that is nonfants or indeed before they have any idoneity of instruments and ability to act Have patience a while and you may hear them speak the words and see them do some acts of holiness What! are you so sensual all for sense and so altogether lead by sense that nothing but a sensative or sensible manifestation of holiness in children will be believed by you I had thought you had walked by faith and not by sight you believe a holiness in other things in Faith in the Word in the Sacraments in the Church of God and in all things which the holy Scriptures the oracles of holiness have pronounced holy though you have not a visible and sensible demonstration of holiness in them you walk by faith there and not by fight and why cannot you believe a holiness in children of Christian Parents in Covernant with God though they shew forth no sensible effects of such holiness seeing also the same holy Scripture doth call them holy and not unclean and so supplying their defect of speech and action giveth you what you ask even a sensible manifestation of their holiness and speaks them holy unto your ears not declares them holy to your eyes so you may now walk by sight and hear say not by faith and hope limping and halting therein for except you shall see in their hands and tongues the prints of holiness in works and words and perhaps thrust your fingers into their fides to feel the holiness of their hearts too in affections and thoughts you will not believe What and if our Saviour Christ should now as once take one of our little children in Covenant with him and set it before you and say whosoever humbleth himself as a little child the same is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven would it not be strange for you to tell him you see no such yet you hear of such humility lowliness meakness mildness innocency in children and is it not a like to tell him you see no such holiness here when you hear of it from the mouth of Christ his and this Apostle Paul here saying They are holy But that I have said it before and already I would say that even children shew themselves more bumble lowly meek mild and innocent and so more holy than a great many of your grown Professors and grand Pretenders unto holiness and all those graces let their holiness and other graces rest but a while as seed hidden up in their hearts or wrapped up in Gods Covenant with them and see if afterwards they do not shew it and their holiness break not forth as the light at noon day that was within the cloud or as the seed in harvest that was within the clod and in the mean time shew me thy faith by thy works and thy holiness by thy words and learn to speak better of childrens holiness and to do better with children for their holiness even so well as to let them be Baptized But besides this in hand there are two eminent Texts that hold out infants of Christians their holiness by Covenant the one is Rom. 11.16 If the first fruit be holy the lump also is holy and if the root be holy so are the branches I know the stream of our Divine Advocates for Infant-Baptism run altogether and out of this Text upon a derivative holiness from the Parents or Ancestors to their children which notwithstanding they call and make a federal holiness I am not willing in my old and infirm daies to strive or swim against a stream onely I will be bold to venture and wade so far as to hint again and mention unto those akilful steersmen now especially that the waters of strife about Infant-Baptism are risen high
your flesh Interperate what 's that is it not Intemperate or interprate sure it is not to interpret Scripture No marvel indeed if you would have me To confider of these things you have written with an unbiassed spirit and a self-denying humble spirit such as those spirits are that are guided by the spirit of the Lord For surely then your spirit hath not been guided by the Spirit of the Lord as which is or hath been in your Letter a byassed spirit and an all other besides your self denying proud spirit and therefore without any just ground you arrogate those words of the Apostle to your own practise saying as he 2 Cor. 2.17 We are not as many which corrupt or deal deceitfully with the Word but as of seneâ—rity sincerity but as of God in the sight of God speak we in Christ What you speak when you are teaching and expounding or praying I know not this I know by the experience you have given of your self to me that in your writing and citing Scriptures in your Letter you are the most corrupter and the most deceiptful dealer and wrester also of Scripture that ever I read I do not know many scarce any that go beyond you except your Masters and Tutours you know whom I mean and your sincerity is as false spoken as written of you if as of sincerity as of God in the sight of God you shall speak in Christ it will be acceptable as to God so to man and my self if renouncing the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness not handling the Word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth you commend your self to every mans conscience in the sight of God as you add of your selfe 2 Cor. 4.2 Comparing spiritual things with spiritual but so you did not when you compared the holy and legitimates together and the unclean with bastards to go no farther backward And Scripture with Scripture for Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture neither did you so when you could finde no Scripture to compare with 1 Cor. 7.14 that either did interpret or intimate bastards to be unclean and much less fignified by this word there or legitimates to be holy and much less meant by this word there For that in the close of your Letter which concerneth my self in particular as That you should gladly see better fruits from me If I knew what fruits you mean I should soon tell you whether or no I should ever glad you so much as to see them but if they relate to which immediately goeth before them the wresting of Scriptures by Humane learning I must tell you that the root that I am graffed into and which beareth me shall ever I hope bring forth better fruits though I question your gladness in seeing them as being opposite to your fruits who throughout your whole Letter have been gathering yea pulling and enforcing thornes of grapes and thistles of figs divers errorneous Tenets from Texts that will not nor can bear them the which I am sorry to see from you And for your intreating me to lay aside all selfe-ends and by-respects you must pardon me herein for I took up the defence of my self and my Ministery and Infant-Baptism as well as of others making both my end next unto Gods glory and the truth without any other by respects which I must not upon your request lay aside but for that which followeth I have seriously considered the things and words of God spoken by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures which were all written for our learning and imitation yea moreover have enformed you in particular how far forth all which were written for our learning were written for our imitation some of them and some of them not which you indistinctly and confusedly jumble together yea and according to your farther intreaty I have turned to and looked into all those Scriptures you have but quoted and named and not written out for want of time as you say and have writ out all the words of most of them as who never want time to search out the Truth of the Scriptures if I want not health Your self best know whether it was for want of time or for want of truth you did not transcribe the words as making most an end nothing to the purpose or Point for which you set down and multiplied Chapters and Verses by their figures onely and whether this was Not walking in craftiness nor handling the Word of God deceiptfully but by a manifestation of the Truth a commending your self to every mans Conscience whether this was of sincerity as of God as in the sight of God spoken or written judge you but judge righteous judgement for God will who trieth the heart c. For that in the close still of your Letter which concerneth your self it is your desire that wherein you have erred I would inform you by plain Scripture It is done to your hand but I fear it is not gone to your heart whose heart was and is I surmise resolved before hand as your hand laid upon your heart to that purpose of not acknowledging any error or submitting to information for what hope or likelihood is there hereof when as presently you adde You are confident heare here is nothing aserted asserted nor queared but will now appeare a truth proved by Scriptures and likewise will appeare at the great day Wherefore then do you intreat me to weigh things seriously and if you have erred in any thing to inform you when as you are confident here is nothing asserted or quaered but will now appear a truth just as the man in the Gospel professed to follow our Saviour Christ and went away presently about other matters of no such consequence you likewise say you will be informed by me wherein you have erred and in the next words you are confident of nothing asserted or quaered by you here but the very Truth I am perswaded the work will be much alike the informing you to the laying down of any error of yours and the washing of a Leopard to the putting off any of its spots But I should gladly see better fruits from you than such a non resolution and brasse-forehead which for the most part is in most of the Revolters from our Church and the Truth as not to be conformed and converted when informed confuted notwithstanding Though I have laboured in vain and spent my strength for nought and in vain yet surely my judgement is with the Lord and my work with my God Isa 49.4 But Sir are you confident that there is nothing â—sserted or quaered but will appear a Truth what that which is asserted by you may appear let passe buâ— sure that which is quaered by you here will not now appear a Truth neither now nor never will it be a Truth no not at the great day that which is quaered onely your Quaeres were your judgement as you affirmed before now you affirm they are a
how quickly it hath made you a right and perfect Scribe and taught you the art and skill and practice too of your master which is to pervert Scripture wresting it to your own ill intents and purposes and worsting it against its own good meaning and sense For all this that you have cited here The accusation of a new thing may justly and manifestly still lie against you for your dipping whilst there goeth along with them and their conquering the Revelation of a new song or that new song of the Revelation But I must remember that I have entitled this to be a word and work of Catechising the Dipper as I have Instructed the Scribe And instead of many Quaeres which I received I shall give but these four Questions 1. Was not the person dipping a new thing 2. Persons dipped a new thing 3. Place where a new thing 4. And the very Dipping it self for the 1. Action 2. Maner a new thing If either of them be such then let this be my first Catechistical Quaere to you of the person Dipping and tell me or shew me Quaere 1. What warrant you have from any precept or example in facred Scripture or succeeding Primitive Antiquity for one Lay-Breother no Minister called or ordained to be the Dipper or Bapitzer of another or any Paul indeed Baptized Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1.14 16. The same Paul baptized the jaylor and all his and a certain woman named Lydia Acts 16.14 33. Peter baptized Cornelius and his houshold Acts 10.48 So Ananias baptized Saul Acts 9.18 Philip baptized the people of Samaria and Simon the sercerer Acts 8.12 13. And the three thousand souls which were added unto the Church were baptized by the twelve Apostles with the assistance of the seventy two Disciples Acts 2.38 41. And so the Commission was given by Christ to the Apostles as of Preaching so of Baptizing Mat. 28.19 20. And so it was from the beginning The first Baptist was John who baptized all them of Judea and Jerusalem and Christ himself and his Disciples Now John I know and Philip I know and Ananias I know and Paul I know and Peter I know and the twelve Apostles I know and the seventy two Disciples I know and the seven Deacons I know that they were servants of the most High sent and appointed of God to shew unto us the way of salvation and to minister the holy Ordinances Acts 16.17 Acts 10.15 But who are ye Ye that go for Dippers And whereas it is said that Peter commanded them tob e baptized it seems that together with Peter some other Brethren also present there either assisted in bringing water or it may be in pouring on water or aspersing therewith the houshold of Cernelius but at the command and call of Peter and God chiefly who had baptized them before with the holy Spirit Besides they the Brethren were some such of the Disciples who had before an ordinary calling to such like work if not here they had extraordinary to this in present Thus John 1.25 the Pharisees I wonder how the Scribes hypocrites kept off for if as usually they had been here joyned then you and yours had been here fetcht in in their scrupling at John resolved the point saying unto him Why baptizest thou then if thou be not that Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet And at the 33. verse John sheweth his Authority namely his Mission He that sent me to baptize with water The Baptist was of Gods sending nay when Johns disciples came and told him saying Rabbi He that was with thee beyond Jordan to whom thou barest witness behold the same baptizeth and all men come to him John answered and said A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven John 3.26 27. So giving us a rule in general first No man can lawfully baptize except he be authorized from above that is sent of God So at 34. ver he applieth and expoundeth in the particular of himself as before so here of Christ He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God And thus the Author to the hebrews Chap 5. ver 4. giveth both the same Rule in general No man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron Also maketh the application in particular to Christ ver 5. So also Christ glirified not himself to be made an high priest but he that said Thou art my son he said also Thou art a priest c. To circumcise was a ward of the Legal and to baptize of the Evangelical Keyes and they belonged onely to the Priests and Apostles and their successors in both admiministrations So then still I ask the Question Who are ye who take upon you I hope not to call over them which have evil spirits the name of the Lord saying We adjure you by Jesus yet to call over them whom ye think to have the holy Spirit The name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost saying We baptize you in the name of these § 1. Your answer is They are Brethren set apart by fasting and prayer of the Church to administer holy Ordinances But if this would do it that they are Brethren and that they are set apart why do ye not all at times become Dippers for ye are all spearate Brethren there is but one letter less and as little literature in a brother separate then or as in a brother sot apart And if truly set apart to administer holy Ordinances why do they not give over as in ordinary their secular Trades and Laicall Callings and wholly or chiefly tend upon such Administrations unto which they are set apart for so is both the precept and example of the word you so much pretend to Separate me Barnabas and Sakl for the work whereunto I have called them Acts 13.2 Give thy self wholly unto them i.e. Reading Doctrine Exhortation and the Gifts given thee 1 Tim. 4.15 It is not meet we should leave the Word of God and serve Tables Acts 6.2 and much less Stalls § 2. If set apart by or of whom I pray by and of the Church you say and what Church do you mean sure your own small private company of Believers or be you a great publique multitude of them And now are you not again out of the good old way yes sure for Christ never gave unto such a Church no not to the whole community of people Believers as Believers any such power and authority to set apart a Brother or Brothers to admi-ister the Ordinances of Christ as Preaching Baptizing but onely to such as himself chose out of the Church and believers to be Guides and Pastors of the same So of old Ephes 4.11 He gave some Apostles and seme Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and it followeth for the Church its perfecting and edifying c. not to the Church to ordain and set apart the Authority is Christs to