Defense of the Synod of Dort, Chapter 6

Defense of the Synod of Dort · Chapter 6

p. 147CHAP. VI.

Of Baptisme.

IN the next place they come to Baptism, in which they think themselvs in their element, as a fish in the water. And beginning with Iohns Baptism, they will hauehave it soPag. 129. called, as Paul cals the Gospell his, Rom. 1. 16, But they mistake. It was so called, because Iohn was (under God) the first, both instituter, and exerciser of it. By their rule Iohn p. 148Murton, might be called Iohn Baptist. Secondly, they err in saying, Baptism is repentance for the remission of sins, &c. Repentance goes before Baptism: Repentance is inward; the Baptism Act. 2. 38. 2 Tim. 2. 25Acts 2:382 Tim 2:25outward, of which our question is. God giues repentance; Men confer Baptism: Repentance is mans work; for it is man that repenteth by grace: Baptism (considered as inward) is Gods work; as outward, the Ministers under God. They affirm, p. 169, that the baptizing, or washing, of which we speak, is an action of the hand. Is repentance so with these men? Indeed that repentance upon which they rebaptize, is rather the work of their hands, then of Gods.

The Scriptures alledged, pag. 129. 130, shew what is requiredPag. 129. 130. of men of years, before they be baptized: but are misapplyed, as a bar, to the Infants of beleevers. Divers of them might more colourably, though alike untruely, be brought to proue, that no infants could be saved; as else-where hath beenRelig. Com. Pag. 71. 72. shewed them.

Their answer to the objection, pag. 130, is but the fencing of their own stroak. We willingly acknowledge, that the doctrine and practise for baptizing men of years, brought to beleev by preaching, and unbaptized before, is perpetuall. This was the state of the persons instanced; and this alone the places cited doe proue.

ADVERSARIES.

AGainst the baptizing of Infants, they alledg, that there is neither commandment, nor example, nor true consequence for Pag. 131.it in Chrsts Testament, which is perfect, &c.

DEFENCE.

THE perfection of Christs Testament we avow, and that the estate of the Church under the Ministery, and Institution of the Apostles, those great Maister-builders, was most perfit, as otherwise, so in respect of Ordinances. But in saying, that we grant, that there is neither commandement, nor example for baptising infants, they take their own presumption for p. 149our grant. We grant that the Scriptures no where say in expresse terms Baptise infants, or that Infants were baptised: But withall they should consider with us, that whatsoever can by just consequence be drawn out of the Scriptures, expounded in their largest extent, is conteined in them first: els how could it truly be drawn out of them? whatsoeuer then can be drawn by true consequence out of a commandement, is commanded in it, though not expresly, yet truly, and aswell, as if it were expressed. Else how could all duties towards God and our neighbour be commanded in the decalogue, called the ten commandements? Surely not; except things be commanded which are not expressed, if by consequence they can be gathered. Else how could Christ say frō Deuteronomy. It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onelyonly shalt Math. 4. 10Matt 4:10thou serue? Whereas the word onelyonly, upon which the speciall weight of Christs answer lyeth, is not expressed, but the thing onelyonly included, & thence to be truely, & necessarily collected.

But let us trace their foot-steps in disproving manifestly our consequences, and taking away clearly all our objections to every mans conscience, in the sight of God: If bold promises may bee taken for due performances.

And first, in observing what Baptism is, they again untowardlyPag. 132. 133. confound the inward and outward Baptism. Which though they ought not to be separated by Gods appointment, yet are too oft by mans default, and should alwaies by us be distinguished: the outward, as the work of mans hand, as themselvsPag. 169. elsewhere confesseth; from the inward, as the work of God alone: the former being with water, the latter with the Holy Math. 3. 11 Ioh. 1. 31. 33.Matt 3:11John 1:31John 1:33Ghost; as Iohn expresly distinguisheth his baptizing, and Christs that came after him.

The meaning of the English Primer, and of Vrsinus, they mistake. They speak of the inward and outward Baptism joyntly: wheras our question is, of that which is outward, and in mans power to giuegive, or with-hold. So the faith and repentance, which they require in persons to be baptized, is actuall indeed, in men of years, but in Infants onelyonly in disposition. p. 150Neither doth Ursinus simply say, that the Sacraments are no Sacraments in an unlawfull use▪ as they cite him, but that they are not Sacraments, but to them that receiv them with true faith, onelyonly they hauehave benefit by them. In like manner, the Apostle tels the Corinthians; that their comming together, was not to eat the 1 Cor. 14. 20.1 Cor 14:20Lords Supper; that is, not for the better, as v. 17; else they did eat the Lords Supper outwardly. So elsewhere, Hee is not a Rom. 2. 28.Rom 2:28Iew, which is one outwardly; neither that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh, that is, not, that wherein God took delight; else, he was a Iew, and that was circumcision, after a sort.

I demand of these Rebaptizers, whether Simon Magus, being baptized by Phillip, and yet remaining in the gall of bitternes, Act. 8.Acts 8and without all part in the ministration of the Gospell: and so whether those false brethren creeping in unawares, and being (withoutGal. 2. 4. Iude 4.Gal 2:4Jude 1:4 doubt) baptized by the Apostles, or others, had that inward, and greater Baptism or no? If not, as is plain, how were their Baptism a Sacrament in the lawfull use? And if God gaue any of them repentance afterward, were they to be baptized anew as being unbaptized before, because they wanted the inward and greater Baptism, when they received the other? I suppose no, even in these mens judgments. If any object, that the fault here was onelyonly in the baptizeds unfitnesse in Gods sight, he saith truely, but must withall remember, that notwithstanding, the inward and greater Baptism wanted, which by their ground should hauehave made a meer nullity of the other. And note heerewith as of speciall consideration, that Baptism is most corrupted by an unworthy receiver: since both the Baptism is ministred, and the baptizer ministreth for the baptizeds sake; who being impure himselfe, all things are impure unto him: and that his baptism, no baptism of the LordTit. 1. 15.Titus 1:15 to him in right use, but rather a prophane usurpation, till by his faith and repentance, God afterwards giving them, it become the Lords baptism to him, for the confirmation of hi… faith, in the bloud-shedding of Christ for his sins.

Neither is it requisite, that we proue, as they require of us, p. 151that Infants hauehave faith and repentance: but let them proue, which they presume, but proue not, that the actuall having, and manifesting of these graces (being conditions requisite for men of years) are to be exacted of Infants, if they be admitted to Baptism. May they not as reasonably, and charitably, conclude, that Infants are not to eat, because they worke not, from 2 Thess. 3; and are to be damned, because they beleev not, from Mark. 16. 16. And was there not that required at Abrahams hands for his circumcision, which was not required at Isaaks for his? Or not more of such Heathenish men of yeares as became Proselytes, then of their Infants, to be circumcised with them? The ground of this errour in so many is, that they understand not the true nature of the Gospell, and Ordinances thereof. The Gospell aymes not at the exacting upon man (as made after Gods own image) obedience due, as a naturall debt from the creature to the Creator, as the Law doth, but considers him as a most miserable creature▪ drowned in sin, and altogether unable to help himselfe: neither yet servs it, and its Ordinances, primarily to declare and manifest, what man in right owes, and performs to God; but what God in mercy, purposeth, & doth, and will perform to man: being foreign a joyfull message, or glad tydings of salvation by Christ. So, to apply this for the baptizing of Infants, albeit they on their part, can for the present, make no manifestation or declaration of obedience or thankfulnesse, or any other goodnesse: yet sufficeth it for Evangelicall dispensation, that God, according to the Covenant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, can and will make manifestation and declaration of his gracious minde of washing them, with the bloud and spirit of his Son, from the guilt and contagion of sin: they also, being bound in their times, to reciprocall duties. Let us not think scorn, as proud freewillers doe, of Gods taking, both of us, and our infants, to be his people, going before our, or their taking of him to be our God: But let us rather magnifie his merciemercy in this regard, both towards us, and them.

p. 152ADVERSARIES.

NExt, they undertake to proue, that Infants are not regenerate, and so not to be baptized. Their reason is, becausePag. 134. they hauehave not faith and repentance. This Regeneration they define to be a turning from sin to God: which they would proue from Rom. 6. 11.

DEFENCE.

THE Apostle, Rom. 6, speaks not of regeneration it self, which is Gods work: but of our living to God, as an effect therof. For as our naturall life is an effect of our first generation, or begetting by our parents: so is our spirituall life an effect of our regeneration by God, and his Word, and Spirit. Turning from sin is mans work, by Gods grace: Regeneration is Gods work, not mans. So for Repentance, they roav about it on all sides, but scarse touch the true nature of it. Repentance, to wit, Evangelicall, required for Baptism in men of years, is neither a sight, and knowing of sin by the Law, for that the wicked also doe: nor a confessing of sin, for that is outward, and follows repentance in the heart: nor a sorrow for sin, for that goes before it: nor a promise to forsake sin, for… Cor. 7. 10 that follows after it, as an outward effect: no, nor yet properly, an endevour to forsake it, though that come nearest. Repentance is properly, a growing wise afterwards, and changing of the minde from sin to God, in the purpose of the hea…t…, having an effectuall endevour to forsake sin accompanying it, as the effect thereof.

Now their argumentation in this place, that because Infants hauehave not faith, and repentance, to wit, actuall, and that in manifestation also (which are the conditions required in men of years for their Baptism, and the inseparable fruits of regeneration) therefore they are not regenerate, and so not capable of Baptism, is, as if some idiot would affirm, that infants are not born, nor to be reputed reasonable creatures, nor endued with the faculties of understanding and reason, because p. 153they make no manifestation thereof, no more then bruits doe.

Their proofs against the Regeneration of Infants thus disproved, I manifest the contrary, as followeth.

Christ the Lord teacheth, that except a man be born, or (as theIoh. 3. 5▪John 3:5 word more properly imports) begot again, hee cannot enter into Gods Kingdom. Either therfore regeneration is to be granted Infants, or Gods Kingdom to be denyed them. If any say, this is meant of men of years onelyonly, the Text convinceth him; which opposeth the first birth, or generation, (which is of Infants) to the second regeneration: The first, as v. 6, being of the flesh, making them so born uncapable of Gods Kingdom, without the second, by the spirit.

Secondly, they confesse, else-where, that all, by Adams Pag. 123.fall hauehave that weak flesh, Rom. 8. 3, by which they cannot keep the Law, &c. Now I demand, whether Infants to be glorified, carry this weak flesh, (hindring thus effectually true holinesse) into heaven with them, or no? If not, as is certain, then it must be purged out of their soules, and hearts, as the seat, and subject therof. But nothing can purge out that which is contrary to holinesse, saue the holy Spirit of God, the Spirit of regeneration, which lusts against the flesh, and is contrary Gal. 5. 17.Gal 5:17unto it: either therfore they must be regenerated, or not glorified.

Thirdly, the Scriptures teach, that by the spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of life for righteousnesse, dwelling in us, our bodies Rom. 8. 10. 11. Pag. 123.Rom 8:10Rom 8:11shall be quickned, and raised up unto glory. Children therefore, by their grant, being to be raised again, and glorified by Christ, must hauehave Christs spirit, which is the spirit of sanctification, and regeneration, dwelling in them.

Lastly, joyn with these things, that all are by nature, I say by nature, with the Apostle, not by act alone, as say the Adversaries, children of wrath, having right to wrath, as childrenEph. 2. 3.Eph 2:3 to their fathers inheritance; and therewith, that baptism is the lavacher, or washing of regeneration; it will follow, thatTit. 3. 5.Titus 3:5 children, if to be freed from the wrath to come, and glorified, are to be regenerated and baptized also. Christ saues, and p. 154so glorifies, his body onelyonly, which is the Church; which he sanctisies Eph. 5. 23. 26. Eph. 44 5Eph 5:23Eph 5:26with the washing of water, and the word: and there is one body, and one baptism.

ADVERSARIES.

THeir Answers to the Scriptures, brought for the baptizing Pag. 134. 135.of the Infants of beleevers follow. To Act. 2. 38. 39. Repent, and be baptized every one of you &c. for the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are a farre off, even as many as the Lord shall call: they answer, that this is meant of such fathers of the Iews, and their children, and fathers of the Gentiles, and their children, as beleev, viz. both fathers and children, and that by children are oft meant men of yeares, in the Scriptures, specially Abrahams children.

DEFENCE.

THat such are sometimes meant, wee grant: but deny that meaning in this place. And first, by them a far off, are not meant the Gentiles far off in state, as Eph. 2, but the Iews, far off in time, as the originall carries it. Besides, neitherforeign was Peter himselfe, as yet, sufficiently perswaded of the calling of the Gentiles, Act, 10: neither if he had, was it, as yet, seasonable to mention that matter to the Iews.

Secondly, in saying, the promise is made to you, and your children, hee speaks of some solemn promise made to them all, and the same to hauehave its fruit and effect in them, and their children with them, upon their repentance. This could be no other, then that promise made to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, in that blessed seed Christ.

Thirdly, he exhorts the Iews to repent, and to be baptized, for that the promise was unto them and their children; and therein shews, that he speaks not of a promise made to Abrahams children, upon their faith and repentance, as they mistake: but on the contrary exhorts to repentance, upon a promise made. The promise is the ground of the exhortation, and presupposed by the Apostle, as going before it. Hence also it is, that p. 155hee cals the Iews, which had denyed and killed the Lord of life, Chapt. 3. 25and not yet repented, as appears, v. 19, Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, which God made with the fathers: with which accords that, Act. 13. 32. 33. They were not therfore here called, the children of the promise because they repented; for that they did not: but because they came of Abraham, Isaak and Iakoh, and so had Christ promised unto them as their King and Saviour: and so were by faith and repentance to receiv the fruit of the same promise, and the confirmation or seal thereof by Baptism to them and their children. Of which here, and every where, they are exhorted not to depriue themselvs and theirs. Neither is this exhortation to repent, and be baptized, made to the children, but to the parents for the obtaining of the benefite and confirmation by Baptism, of the promise both to parents and children.

If any demand, Was not Christ promised to the Gentiles also? I answer, not as to the Iews: He was promised to theMat. 21. 5. 43. Luk. 19. 12 14. Eph. 2. 19.Matt 21:5Matt 21:43Luke 19:12Eph 2:19 Iews (indefinitely, as the Church of God, and Abrahams seed) as being their King; but to become the King of the Gentiles: the Iews were his Citizens; the other were, by faith, to become his Citizens, and of the houshold of God.

ADVERSARIES.

TO 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unholy, but now are they clean: they answer, that the beleevers children were no otherwise holy, then as their unbeleeving wiues were holy, namely, to be used by their parents.

DEFENCE.

HEre first, as commonly, they treasonably clip the Lords coyn in leaving out, for their advantage, to the beleeving husband, and to the beleeving wife. The Apostle saith simply, The children are holy; so saith he not simply, that the unbeleeving wife is holy; but holy to her beleeving husband; and the unbeleeving husband sanctified, or holy, to the beleeving wife: asTit. 1. 15.Titus 1:15 all things are pure to the pure.

p. 156Now for the better clearing of this place, the Apostles drift is to be considered: which was to teach beleeving husbands, that they might lawfully, and without scruple, keep, and converse with their unbeleeving wiues, (and so beleeving wiues with their unbeleeving husbands) as being sanctified to them, though not in themselvs. This he proues by an Argument taken from their children, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: that is, if the beleeving husband might not lawfully retain his unbeleeving wife, then the children so born should be unholy: but they are holy. Whereupon it follows, that he may lawfully keep and converse with her. This word foreign, else, or otherwise, ever includes in it a casuality: as Math. 18. 32, because thou desiredst me: & ch. 27. 6, because it is the price of bloud. So 1 Cor. 5. 10, Else, or for then you must goe out of the world: As if he had said; seeing Christians are not to goe out of the world, but to liue in it, they may therfore eat with the fornicators of the world: So here, seeing your children thus born are not unclean, but holy; therfore you may and ought to retain your (though unbeleeving) wiues. The Apostle therfore making the children holy, and their holinesse a ground of the husbands lawfull keeping, and conversing with his wife, can hauehave respect to no other thing then the Covenant with Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; as a known and received ground by the Corinthians, and all other Churches. This will yet be the more plain, if we bear in mind, that the question propounded to Paul by the beleeving Corinthians was, not whether they might keep their children or no, but their wiues. Hee had therfore no occasion of mentioning the children, as he doth, but to fetch from them an Argument for the retaining of the wiues. Now, if his meaning were, as they say, that the children were holy to the beleevers use, as the wife was, then he should hauehave argued from the holinesse of the wife, to proue the holinesse of the children: But thus he doth not, but the clean contrary. Besides, if the Apostle had argued as they would hauehave him, where had he laid the foundation of his proofe? p. 157Or how had he removed the scruple out of the Corinthians hearts?

They add, that the Corinthians made no question of their children. True; and that overthrows their exposition; as shewing, that the Apostle argues not from the wiues to the children, as they make him; but from the children to the wiues: Secondly, the Apostle disputes not from the Corinthians supposition, or perswasion, but from the truth of the thing, the holinesse of their children. But now are (your children) holy.

They object, that these children must be holy, either as the beleeving, or unbeleeving part is holy. We say they are holy as the beleeving part, in regard of that foederall holinesse, and the spirit of regeneration. Then, say they, They are separated from common uses in which they were used, and are set now apart to Gods Pag. 137.use. We say they are, as were the Infants in Israel, set apart, or severed, from the world, and taken into the number of Gods people. They themselvs affirm, a few lines before, that Israel was sanctified and set apart from common and prophane uses, to the service of God. And were not the Infants part of Israel, thus set apart, and sanctified? And yet could they not testifie any purity of heart, or other grace. That which in the very same period they build with one hand, they pull down with another. Secondly, if (as they say) Infants bee no otherwise sanctified, then to the use of others, and as unbeleevers are, then can they not be saved: except the unholy can enter into Gods Kingdom.

They object further, that then all the children of beleevers, though of age, and unbeleevers, should be holy also. But why rather holy, then Innocent, which they will hauehave all Infants to be? By their unbelief, they are cut off from Gods Covenant, as theRom. 11.Rom 11 Iews were, and from all holinesse therby.

The next objection is ill framed, as they set it down; andPag. 138. the answer worse. The errour in both is, that they consider not Iohns Baptism, and Christs according to their distinct parts; Iohns as outward, Christs as inward: Iohns outward Baptism, p. 158and Christs outward Baptism were the same: for Christ was baptized by Iohn, thereby sanctifying Baptism to us, as circumcision to the Fathers by his being circumcised. The inward Baptism is not common to all, but peculiar to the elect: the outward, whether by Christ, or Iohn, is not peculiar to the elect onelyonly, but common to others with them: witnesse Simon Magus. The outward Baptism by Iohn, and all other Ministers was, and is, onelyonly with water, opposed to Christs, as the inward with the Holy Ghost. Which Baptism with the Holy Ghost, being understood of extraordinarie gifts, sometimesMath. 3. Ioh. 1.3 John 1 went before the other, as Act. 10. 47, but commonly followed upon it: But understood of ordinarie graces, did, or should, alwaies goe before it in right order of things.

Next follows, 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2 &c. The meaning of the H. Ghost Pag. 140.herein they take upon them to explain to others, not understanding it themselvs, as is evident, in that they will hauehave this baptizing unto Moses in the clovd, and sea, &c. to hauehave been onelyonly for bodily deliverance, and the offer of Christ. But the Apostle looks upon those things with a more piercing and spirituall eye: as appears, first in that, v. 1, he cals the Israelites indefinitely, his and the Corinthians fathers. Morever brethren I would not hauehave you ignorant, that all our fathers &c. As if hee should hauehave said, Let not the children look for more priviledg from punishment, if they sin, then their fathers hauehave injoyed. He therfore considers the Church of israel here, as in the state of a spirituall fatherhood to the Corinthians. Secondly, hee expresly saith, that they were all baptized to Moses, and that the meat was spirituall which they eat, and the rock, or water, which they drank spirituall, even Christ himselfe, to wit, sacramentally, and mystically. Thirdly, the Apostles argument, that it may goe in full force, must thus be framed. They that are alike for substance in Gods benefits, shall alike be punished, if they sin alike: But you Corinthians now, and Israel of old were, and are alike in those spirituall benefites mentioned; Therefore, if you sin, as they did, you shall surely be punished, as they were. If the Apostle had propounded p. 159unto the Corinthians, the tokens of Gods louelove and protection onelyonly for bodily things, as they carnally conceiv, there had been no force in his reason against the security of the Corinthians, especially occasioned by their enjoying the Lords Ordinances of Baptism, and the Supper as signes, and tokens of Gods louelove for spirituall blessings in heavenly things. Might they not easily hauehave answered Paul, that the Israelites indeed might well perish, and be destroyed for such things as they practised, having onelyonly Gods louelove-tokens for bodily deliverance: but for them, they were better secured against danger, as having the tokens of Gods louelove for spirituall and eternall deliverance, by the body and bloud-shed of Christ?

I conclude therefore, that all Pauls, and the Corinthians fathers, being baptized with the Baptism signifying deliverance by Christ, and many of them being Infants, the Infants of Israel now are to be baptized also.

ADVERSARIES.

THey object, that the meaning of the Holy Ghost is not, that Moses did at all wash them with water in the cloud and sea.

DEPENCE.

NEither say we he did; but with the Apostle, that they were baptized to Moses in the cloud and sea: God not onelyonly preserving them bodily thereby from Pharaoh; but also moystening them with the cloud arising out of the Sea, and1 King. 18. 44. 45. Psal. 77. 18.1 Kgs 18:441 Kgs 18:45Ps 77:18 showering down waters upon them, as the Lords peculiar people, and for spirituall use (the Apostle himselfe in this place bearing witnesse) under the Ministerie of Moses their Pastor or Shepheard; procuring with this, the other blessings, even of the meat which was spirituall from heaven; and drink which was spirituall, even Christ mistically out of the rock.

Besides, our Adversaries hold back the better part of Gods louelove, in saying, he offered them Christ in the drink out of the rock. If the rock were Christ, and they drank of the rock, then God not onelyonly offered, but they also received, and drank of p. 160Christs bloud, as the Corinthians did, in mysterie. Secondly, the Apostles argument, as they put it, had been too blunt to hauehave peirced the Corinthians consciences; who might easily hauehave answered themselvs and him, that the Israelites indeed had Christ in their time offered; but for themselvs they received him also, and so were better fenced against Gods plagues; yea, though they sinned, then the other were.

Thirdly, it is neither true, which after they affirm, that Noahs Ark is called the figure of Baptism, but that the saving of eight soules by water (to wit bearing up the Ark) had Baptism, that now saveth &c. for a like figure, or antitype: much lesse is it said, that Noah and his family were Baptized in the Ark, or water, as it is expresly said, that the Israelites were baptized in the cloud, and Sea. Every type of Baptism, is not Baptism, but hath onelyonly something necessarily, which resembles it. But the more agreement there is, between Noahs Arke, and the Baptism now, the more firm Argument may be gathered for the baptizing of Infants. It is evident, that Noah through faith Hebr. 11. 7.Heb 11:7prepared the Ark for the saving of his houshold, and not of himselfe alone.

To their objection, that there is as much warrant to enjoynPag. 142. Infants to suffer persecution, because it is called by the name of baptism, as to baptize them, because the cloud and sea is called Baptism: I answer (passing by their incongruities of speech) that Infants may be persecuted, as well as men of yeares. Witness Christ himself, persecuted in his mothers lap by Herod. Besides, the Israelites (and their Infants with them) are heere said to hauehave been baptized by water in spirituall use, and consideration.

ADVERSARIES.

THeir next answer to such Scriptures, as shew that whole housholds hauehave been baptized, and therefore Infants, as a partPag. 143. of the houshold, is, that there are many housholds in which there are no infants; and that therefore except we proue such housholds to hauehave had Infants, it is nothing. Secondly, that it is most true, p. 161that as the Apostles practised in one houshold, so they practised in all: and that therfore they baptizing in the laylors house such as beleeved, did not baptize infants.

DEFENCE.

WEE grant, that the Apostles practise was the same, where there was the same reason: but as some Families had in them infants, and some not; so all of years in some beleeved, and in some not: according to which diversity of persons, they administred Baptism diversly; and not alike in all housholds. Secondly, if these men would hauehave taken any sound course for the clearing of things, they should here hauehave given answer to such Scriptures, as else-where hauehave beenRelig. Com. pag. 88. 89. brought against them, to shew, how the tenour of the Lords promise, and blessing, runnes upon godly Governours, and their Families with them: and more specially to that about Lydia, Act. 16, of whom it is testified, that she having her heart opened to attend and beleev the Gospell, both she and her houshold were baptized. But it is easier for these men to repeat over the same things many times, then once to justifie them.

ADVERSARIES.

TO the Scriptures record, that little children were brought to Christ, that he might lay his hands on them, and pray, or blesse them; and that wheras his Disciples would hauehave hindred them from him (even upon the same ground, without doubt, upon which these men excludes them) he being therewith displeased, bids suffer them to come unto him, for that of such is the Kingdom of heaven; and takes them in his armes and blesseth them: and to our collection hence, they answer; first, that He saith Pag. 134. 135.not, that Infants are of the Kingdom of heaven, that is, obeyers of the Gospell; but that they that will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, must become as little children, for of such, &c. And that his mayn end was to declare the innocent estate of Infants, and to teach all to be like unto them by conversion: and withall, that Christ p. 162baptized them not: and lastly, that his blessings are manifold to Infants in their creation, life, and bodily benefits.

DEFENCE.

LET us examine the particulars: First, they presume, but cannot proue, that onelyonly such are of the Kingdom of heaven, as obey the Gospell. Shall Infants (which they affirm else-where) be glorified in the Kingdom of heaven, and yetPag. 123. are they not of it? There are not two Kingdoms of heaven; but one, begun in grace, and perfected in glory. Secondly, they to make more colourable their erroneous construction of the Evangelists words, and Christs work about those Infants, cite for Math. 19, and the like places, Math. 18; that so the slight Readers, such as their Disciples are, might conceivMat. 19. 14 Luk. 10. 13 & chap. 18. 15.Matt 19:14Luke 10:13 that Christ had no other meaning in the other places by us alledged, then in that by them; and that he spake not of a child personally, but in condition, as David was, Ps. 131. Wheras in that place, Christs meaning was to reprov the ambitious contentions amongst his Disciples, by the contrary disposition in a childe, which he therfore took, and set in the midst of them; but in the other, his purpose was to shew what interest the children of the Church had in him, and in his blessing, for which they were brought unto him by their parents. Against these depravers, both of the word, and work of God, I thus argue. That which the parents, which brought their infants desired, that the Lord did for them: But it is plain, that their desire in bringing them was, that he might pray for them, and blesse them, as the Scriptures expresly teach he did.

But, say they, he baptized them not. True; for hee baptized none, though actuall beleevers. It sufficeth, that he did thatIoh. 4. 2.John 4:2 by which he declared that they had right in him, and in his blessing, and that it was his will they should come unto him. Let them shew a way, how they can now come to Christ, saue by Baptism? Or how they can hauehave right in his blessing, and yet hauehave no right in his bloud-shed, and in Baptism, for the signifying and applying it?

p. 163They add, that Christ healed the sick, and gaue bodily blessings of life, growth in stature, and the like. But as it is meerly, and vainly imagined, that these children were brought for the healing of any bodily diseases: so are we taught expresly by the Holy Ghost, that Christs blessing them was not for bodily benefits, but because, the Kingdom of heaven was of such: that is, appertained to them, and to such as they were.

ADVERSARIES.

TO our next Argument, taken from the circumcision of Abrahams infants, they answer: First, there is no commandmentPag. 145. for baptizing of Infants now, as there was for circumcising them then: Secondly, that that commandement was for males onelyonly, children, or servants, though unbeleevers: Thirdly, that circumcision was to be performed onelyonly on the eight day: so as there is no proportion between Circumcision and Baptism.

DEFENCE.

HEE that pleaseth to reade the former passages betweenRelig. Com. them and us, which they hauehave in their hands, but answer not, shall see how weightlesse this exception is; and how we hauehave proved against them, that the Church of Israel, and ours, is one in substance; the covenant the same which God made with them in Christ to come, and with us in Christ come in the flesh: and withall, how our Baptism succeeds their Circumcision. They trifle in objecting the Legall difference ofGal. 3. 28. & 4. 10. Esa. 66. 21.Gal 3:28Gal 4:10Isa 66:21 daies, and sexes, which the Scriptures expresly teach to bee abolished. Are not Pastors now the Lords Ministers, as the Levites were of old, and their successors therein: and yet are they not tyed to any certain Tribe, as they were? Is not our Lords Supper the same in effect with their Passeover? Both the one and the other, the mysticall eating of the Lamb of God: Which yet is not tyed to any certain day or month, as was the former.

Lastly, they err grievously in saying, that unbeleeving servant, and children were commanded to be circumcised. The Lord p. 164would hauehave all the wicked cut off from his people: and wouldDeu. 17 12 Ps. 101. 8. 2 Chro. 15. 12. 13. Gen. 17. 7. 10. Rom. 4. 11.Deut 17:12Ps 101:82 Chr 15:122 Chr 15:13Gen 17:7Gen 17:10Rom 4:11 he hauehave unbeleevers received unto them? Hath God entred Covenant with unbeleevers to be their God, as he hath done with all to whom Circumcision appertained? Was it the seal of the righteousnesse of faith; and yet due to the faithlesse? Rather then these Adversaries will admit the seed of the faithfull to be of Gods people now, they will hauehave very Infidels and Vnbeleevers of old, to hauehave been of his peculiar ones. If their heresie were detestable, who made the God of the Law worse then the God of the Gospell; surely, theirs is not light, nor small, who thus contumeliously speak of him in his people, which he took neer unto himselfe, and whose God he became; and of that speciall Ordinance, by which he differenced them from the prophane world, as holy unto him; in which they interest the unbeleevers, and unholy.

ADVERSARIES.

NOW followeth our main foundation, that as the infants of Abraham, and of the Israelites his posterity, were taken into the Church-covenant, or covenant of life and salvation, as they call it (and rightly in a true sense) with their parents, and circumcised: so are the infants of the faithfull now, and to receiv accordingly the seal of Baptism: to which they say, and proue (as they say) that neither Circumcision was, nor Baptism is a sealPag. 145. of the Covenant of salvation, but the spirit of promise which is ever the same.

DEFENCE.

THeir dispute from the seal of the Spirit, to proue that there is no other seal, is as if a man should deny all teaching, direction, and comfort by the Word and Sacraments; because the Spirit teacheth, directeth and comforteth the faithfull. This point I hauehave else-where proved at large againstRelig. Com. pag. 90. 91. them; neither are they either able, or doe they goe about to giuegive any shew of answer; and yet, without modesty, they repeat their former bare sayings, fully answered, and refuted. p. 165Where the Apostle, 2 Cor. 1, and Eph. 1, & 4, speaks of the seal of the spirit, means he, that the Spirit makes a materiall print in the soule, as a seal doth in Wax? Or not this onelyonly, that it helps to confirm, and comfort a Christian inwardly in the louelove of God, and hope of salvation? And are not the Sacraments outward helps of comfort and confirmation of a beleevers heart in the same louelove of God, and hope of glory? VponUpon the same ground, that the Apostle cals it a seal inwardly, we call them seals outwardly.

ADVERSARIES.

TO shew that the Covenant in question was the Covenant ofPag. 146. 147. the Law, and old Testament, and not the covenant of salvation: and so Circumcision the seal thereof, and not the sign and seal of life and salvation; they discourse at large upon Gal. 4, and of the two seeds of Aoraham, the one after the flesh, unto which the covenant appertained, whereunto circumcision was annexed.

DEFENCE.

FIrst, they err greatly, in denying the very Covenant of the Law to hauehave been the Covenant of life and salvation. ForRom. 7. 10. Lev. 18. 5. Gal. 3. 12.Rom 7:10Lev 18:5Gal 3:12 the commandement was ordained to life. And the man that doth the workes of the Law shall liue in them. And if the Law promise not life and salvation, then neither doth it threaten death and condemnation. The Covenant then is of the same things, but the condition divers: The Law exacting perfect obedience of, and by our selvs: the Gospell requiring true faith, and repentance, which it also worketh in the elect.

Secondly, it is most untrue, that Circumcision was the sign or seal of the old Testament, or Law, taking it properly, as theyRom. 4. 11. Gal. …. 16. 17. 8. 9.Rom 4:11 doe. The Apostle expresly cals it, the seal of the righteousnesse of faith, opposed to the righteousnesse of works, or of the Law; of which more hereafter: else where shewing, that the same Law was given foure hundred and thirty years after the covenant or promise to Abraham and his seed, confirmed before in Christ, p. 166through the peaching of the Gospel, that they which are of faith might be blessed with faithfull Abraham. How preposterous are these mens waies, who will hauehave the seal so long before the Covenant?

Thirdly, Circumcision was the seal of that Covenant, by which Abraham, and his posterity became the Lords peculiar people, seperated from all the uncircumcised heathen unto him for his inheritance, and therein blessed: For blessed is the nation, Psal. 33. 12. Ps. 144. 15.Ps 33:12Ps 144:15whereof the Lord is God, the people that he hath chosen for a possession to himself; and blessed is the people, whose God is Iehouah. Now will these gainsaying spirits have men blessed by the law whether God will, or no? Saith not the scripture, that by the law all are accursed? and that as many, as are of the works of the law are accursed; as being unable to keep it? The Covenant then by which Israel became Gods people, and therein blessed, of which Circumcision was a sign, and seal, was not the Covenant of the law, but of the gospell, and so of grace, and salvation by grace.

Lastly, how wyde, and wilde are they in expounding the allegory of Abrahams two sons? Gal. 4 makeing Abrahams children after the flesh, the Infants of the faithfull: never considering the Apostles generall scope, unto which the particulars are to be applyed. Doth he in that place deal against the Infants of the Galatians, or against the men of yeares, though children in knowledg? who had begun in the spirit, but would be made perfit in the flesh: that is, would be justified by the law, speciallyGal. 3. 3. vers. 11. ch. 5. 2. 3. 4. ch. 4. 21. 29 30.Gal 3:3 by circumcision in the flesh: by which they made Christ of none effect and fell from grace. Were they Infants to whom he saith, Tel mee, ye that desire to be under the law &c. So where he addeth He that is born after the flesh persequutes him, that is born after the spirit, doth he mean that Infants are persequuters? Or is not his meaning plain, that such as glory in the flesh, and in circumcision and other fleshly prerogatives, and so despise the free promise of grace in Christ, and them that rest under it (as Ismael did both in truth of person, and type of others) are these persequuters, at all times, to be cast out, with Ismael; p. 167as having no right to the inheritance of grace or glory. Are the Infants of beleevers to be cast out for their persequutions? Out of what, I marvail, and for what persequutions? These men in opening this Allegory, or Parable verify that of the Wise-man, As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, Pro. 26. 9.Prov 26:9so is a Parable in the mouth of fooles.

That the Covenant Gen. 17. whereof circumcision was a sign, Pag. 147.was the same, which we hauehave now in the Gospell, we hauehave notRelig. Com. p. 76. 77. 78. onelyonly said, as they say we hauehave done; but proved by so clear arguments, as that, had they onelyonly set them down, there had needed no further confirmation of them, notwithstanding any thing that they could hauehave excepted, But they hauehave cunningly passed them by in silence, as if no such thing were in the book; and doe onelyonly repeat over, and again, the same things with great irksomnes, specially to those, that hauehave formerly confuted them.

ADVERSARIES.

BVT they tell us, that the Covenant under the Gospell is a new and better Covenant then the old, &c.

DEFENCE.

WE grant it: but affirm withall, that the Covenant with Abraham was not the Covenant of the law, or old testament, as they mean. The Covenant with Abraham was Gal. 3. 17. 19. 10. 14.Gal 3:17Gal 3:19Gal 3:10Gal 3:14confirmed of God in Christ, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles thorow Iesus Christ. The Covenant of the Law, or old Testament was 400 and thirty years after, and was added for transgression til the seed should come, to whom the promise was made: that is, to detect and manifest mens sins, and cursed state thereby; that so they might fly the more earnestly to the promise of Christ (the blessed and blessing Seed) made formerly to Abraham. Neither do the Scripture in this matter ever oppose Abraham and Christ; but Moses and Christ.Ioh. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 28 29.John 1:17Heb 10:28 The Law was given by Moses; but grace and truth by Iesus Christ. So Hebr. 10, the Law of Moses, and Covenant of the Son of God, p. 168are opposed: and Moses made the Mediator of the old testament, and Covenant, established in the blood of bulls and goats: Hebr. 9.Heb 9and Christ the mediator of the new by his own blood. And I would know of these men where the law is ever called the law of Abraham, as it is every where, the law of Moses: which law or old testament (opposed to the new) was written and engraven in Tables of stone, and had therefore, not Abraham, 2▪ Cor. 3. 7.2 Cor 3:7but Moses the mediator of it.

Lastly, for the ceremoniall part of the Law, old Testament, or Covenant, the Authour to the Hebrews makes it plain, that it was received under the Leviticall Priesthood, having a Heb. 7. 11, & 9. 1. 2. 10. 13.Heb 7:11Heb 9:1Heb 9:2Heb 9:10Heb 9:13worldly sanctuary and ordinances, and divers washings for the purifying of the flesh, but not of the conscience from dead workes: whereas by the promise and Covenant to Abraham, and his seed, the blessing of justification came, both upon the Iews in theirGal. 3. 11. 14. 16. 17.Gal 3:11Gal 3:14Gal 3:16Gal 3:17 time, and Gentiles in theirs, through Christ Iesus, in whom it was confirmed.

In adding, that the Old taught that Christ was not come in the flesh, nor into their hearts at their Circumcision: They make the Lords Covenant negatiue, as teaching what is not, and not what is. A Covenant is a promise upon condition; and a Testament, or Will, that, in which Legacies are given. But by this doctrine, here should be nothing either given or promised. It is, besides, very ungodlily said, that Abraham, (in whom principally we are to consider both of the Covenant, and seal thereof Circumcision) had not Christ in his heart, when he was circumcised. Both Moses in Abrahams historie, and the Apostles, who well understood it, affirm the contrary, and that he was justified in uncircumcision, by beleeving in Christ: In which respect he is called the father of them that beleev, Rom. 4. 9. 10. 11.Rom 4:9Rom 4:10Rom 4:11not onelyonly circumcised, but uncircumcised also. HaueHave his children that which he for substance had not; even in that wherein he was their father? This thing they grant in the very next page; and that Abraham had the covenant of grace promised him, by which promise he had salvation in the Messiah to Pag. 148.come▪ and therein, that the Covenant made with Abraham, p. 169whereof Circumcision was a seal, was the Covenant of the Gospell, and the same with ours now. It is strange that these men, who so magnifie Baptism, as they will hauehave men made Christians by it; should so vilifie Circumcision, as to make it of right to appertain to godlesse and wicked men: for such were and are all, at all times, since Adam sinned, that had, and and hauehave not Christ in their hearts. Was it not an holy Ordinance of God? and therfore not to be prostituted to the unholy, and unpure, as all unbeleevers; that is, all into whoseTit. 1. 15.Titus 1:15 hearts Christ is not come, are: and unto whom nothing isGen. 17. 7. 11. Rom. 4, 11. 1▪ Sam. 17. 16. 36. Iudg. 14. 3.Gen 17:7Gen 17:11Rom 4:111 Sam 17:161 Sam 17:36Judg 14:3 pure or holy. Could it be to any a sign that God was their God; a seal of the righteousnesse of faith; a pledg of Gods protection; and note of distinction between Gods people and others: And yet belong to such as were wholly without Christ, and so without God in the world? When any of the Heathens became Proselytes, they chose God to be their God, came to trust Ruth 1. 16 & 2. 12. Neh. 10. 28Ruth 1:16Ruth 2:12Neh 10:28under the wings of the Lord God of Israel, and separated themselvs from Idolaters to the Law of God: and of all this, they made solemn profession by Circumcision: which they must either do without faith, and so not please God therein (which is absurdHebr. 11 6.Heb 11:6 to say they did, which did it, lawfully:) or else with faith, by which Christ, though not come in the flesh▪ was come into their hearts.

Of the Ceremonies of Moses, and so of Circumcision which Moses took of the fathers into the body of the CeremoniallIoh. 7. 22.John 7:22 Law; and of their divers considerations, I hauehave elsewhere;Relig. Com. p. 84 85 86. written at large, and doe refer the Reader thither for satisfaction in that point.

That none of the Church of Israel (called by them affectedly Abrahams seed in the flesh) had the Ordinances of the new Covenant, is not true. They had Iohns Baptism, which even now these men avowed as the Baptism of the new Testament; and Christs also, who baptized more Disciples then Iohn; and with them, the twelv had the Lords Supper also, and all these, whilst the Iewish Church and Ordinances stood in their full strength. It is true, that Iohns was not in the Kingdom of God, p. 170as Christ speaks, Math. 11, that in the state of the Church and Ordinances dispensed under Christ glorified: Otherwise, the Iews had the Kingdom of heaven, which else could no… hauehave been taken from them and given to others: neither couldMath. 21. 43. 5.Matt 21:43Matt 21:5 Christ hauehave been, as he was, the King of Sion. So the Patriarks received not the promise, that is, Christ come in the flesh;Gal. 3. 23.Gal 3:23 to which purpose the Apostle saith, Before faith came, &c. Shall we therfore say, that before Christs comming in the flesh none had true faith to salvation; or that true beleevers received not Christ, though to come, as we now receiv Christ come in the flesh? They, Christ promised and prefigured, by the Word and Ordinances then: we, Christ manifested and remembred by the Word and Ordinances now; properly called the New Hebr. 9. 16. 17.Heb 9:16Heb 9:17Testament, as founded in the actuall death of the Testator.

ADVERSARIES.

HEre follows an exception against me in particular: which is, that by the old Covenant mentioned Ier. 31, & Hebr. S▪ is not meant, as I affirm, that which was made on mount Sinai, Exod. 19, but the Covenant mentioned, Exod. 3. v. 6, &c. Their reason is, for that God made that Covenant with them, when hee took them by the hand to bring them out of Aegipt, which is mentioned Exod. 3, and not Exod. 19. For then, say they, did God appear to Moses, and commanded him to take them by the hand, and lead them out of Aegipt, where the Covenant is mentioned, I am the God of thy fathers, Abraham, &c.

DEFENCE.

FIrst, to let passe, that though they bid, mark the words, yet they cite them not: I answer, that these words, in that day, as the Text hath it, cannot be restrained to that particular day when God appeared to Moses; seeing the Lord did not that particular day take them by the hand to bring them out, but divers daies after, as is expresly affirmed, ch. 12. 51, Psal. 77. 12, & 105, 27. 43. By that day therfore is not meant, any particular day, but indefinitely the time of their transporting p. 171out of Aegipt into Canaan: as, elsewhere, by the day of their Ezech. 16. 4. 5.Ezek 16:4Ezek 16:5birth, is meant the whole time of their fore-going misery. So, many hundred times, in the Scriptures, by the day, or that day, is meant indefinitely the time in which a thing happeneth, or is done. Besides, where the Prophet speaks of the day in which God took them by the hand; they speak of the day in which God appeared unto Moses, and commanded him to take them by the hand; which was, whilst he was in the land of Midian. God indeed then shewed his will to Moses, but stretched not out his hand for their deliverance, till many daies after.

They say further, that Exod. 3, the Covenant is mentioned, I am the God thy father Abraham &c. But is every mentioning of a Covenant, the making of it? And did God make a Covenant with, and become the God of Abraham, Isaak, and Iakob, at that time? That is, when they were now dead divers hundred years before. What can be more plain, then that the Lord doth not there make a new: but remembers the old Covenant made before with Abraham, &c. of which the bringing his posterity out of Aegipt into the promised land, Gen. 45. 13. 14. 15.Gen 45:13Gen 45:14Gen 45:15was an appurtenance? God promised to be Abrahams God, and the God of his Seed, that is, all-sufficient for the good things, not onelyonly of this world, but also of the world to come, as Christ expounds his fathers words, Math. 22. 32. 33, and so gaue them accordingly the land of Canaan, as a store-house of earthly good things; and figure of heavenly. These men therfore, in this place, unskilfully transform the fulfilling of an old promise into the making of a new. Which they also confesse, in effect, in the very same place, in saying, that the promise (that is, the Covenant on Gods part) was made to Abraham, Gen. 17.

The word everlasting Gen. 17. I urge not further to proue the Covenant with Abraham perpetuall; then as the nature of the same Covenant carries it. It was that by which God became Abrahams God; and more he is, or can be to none: and that which Christ himselfe extends to the very resurection ofMath. 21. 31. 32.Matt 21:31Matt 21:32 the bodies of Abraham &c. whose God the Lord was, and is.

p. 172Two reasons I will annex to justifie mine exposition of the Prophet Ieremy, and Apostle after him; and to proue that by the old Covenant, they meant the Covenant of the Law given on mount Syna. The former from the opposition, between the old and new Covenant, expresly made in the generall; and particularly insinuated in these words, I will write my Law in Ier. 31. 31. 32. 33, &c.Jer 31:31Jer 31:32Jer 31:33their hearts, and will forgiue their iniquity, and remember their sins no more: which was, not according to, but most unlike to the old Covenant, or Law given on mount Syna, written in Tables of stone, and by which sin, and transgression was not forgiven,Rom 7. 8. Gal 3. 19. Hebr. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4.Rom 7:8Gal 3:19Heb 9:1Heb 9:2Heb 9:3Heb 9:4 but quickned and encreased. A second reason is, for that the old, and first Covenant (opposed to that in Christ) had ordinances of divine worship; and a worldly Sanctuary, or Tabernacle, wherein was the Table, and Candlestick, &c. which no man that beleevs the Bible, can make doubt to be meant of the Law, and Covenant given on mount Syna▪ to and by Moses. By the old Covenant is meant, that of the Law by Moses on mount Sina, unto which the other is opposed.

Their exception, that Abrahams children of 8▪ daies old could Pag. 149. 150▪ 151.make no covenant, nor agreement, is too childish to exclude them from it: and that, by which they should hauehave been in no covenant at all with the Lord, nor hee with them; new, nor old; Legall, nor Evangelicall: for they could make none. It is not required, that every one comprehended in a Covenant, should actually stipulate, or promise. Witnesse the Covenant with Noah, in which, both all his seed, and every living Gen. 9. 9. 10▪Gen 9:9Gen 9:10creature, both foule and cattell, were included. It was therefore sufficient to bring Abrahams seed into the Lords Covenant, that God in grace made, and Abraham by faith received, the promise that he would be his God and theirs.

That every faithfull man and his seed, is (as) Abraham Rom. 4. 12. 16. Gal. 3. 6. 9.Rom 4:12Rom 4:16Gal 3:6Gal 3:9and his seed, the Scripture proue, in teaching, that every beleever is of the faith of Abraham, and walks in his steps. For if Abraham did by faith receiv the promise, that God would be his God, and the God of his seed, without which, no promise had belonged unto them: then, where the same faith is for p. 173substance, there is the same promise for substance to every beleever; though a son of Abraham as following his example▪ yet as Abraham himselfe in beleeving as hee did. And this is most manifest, in that by this very covenant God was not onelyonly the God of Abraham, and his seed Isaak; but of Isaak, and his seed Iakob; and of Iakob, and his seed the Patriarks, and so successiuely: not by fleshly descent of the children from their parents (as they absurdly cavill) but by spirituall and divine promise of grace: which they ungraciously despise for their children, because they cannot be doing something to God again▪ by their free-will, to require him withall.

Next comes to be examined that notable place, Rom. 4. 11. Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, the seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all that beleev▪ though uncircumcised, that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also.

ADVERSARIES.

THeir evasion is, that by faith here, is not meant faith in the Messiah, by which he was, and we are justified: but, say they, Circumcision sealed up Abrahams fatherhood of the faithfull; that is, was a seal of his faith in beleeving God, that he should be the father of many Nations.

DEFENCE.

AND this faith, say we, was the faith of the Gospell, and faith in the Messiah, which the Apostle expresly saith, was imputed to him for righteousnesse, and by which he was justified; as is plain, from v. 17, I hauehave made thee a father of many Nations, compared with v. 22, where he infers therupon, even upon that faith, And therfore it was imputed to him for righteousnesse: Which also, that it was the same in substance with ours now, the words following manifest. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but to us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we beleev in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our sins &c. v. 23. 24. 25.

p. 174This will yet the more clearly appear, if we consider what is meant by these promises, I hauehave made thee a father of many Nations, and so shall thy seed be, recited by the Apostle for the purpose in hand: In these words, I hauehave made thee a father of many Nations, he opposeth many Nations to that one Nation of the Iews. Of these many Nations, hee was the father, even of all that beleev, though uncircumcised, v. 11. And how a father? By way of example, that, as hee was justified by faith in the promise of God, and of the promised seed Christ, even when he was uncircumcised: So they, beleeving the same promise of God in Christ, now come of him, though uncircumcised, should in like manner, be justified as he was. Which is yet further confirmed, where it is said, that he is the father of all them, though not of the circumcision, that walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised. Whence I gather, that if we be justified by the same faith that Abraham was justified by, and that he was justified by faith in that promise▪ that then that promise was made of, and in the Messiah Christ, the blessed and blessing Seed: as it is said: So shall thy seed be: and Abraham beleeved, and Gen. 15. 5. 6, & ch. 12 3, & ch. 18▪ 18. Rom. 4. 17. 18.Gen 15:5Gen 15:6Rom 4:17Rom 4:18he counted it to him for righteousnesse: And again, In thee shall all Nations, or families of the earth be blessed. Now of this faith the Apostle here speaks, and of it he testifies circumcision to hauehave been a seal to Abraham. It cannot be denyed, but that the Apostle in this whole discourse, speaks of faith to justification; proving partly, by the example of Abraham, and partly by the testimony of David, that we are justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law. And to what end, or with what order should hee thrust in an impertinent discourse of any other faith? To affirm this, is no better then to defame the Holy Ghost with equivocating. Or to what purpose should he mention the sign of Circumcision, as a seal of faith, if not of that faith, of which he treats? For wheras it might be objected, that if Abraham were justified by beleeving before he was circumcised, as is said, v. 3. 9. 10, then what needed hee after to hauehave been circumcised? The Apostle answers, v. 11, p. 175that hee received the sign of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith vvhichwhich he had yet being uncircumcised, which faith v. 9, vvas reckoned to him for righteousnesse: that by it the covenant of grace between God & him might be confirmed, as covenants among men formerly agreed upon are, by the seals thereunto annexed.

Lastly, who endued with common sense, and modesty can deny, that by the righteousnesse of faith, wherof Circumcision was a seal, is meant the righteousnes which is by faith, as v. 3, Abraham beleeved God, and it vvas imputed to him for righteousnesse, and v. 9, faith vvas reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse: which righteousnesse of faith, in this whole discourse, he opposeth to the righteousnesse of works by the Law, as is expresly to be seen, v. 3. 14. 15. 16.

But now what say our Adversaries to these things? as men in a maze, and not knowing how to finde the way out, goe sometimes backward, sometimes forward, and sometimes leap unorderly from one place to another: so doe they in expounding this Scripture. In their out-leaps about Abrahams fleshly children, I shall not need heere to follow them. Where, after, they say, that Circumcision was a seal of Abrahams faith in beleeving God that he should be the father of many Nations, and that this was imputed to him for righteousnesse; they say as much as wePag. 151. do, or desire they should. But where they say, in the very same place, that hee received not circumcision to seal up his faith in the Messiah, they goe backward most dangerously, to bring in a faith to justification, imputed for righteousnesse, which yet is not in the Messiah. Was righteousnesse ever, or is it imputed to any for justification, but by faith in Christ, then promised, now exhibited? The reason insinuated by them is a pleasant one; namely, for that Abraham had faith in the Messiah 24 years before he was circumcised. Whereas on the contrary, it could not hauehave been a seal of such faith, except hee had had the faith before, whether longer or lesser time, it matters not, but is, as it pleaseth him who bestow…th both the one and other. Signes and Seals are not to be set to blankes, neither p. 176doe they make things that were not before, to be? but serv onelyonly to confirm things that are.

These things thus cleared, the Reader must be requested, not to measure our arguments from Abraham and Isaaks circumcision, to the Baptism of Infants, by the crooked line which these men draw between them: but by the right rule of sound reason, applyed as followeth in three particulars.

First, that the Covenant unto which Circumcision was annexed, was the Covenant of the Gospell, and not of the Law and old Testement, as they take it. For then it could not hauehave been to Abraham the seal of the righteousnesse of faith, any way: but of unrighteousnesse and condemnation every way: for righteousnes is not by the Law, which worketh wrath, Rom. 4. 15 & ch. 7. 9. 13.Rom 4:15and by which sin revives, and becomes exceeding sinfull. And surely it is more then strange, that any beleeving the Scriptures, should beleev that the Lords Covenant made with Abraham, and so with Israel in him, by which he took them to Deut. 4. 37. & 7. 6. 7. 8 Psal. 33. 12Deut 4:37Deut 7:6Deut 7:7Deut 7:8Ps 33:12be his peculiar people, from among all other peoples, because hee loved their father and them; by which they were a blessed Nation, having Iehovah for their God; in remembring of which covenant Lev. 26. 42.Lev 26:42with Abraham &c. he so often shewed them mercy, and did them good; and in time, gaue his Son Christ to saue them from their enemies: and lastly, by which Covenant theyLuk. 1. 71. 72. Rom. 11. 25 26. &c.Luke 1:71Luke 1:72Rom 11:25 shall again be called when the fulnesse of the Gentiles is come in: and so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out of Syon a Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodlinesse from Iakob. For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the Gospell they are enemies for the (Gentiles) sake: but as concerning the election, they are beloved for the fathers sake: for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance: that this covenant of louelove and mercy, making them blessed which are taken into it, and procuring the giving of Christ, and of2 Cor. 3. 6. 7. Rom. 4. 15. Gai. 3. 19. 20.2 Cor 3:62 Cor 3:7Rom 4:15 salvation, should be the covenant of the old Testament and Law: Of the Law, I say, and old Testament, which is the ministery of death; the letter that killeth: which worketh wrath, p. 177was added for transgression; by which sin reviveth, and all die, Rom. 7. 9.Rom 7:9and are accursed. What is this else but to bring the currant of gracious mercy, into a channell of severe justice, and to curse where God blesseth, as Balaam purposed to hauehave done?

Secondly, we conclude hence, that the Church of the Iews, and Church now is one in substance, though diverslyEsay 5. 1. Ier 2. 21. Math. 21. 33. 34.Isa 5:1Jer 2:21Matt 21:33Matt 21:34 ordered: one Uineyard (in which there are both grown trees, and yong plants;) one Kingdom which was taken from them, and given to us; the branches of one oliue tree, holy in the same holy root Abraham, from which most of them were broken off for unbelief, and we by faith planted in their place; one body, Eph. 3. 6.Eph 3:6and therefore having Infants in it now, as then, and the same therefore to be baptized (there being also one Baptism, as one Eph. 4. 4. 5. Relig. Com. pag. 62. 63.Eph 4:4Eph 4:5body) as they were circumcised of old: Baptism (as elsewhere I hauehave proved at large, to their silencing in that point) comming in the place of Circumcision.

Thirdly, that all their disputes against Infants Baptism, because they cannot manifest faith and repentance, are but the same quarrels which might hauehave been picked of old against Infants Circumcision.

That there was something in Abrahams circumcision extraordinary, is true: for he first received it for his posterity; and for the Proselytes with them, which joyned themselvs to the Lord: so was there also in his faith, as he was the father (by example) to all that should beleev after him.

Their prophane assertion, that faith was required of none (toPag. 152. wit men of years) for circumcision, I hauehave formerly disproved. How can it come into the hearts of reasonable men, that the Lord in whose eies the prayers, sacrifices, and all other services of ungodly men were so abominable, should like of their circumcision?

Lastly, for Abrahams children of the flesh (according to their misunderstanding of them) they were by nature children of wrath as well as others, and had thereby no more right to circumsion, then the Infants of Sodom. It was of grace, and p. 178not of nature, that they were within Gods Covenant. Of Gal. 3. and Rom. 9. we hauehave spoken at large formerly, and of their misconstructions of the Apostles meaning.

Lastly, we neither run, as they say, nor goe to the old Testament, Pag. 153.Law, or Moses for the baptizing of Infants; but to the Covenant of the Gospell solemnly made with our father Abraham long before the Law was given, the old Testament established, or Moses born.

Their discourse about Rome is vain, except they can proue that the outward baptism there administred (though unlawfully) is not to be reteyned by such, as unto whom the Lord afterward vouchsafeth the inward baptism of his spirit; and so answer our Reasons to the contrary, which they hauehave, and hauehave had so long time in their hands.

These things thus cleared, it remaines we come in the next & last place to examine their defence of that their own unhallowed baptism in use amongst them: formerly proved by me a mere nullity by their grounds, and practise set together. Their ground is, that baptism unlawfully ministred is no baptism, their practise, that he who ministring his gift (poorely as their manner is) doth convert (in truth pervert) another: may also baptize him without any speciall calling.

For foundation of my proofs I laid down these two Rules. 1. There is no lawfull baptism, but by him that hath a lawfull calling to baptize. 1. Thess. 4. 11. Heb. 5. 4. 5. And unto this they assent. 2. OnelyOnly he hath a lawfull ordinary calling to baptize (and extraordinary they challeng not) who is called therto by the Church. This their first rebaptizer Mr. Smith had not, neyther hauehave they, that now administer baptism amongst them; neither doe they account, that more is requisite for power, and right to baptize, then a personall gift of teaching, and making thereby one of their Proselites, and supposed converts. Whereupon it follows, that they themselvs being baptized by such, as want a lawfull calling, are not lawfully baptized; and so by the verdict of their own quest, unbaptized persons.

p. 179Their defence they begin with the perverting both of my words, and meaning, very unhonestly, in setting down the state of the question; which yet seems not strang unto me, considering their licentious dealing in like sort, with the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures. They frame the question; whether any but Pastors or Elders may baptize? and my charge upon them; that they are unbaptized, because, they want Pastors.

But where hauehave I so spoken? or how gather they that to hauehave been my meaning? had it so been, why could I not as easily hauehave said, that none but Pastors (for of baptism by others Elders which labour not in the word and doctrine, we approve1 Tim. 5. 17▪1 Tim 5:17 not) may lawfully baptize; as, that none but such as are lawfully called by the Church may baptize? which are my words. My meaning was not to deny, that a Church wanting Pastors may appoint a member able to teach (though out of office) to baptize: for which much may be said, and hath been by some so minded. Which though I doe not simply approve of; yet neyther did, neither had I occasion ro deal thereagainst, but onelyonly against the wilde course of these Allalikes; of whom any that can wrest a few Scriptures (intended of men of yeares onelyonly) against the baptizing of Infants, to the corrupting of some simple man, or woman, thinks himself another Iohn Baptist, as their practise and profession manifests. Now whether they hauehave thus altered my words, and perverted my meaning out of bold rashnes, as being more hasty to answer, then to understand their adversarie; or out of cunning for their advantage, the Lord and themselvs bee Iudges. OnelyOnly this any may see, and I shall make appeare, that the most, and most colourable of their Arguments are against their misconceaved, and not mine intended sense: which gives occasion to suspect, that they hauehave rather been cunning, then carelesse in the thing.

p. 180ADVERSARIES.

LET us come to the particulars: and first to their first and main ground, and foundation of their course which is, that members, and Churches of Christ are made both by faith, and baptism, and not by the one onelyonly.

DEFENCE.

THIS their foundation in respect of baptism is sandy: seeing it servs but to signifie, and confirm what was before; but makes nothing to be that was not. The Scriptures (being many) cited by them are partly impertinent, and partly against them, some of them expresly, and the rest truely.

Some of them indeed speak of being baptized into Christ, Gal. 3. 26. 27. Rom. 6. 1. Cor. 12. 13. Heb. 6.Gal 3:26Gal 3:27Rom 61 Cor 12:13Heb 6and into his death, and into one body with him, and make baptism a foundation: but mean not … to shew, that men are made Christian soules by baptism, as ignorant persons think and speak; but onelyonly that they are confirmed, and furthered thereby in that which they were before. Some of the places joyn with baptism the Lords Supper, others the laying on of 1. Cor. 12 13. Heb. 61 Cor 12:13Heb 6hands (which yet rather is meant of the doctrine, then ministration of those things). Now doe they conceaue, that such as were no true Christians before, are in part made Christians by the Lords Supper, and laying on of hands? When the Scriptures affirm any thing of an ordinance, they must be interpreted according to the nature of the ordimance. As where Christ saith of the bread, This is my body; or of the rock, And the rock was Christ: or the Apostle here, that we are baptized into Christ, and draw neer unto Christ by baptism, and the like; we must understand the speaches as sacramentall, so far as they are applied to ordinances; that is, as intending those things, for signes, and seales, and means of confirmation; and not otherwise.

Others of the Scriptures brought by them are so plainly against them, as it is marvail that in setting them down, they thought not of the Lords answer to the evill servant Luke 19. p. 18122. For example, Math. 28. 19. Go teach, or as they well turn it, make all nations disciples baptizing them &c. The Apostles then were first to make, to wit, by their teaching, disciples, that is Christians; and after to baptize them. Is it not the ScripturesActs 11. 26Acts 11:26 constant voice, and these mens plea (true in it self, but to a wrong end) that men must first beleeue, and repent, and upon manifestation thereof, be baptized? Are not they that beleev, and repent Christians with them? Otherwise, How doe they baptize them? But thus it is with men in all sects, that are lead by passion, and appetite, more then reason: they doatupon some one thing truly or apparantly good: and labor aboue measure, to magnifie it, esteeming all things without it, as nothing. Thus these men esteem of baptism, others of Church government, others of seperation, others of imposition of hands by Bishops; And so, according as men hauehave advantage by particulars, or suffer for them, or are otherwise prejudiced towards them, they set high valuation upon them. But as grace teacheth us to acknowledg better things in Christians then any outward ordinances; so must wisdom warn us not to ascribe too much to any one, as fond folks use to doe to the person, or thing which they affect.

Math. 18. 20, is against them. To be gathered together in Christs name there, presupposes a Church state. So is Io…. 4. 1. Christ made and baptized disciples: they were made disciples by preaching, and after baptized. Ioh. 3. 5, speaks of regeneration by the spirit compared in that place to water, as elswhere to fire for its property in purifying. And admit, it speak of the ordinance of baptism: yet must it follow regeneration, as a means of confirmation.

As therefore Christians are not made by the ordinance of baptism; so much lesse are Churches. This I hauehave elswhereRel. Com. p. 47. 48. proved against them by many firm Arguments: to which seeing they neither giuegive answer, nor shew thereof: (though this be a main matter in question between them and us) what should I say more to them? These they may answer, if they be able, as I am sure they are not: nor, I think, will ever goe p. 182about it. OnelyOnly, I here add this one thing. If members, and Churches be made by Baptism, I demand, when I. M. alone baptiseth one of his converts alone, what Church, or member of what Church is here made? And if one alone may receiv or make members of the Church, why not also cast them out, and excommunicate them without the Churches presence or privity? Such is the confused course of these men.

Here they cite sundry Scriptures, but proving onelyonly thatPag. 156. which we willingly grant: viz. that men and women converted from Heathenism, and Iudaism, to the faith of Christ, and so to be added to the Church, and being before unbaptised, were to be baptized. But how proues this, that they were made either Churches or Christians by Baptism? When any of the Heathens became Iews, that is, embraced the IewishEsth. 8. 17. Nehem. 10. 28. Ruth. 2. 11Esth 8:17Neh 10:28Ruth 2:11 Religion, and separated themselvs from the other Idolaters of the land to the Law of God, and came to put their trust under the wings of the God Israel, and were to be circumcised: did their Circumcision make them such? Or did it not onelyonly, declare and confirm that state of grace, in and unto which God had called them? Neither yet could the things forementioned be performed by their infants: and yet were they made partakers of Circumcision with them.

ADVERSARIES.

BVT minde here a futher matter. They say, The Church at Ierusalem was the first Church of Christ; and by faith, and Baptism made a Church: and in the next words, that the twelue were so made also.

DEFENCE.

IF the Church at Ierusalem were the first Church of Christ (as in a sense it may be so called) I would know how the Baptism of Christ before that time, and of Iohns before Christs (having also joyned with them faith in the baptized) made Churches? Were any made before the first? Or what, p. 183and which were the Churches which they so made, and gathered? Both the one, and other living, and dying members of the Iewish Church. I add, considering how it is said of Iohn, that Ierusalem and all Iudea, and the region round about Iordan Mat. 3. 5. 6 Ioh. 4. 1.Matt 3:5Matt 3:6John 4:1were baptized of him, confessing their sinnes: and of Christ, that he made and baptized moe Disciples then Iohn; it is very evident, that thousands, afterwards made members of the Churches in Ierusalem, Iudea, Samaria, and Galilee, were baptized long before, by Iohn and Christ: and were made members of the Church, in our sense, long after their Baptism. Here then we see Baptism administred, and yet no Church made: and again, Churches made, and yet many the members thereof, not then, but long before baptized.

We grant (as they say) that Rome is that Aegipt, Sodom and Babylon, in mysterie, mentioned in the Revelation: but deny (which they adjoyn) as being both untrue and uncharitable, that all in that Church are in Gods account as the worst pagans, &c. God hath his people (considered in their persons) in Babylon, unto whom he saith, Come out of her my people, &c. being held captiue there, by her craft and cruelty. Neither is Babylon called an habitation of Divels, for that the devill possessethRev. 18. 1.Rev 18:1 men; but to shew its desolation after the day of theEsay 13. 18 20. 21. & 21. 9. 10. Ier. 10. 2. 8 39. 40, &c.Isa 13:18Jer 10:2Jer 10:8 fall thereof: the Evangelist in that speech, alluding to the forms of speech used by the Prophets before against Babylon Civill, in regard of her utter ruin, and desolation shortly to follow.

Neither is the Baptism in Rome, a Babylonish, or Aegyptian Pag. 157.washing, as they calumniate; no more then the doctrine of Baptism, in the name of the Trinity is a Babylonish doctrine; but it is as a vessell of the Lords house, though prophaned there. Much lesse can that vitupery agree to the Church of England, where the faith is sound for justification and salvation, and effectuall for obtaining the same in those that truely professe it. The Circumcision of Gods people (though too much infected with their sinns) in Aegipt, and Babylon, were no… Ezek. 23. 8.Ezek 23:8Aegyptian and Babylonish; no more is the Baptism in Aegypt p. 184and Babylon spirituall: specially in regard of Gods people there; as not a few also shew themselvs to be by comming out thence at the Lords call: though some more slowly then other; as of old they did out of Babylon Civill, as Esra, and Nehemiah testifie.

That the everlasting Gospell commands beleevers to be baptized; Pag. 158.to wit, if unbaptized before, we grant: but that men become an habitation of God by his spirit, and water; is as if they said; water dwels in men, as the spirit of God doth? It is hard to say, whether Papists bread, or these mens water, be made the greater Idoll. Neither doe we in retaining the Baptism received in Rome, take a corner stone out of Babylon, either for foundation, or wall, but bring thence a vessell of the Lords house there captived with the Lords people. I know not but that the very circumcision of the Shechimites might hauehave beenGen. 34.Gen 34 retained, if any of the males had survived and embraced the truth of religion: which yet was far from being lawfully administred.

Lastly, though all were true which they say for anabaptizing in the generall; yet were their particular practise not justified thereby, nor our exception cleared, being against their manner (and the same singular, from all other of their Sect, in all places) of baptizing, by persons uncalled thereunto, either by God immediately, or mediately by the Church, … or otherwise then by their own particular and personall motion.

To their objection arising from the supposed proportionPag. 159. between Baptism, and the Ministery; and to their Demand, Why I cast away my Popish Priesthood, and retain my Popish washing for my Christianity (as they please to speak) I hauehave answeredIustificat. &c. pag. 390. 391. &c. elsewhere at large: neither hauehave they been able, to this day, or now are, to say against mine answer any thing at all, either true, or colourable: and yet neither hauehave they the humility to suffer themselvs to be taught better; nor the modesty to hold their tongues in the matter: but doe irksomely demand a new the things of old answered. For the present, I p. 185will onelyonly note these three differences. First, it is absurdly said, that a man is made a Christian by his Baptism, as he is made a Minister by his outward calling. He that is not a Christian before he be baptized, becomes not one thereby: But by the outward calling of the Church, hee that was no Minister before, become such properly and imediatly. Secondly, a man is to be baptized but once: and God adding to the outward2 Chron 30 18. 19. 20.2 Chr 30:182 Chr 30:192 Chr 30:20 washing with water that which is inward, and by his spirit, sanctifies the former, and covers many faylings in the manner of administring it: but a man may on the contrary, upon occasion, be called divers times to a Ministery, in divers Churches, one after another. Thirdly, the Ministery is the1 Cor. 3. 21 22. 23. & ch. 12. 28.1 Cor 3:21 Churches, and depends upon it as the adjunct upon the subject, so as if the Church dissolue, the Ministerie ceaseth: which the same Church also that giues it, may take away, and make him that was a Minister no Minister: Besides, that in the mean while his Ministery is bounded within the precincts of that Church wherof he is an officer. But in the ordinance of Baptism the case is clean otherwise. For neither can the Church which hath given it, take it from him; neither ceaseth he to remain a baptized person, though alone, and without either Church, or other Christian in the world with him; neither is he in any Church where he comes, to bee barred from the priviledges of his Baptism, or use of any thing depending upon it.

ADVERSARIES.

FOR the justifying of the manner of their rebaptizing,Pag. 161. and to proue that the Disciples of Christ, though no Pastors (they must add, nor having any Church-calling) may baptize: their first instance is from Iohn Baptist, who was no Pastor, and yet baptized.

DEFENCE.

WEE grant it; No more was Christ himselfe a Pastor in our sense, nor his Apostles. But we say Iohn, as p. 186they, had an immediate and extraordinary calling, not onelyonly to exercise, but also to introduce the ordinance of Baptism: being expresly prophesyed of before by Esay and Malachy: Esay 40. 3. Mal. 4. 5. 6 Luk. 1. 11. 13. 14. 15, &c.Isa 40:3Mal 4:5Mal 4:6Luke 1:11Luke 1:13Luke 1:14Luke 1:15promised to his father Zachary, by an Angell of the Lord, and filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb. Will these men compare their conceited gift of converting, with Iohns divine, and extraordinary charter and endowments? We say, with Christ our Lord, that Iohn was a Prophet, and more then a Mat. 11. ….Matt 11Prophet: They answer us, that the least disciple, or that hath Iohns doctrine, in the Kingdom of God is greater then he. But we reply, that Christ doth not there mean the least disciple, but the least able Minister of the new Testament, wherof these Anabaptizers are none. When Christ asked the Iews, if they went out to see a Prophet: Think we, he meant of any ordinary Iew, having a poor gift of expounding the Scriptures, like these mens? Or not rather of some, both of singular abilities, and speciall calling? So, by the least in the Kingdom of heaven, he means the least Minister of the new Testament, furnished with speciall abilities, and calling. Besides, his meaning is, not that the least Minister, no nor the greatest neither, was greater then Iohn the Baptist in respect of power of ministring Baptism: for none was comparable to him this way, being under God the instituter of it, and the Baptist, which neither Peter nor Paul was: But the greatnesse here, is in regard onelyonly of the more full knowledg of Christ, not onelyonly come in the flesh, and entred upon his Ministery, as in Iohns time; but having finished his work upon earth, and being dead for our sins, and risen again, and ascended into the heavens; whence he did, and doth most graciously, and powerfully administer his Kingdom amongst men. Is it not enough for Iohn Murton, and his consorts, to be equall with Iohn Baptist in the power of baptizing, but they will needs perck aboue him therein, and bee greater then he. But it is no new thing for the bramble to advance Iudg. 9.Judg 9it selfe aboue all the trees, even the vine, oliue, and fig-tree. But such pride will hauehave a fall. The Lord grant it may be by, or with repentance, to prevent the down-fall to perdition.

p. 187To their instancing the disciples of Christ, and Ananias hisPag. 161. 162. baptizing, what shall I say more then I hauehave done in the very writing which they undertake to answer? Wherein I hauehave proved, that these instances are so far from helping them, as that they make plainly against them, as the Reader that will, may see. To my proofs they answer nothing at all, nor confirm their own tenent further, by any circumstance of the Text. OnelyOnly they tell us in the generall, that these things were written for our learning: We grant it, and therewith affirm, that amongst other things, we are to learn this from them; that such as are to baptize, are to be furnished with (besides, and aboue the gift of teaching) a speciall warrant and calling from Christ, either extraordinary and immediate, as had these disciples, and Ananias; or ordinary, and mediate by the Church: which alone is delegated by Christ the Lord, with authority to call men to the ministering of his solemn Ordinances; wherof Baptism is one, and not the use of a gift, as bare teaching is.

In opening Math. 28, Goe teach all Nations, &c. they shewPag. 102▪ 163. a strange streyn of wit; in gathering from thence, that any disciple of Christ may baptize, from whence all others of learning or judgment (of all Sects) doe gather the contrary, and that none, but such as hauehave speciall calling to teach may baptize. Let us examine things particularly.

And first, I affirm, that the Lord in that place giues an Apostolicall commission properly; which I thus proue. First, because he bids them Goe, or goe forth and teach all Nations: opposing the Apostles going forth, and teaching all Nations then, to the Prophets tarrying, and teaching that one Nation of the Iews formerly. Doe or can these men (though their feet abide not in the house, Prov. 7. 11,) goe to, and teach all Nations? Their answer is frivilous, that every Disciple is to doe this according to his best abilitie, seeing the Lord calls none to a state or work, but such as he furnisheth with answerable abilities. By such answers, the calling of any how unfit soever, to any place or state how excellent soever, might be p. 188justified. Secondly, if not in this place, I would know when, and where Christ gaue the commission properly Apostolicall.

Where they add, that the Apostles hauehave left their power wholly behind them, and that nothing is dead but their persons: they erre not a little; For not onelyonly their persons are dead, but their office also is ceased. If any now hauehave the power of Apostles, they hauehave then the office of Apostles first, from which the power is, and in which it is to be exercised. If they say, they are Apostles; they are not, but are easily found lyars by plain direction of the Scriptures. Besides, they expresly contradictGal. 1. 1. 1 Cor. 1. 9. & ch▪ 4. 9.Gal 1:11 Cor 1:9 themselvs in the same place, in saying, The commission was given to such, as whose persons remains to the end of the world. If their persons be dead, how remain they? But they add, as their corner stone, that this commission was given to the succeeders of the Apostles in their doctrine from time to time, with whom Christ promiseth to be present alwaies, even to the end.

If I should answer (as I know not but I might lawfully,) that these words of Christ, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world, are to be expounded as those of the Apostle, 1 Thess. 4. 15. 17, Wee which are aliue, and remain unto the comming of the Lord, and that the meaning of both is, that all should so walk, as if that day of the Lord were to come every day of their liues, what would they reply?

But admit this be spoken mediately to the successours of the Apostles (not in their power Apostolicall, for that ceaseth with their office Apostolicall, and their office with their persons; neither is there left in the Church any authority or direction for the chusing of Apostles, but) in the performance of such ordinary works, in lawfull order, as the Apostles were to exercise themselvs in, specially of teaching and baptizing, there mentioned: I thus proue, that by those successors are not meant, as they conceiv disciples, but such as hauehave speciall commission, and authority, and so specially Pastors.

And first, Christ here opposeth them to whom he speaks, as the makers of Disciples (as the words are) to Disciples to be p. 189made by them. Secondly, if every disciple of Christ, then why not women also, which are disciples as well as men, and wherof there are diverse to be found better gifted then any of this fellowship? Neither can they object the Apostles prohibition of women, 1 Cor. 11, & 1 Tim. 2, seeing they hold Baptism no Church action, but personall onelyonly; and so administer it as privately, as Midwines use to doe. Thirdly, if Pastors be most rightfully the Apostles successors in other works of their Apostolicall commission here given; by name, in administring the Lords Supper, and over-seeing the flock, and defending the same in the truth, which they grant: why not in teaching, and baptizing also, which alone are expressed? Math. 28.

ADVERSARIES.

BVT this they account a meer fiction, seeing converting and baptizing is no part of the Pastors office, which is to feed, watch and oversee the flock of Christ, and defend the same in the truth: then which they deny further charge to be laid upon him by his office: quoting for that purpose, Act. 20. 28, Tit. 1. 9, proceeding also to challenge it as an imagination, that he is to preach Pag. 163.by vertue of his office: yea, adding that any disciple having ability is authorized, yea commanded to preach, convert, and baptize, as well, and as much, if not more, then any Pastour. To this height of usurpation are these Chorites come.

DEFENCE.

FIrst here, as alwaies, they alter the state of the question, which between them and me is not whether onelyonly Pastors, but whether onelyonly such as hauehave a speciall Church-calling, may baptize? Secondly, it is true, that Pastors in the right state of things, are not to be set over heards of goats and swine, but over flocks of sheep: yet doth it not follow thereupon that Pastors in no sort convert. For first, there may be in the Church hypocrites undetected, or after detection, yet uncensured, which they may by Gods blessing effectually convert. p. 190Secondly, the Pastor as Pastor of the flock, and feeding it, may convert a stranger comming in: and why then not baptize him by their own ground? The person so converted publiquely, may and ought to be baptized publiquely; and should not the Pastor doe it (by whom also hee is converted) rather then a private member? Thirdly, it is not all one (though they confound them) to convert, to wit, from being wicked to become godly, and to make a disciple. Children born in the Church may be made Disciples, yet not so converted; as it may be never having been such, as of whom it could be said, that they were wicked. Fourthly, it is their ignorance to make converting of men, and the baptizing them, actions of the same nature: seeing onelyonly men and women before converted, and repenting, are to be baptized.Act. 2. 38.Acts 2:38 Lastly, in granting, according to the Scriptures, that the Pastor 1 Cor. 4. 15 & 9. 14. Iam. 1. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 231 Cor 4:151 Cor 9:14Jas 1:181 Pet 1:23is by office to feed the flock: they cannot deny, but that hee is to baptize thereby: seeing baptism is a part of that feeding properly, serving to confirm the faith of beleevers in the washing away of their sinnes by the bloud of Christ; Begetting is by the seed of the word, the word of truth: and so whatsoever means follow thereupon, is but for feeding and nourishing the so begotten.

ADVERSARIES.

BVT that which followeth is admirable, viz. that the Pastour is not required to preach, nor doth perform it by vertue of his office, when he doth it.

DEFENCE.

MAny men (and these with the rest) hauehave spoken many absurd things in religion: but these in this exceed them all, yea and themselves. They from Act. 20, affirm that the Pastours are to feed the flock by their office. And can the flock be fed as it ought without preaching, and where the bread of life is not broken unto it? They also graunt in the same place from Titus 1. 9. that he is to defend the flock in the truth against p. 191all gainsayers, But why to defend the flock &c. as their cunning and corrupt glosse is, rather then as the words of the text are, by sound doctrine both to exhort, and convince the gainsaier. Are exhortations and convictions by sound doctrine no preachings with these men? yea, are they not directly for the conversion of gainsayers? And how then belongs it not to Pastours, to whom these things belong, to convert? So where it is required that the Bishop (to be called) be apt to 1 Tim. 3. 2.1 Tim 3:2teach, is he not by his office to doe that which is requisite in him for his enabling unto it. I say for the enabling of him unto his office, and not for the adorning of it onelyonly, as hospitality is: which though he wholy want ability to perform, yet that disables him not; as the want of aptnes to teach doth.

Ioyn with these the Apostles exhortation, that the Elders that rule well be had in double honour; specially they that labour in 1 Tim 5▪ 17.1 Tim 5:17the word, and doctrine; for the labourer is worthy of his reward: and what can be clearer, then that the Pastour is to preach by his office, and that as being the speciall work, for which his wages are due unto him. Is not to labour in the word and doctrine here spoken of, for him to preach, and that as an Elder; as the former rule, as Elders? Strange it is that, a Pastour Ephe. …. 11.or Teacher by office should not teach and preach by office; that is, not exercise their office or ministery, the Teacher in teaching, and Exhorter, or Pastour in exhortation. And see weRom. 12. 5. 7. 8.Rom 12:5Rom 12:7Rom 12:8 not here what new Patrons dumb ministers hauehave gotten; of whom the old almost every where are ashamed? If it be not required of the Pastour to preach by his office, then though he never preach at all, yet it cannot be said to Archippus, fulfill thy Col. 4. 17Col 4:17ministery, which thou hast received in the Lord. The Pastour might, by their Canon, most faithfully perform and fulfill his office though he never preached one sermon all his life long.

But as all errours hauehave some truth either in them, or nigh unto them, and so are raised upon mistaking of one thing for another, with which it hath some affinity: So is it in this case. For first the ability or gift to teach is not by the office, but before it, and meerly personall, and so remains even in the p. 192officer; and the same greater in one then in another, though the office be the same in both. Yet because the gift fits for the office, and enables to the performing of it many unskilfully confound them. Secondly, there is both a liberty, and duty of using the same gift in time & place, before and without the office. But herewith (the office concurring) is joyned, and added a bond of authority, and speciall charge upon the officer to wait upon his office, the Teacher in teaching, the Exhorter, or Pastor in exhortation, as the Apostle speaks.

Here amongst sundry Scriptures, not so much as lookingPag. 164. towards the matter in hand, but speaking of the generall liberties of Christians, and graces of Christianity, common to women with men, and to such men as want all gifts of teaching with others, they alledg, 1 Cor. 14. 1, and the Apostle then commanding every beleever to covet to preach.

But first, why put they preaching, and not prophesying, as the Text, and all translations hauehave it? Secondly, it is their presumption, that he speaks of every beleever. Was every beleever to covet spirituall gifts, to wit, all both extraordinary and ordinary there mentioned? And are there not many in all Churches, who, without a miracle, cannot possibly attain to any competent ability to teach publiquely in the Church? But let them stretch the words to their own size, what follows hereupon? All are to desire the gift of exhortation, &c. and such as hauehave it, to use it in time and place: Ergo, it is not required of Pastors by vertue of their office to exhort. Why not then thus? It is required of every member of the Church in his place, to watch for the good of the whole, and to defend the same against gain-sayers in the truth: and therfore it is an imagination, which these men in the page before going affirm, that the Pastour is by his office to watch, and defend the flock against gain-sayers: Or thus. It concerns everyRom. 12. 13Rom 12:13 Christian, being able, to distribute to the necessities of the Saints, and therefore not to the Deacons by vertue of their office; which yet for the very thing are called Distributers in the sameVers. 8. place. Every citizen and subject is bound to defend his citie p. 193and country against the enemy in his place and standing; and therefore by their consequence, not the Magistrate by vertue of his Magistracy. Their conclusion therefore, that a Pastor is not bound to teach by his office, because hee mightafter a sort, and in an order, teach without it; it is, as if they should tell us, that he who is bound to a post with one coard, cannot be bound with two.

ADVERSARIES.

THey add, that the Church may receiv in members, without officers, or when they are sick, or in prison, and so baptize them, as the primitiue Churches were gathered by faith and baptism, and that being without Pastors a good while, which the Apostles afterwards placed amongst them.

DEFENCE.

THey oft say, but never proue, that Churches are gathered by baptism. Baptism is an ordinance and service given toRom. 9. 4. Ps. 147. 19. Ioh. 7. 22.Rom 9:4Ps 147:19John 7:22 the Church, as were the statutes and services of old, given to Israel, and Circumcision amongst the rest. If the Church receiv in men by baptizing them; then it is to cast them out by unbaptizing them. For they are to be put out or excommunicated by the undoing of that, by the doing of which they were taken in.

Besides, receiving in, and casting out of members are dispensations of Christs Kingdom; Baptism of his Propheticall office.

Thirdly, as both infants might be born in the Church, and men of years received into it, and both the one and other be be baptized afterwards, as God affoarded fit and lawfull means: so can it not be proved, specially in the plenty that1 Cor. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 3 Tit. 1. 5.1 Cor 31 Tim 1:3Titus 1:5 then was, that the Apostles still left not behind them some extraordinary Officers, Prophets, or Evangelists to water, where they had planted, and to order things unperfected.

Lastly, let be observed, how in this place, they make it aPag. 164. work of the same power, to baptize, and to receiv members into p. 194the Church: and wherupon it must follow inavoidably, that Baptism administred by one alone, and without a Church power (which theirs was, and is,) is unlawfull: seeing one alone is not a Church, nor hath power to receiv in, or cast out members.

To conclude the point about the Apostles successors. The Apostle Paul, calling unto him at Miletus the Elders, or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus, and charging them to feed the flock Act. 20. 17. 18. 19,—28 &c.Acts 20:17Acts 20:18Acts 20:19wherof they were made Over-seers by the Holy Ghost; and for their direction therin, propounding unto thē his own Apostolicall example to be followed by them in so many particulars, shews who are the Apostles ordinarie successors in their severall charges. The same also doth the Apostle Peter, in calling himselfe a Sympresbyter, or fellow-Elder with the ordinarie1 Pet. 5. 1.1 Pet 5:1 Elders. And truly what man, not at utter defyance with common sense, will denie that a Pastor in his charge is more properly an Apostles successour, then a private brother.

In answering mine exceptions, they build amisse upon myPag. 165. 166. foundation, and father their bastards upon me: knowing that I both put, and hauehave proved against them, elsewhere, a difference between no Baptism, and Baptism unlawfully administred, in divers respects; and that the latter, though it ought not so to hauehave been administred, or received; yet ought not to be iterated; specially, if God hauehave added therunto the inward Baptism of the spirit of regeneration.

Now my proofs, howsoever by them vilified, confirm,1 Proof. that besides and aboue the personall abilitie to teach, a speciall calling is requisite for him that dispenseth the ordinance of Baptism. This speciall calling ordinarie is by the Church, which alone hath Christs delegated power for Ordinances.1 Cor. 3. 21 22. 23. Math. 18. 17. 18. 19. 20.1 Cor 3:21Matt 18:17Matt 18:18Matt 18:19Matt 18:20 The Argument I thus frame. That which by many proofs of Scripture appears to hauehave been done by speciall calling, and commission from Christ, and never otherwise; that not being done by such speciall calling, and commission, is unlawfully done: But by the proofs by me brought, it appears that Baptism hath still been ministred by speciall calling, and commission, p. 195and not otherwise▪ therefore, these mens Baptism not so administred, was, and is, unlawfully administred; and so they by their own grounds (which they vainly make mine) unbaptized persons.

Neither can they make an escape by saying, that they inPag. 166. whom I instance had no calling by the Church, nor were Pastors of particular flocks: Seeing our question is not of Pastors, but of such as hauehave a Church-calling: and that Iohn Baptist, Christs disciples, Phillip, and the rest, had a calling extraordinarie, These Adversaries neither hauehave the former, nor challenge the latter. And indeed, by this defence, so oft renewed by them, they make it evident to all the world, that they neither consider of their own practise seriously, nor of mine exceptions.

Of the difference between teaching and baptising, I shall speak in the fourth Rule: as I hauehave also formerly, both in this Treatise, and else-where, at large cleered their exception about ordination: which they cunningly dissemble. Here I onelyonly demand of them, whether one man alone, without either presence, or preceding election of the Church, may ordain a Pastor, as is their manner of baptizing. And for me, doe they not know in their consciences that I was ordained publiquely upon the solemn calling of the Church, in which I serue, both in respect of the Ordainers, and Ordained? Whilst then they account me wilfully blinde in putting difference between my Church ordination & their Baptism; they shew themselvs witlesly blinde in making them alike.

To my proof, from Math. 3, that Christ in comming to Iohn Pag. 168.to be baptized of him, fulfilled all righteousnesse, &c. they answer, That this is still done, when any disciple, &c: Wherein first, they make both Iohn and Christ, disciples of Christ: Secondly, if Christ had herein considered Iohn as an ordinarie disciple onelyonly, what needed he to hauehave come from one countrey to another, even from Galilee, to Iordan in Iudea, to hauehave been baptized of him? Why might he not as well hauehave used some ordinary disciple neer at hand? Christ therefore, in being p. 196baptized by Iohn, fulfilled all righteousnesse, in consecrating unto us Baptism, as Circumcision to the fathers, in his own person, who of God is made unto us righteousnesse: and1 Cor. 1. 301 Cor 1:30 that by Iohns ministery, who had a most solemn and singular calling thereunto. Lastly, it is not likely, which they take for certain, that Iohn in these words, I had need to be baptized of thee, meant not (to wit at all) of the baptism with water, considering that the quest on between our Lord and him, was about that Baptism and none other. The words therefore insinuate, that some special state and calling is required in the Baptizer aboue these mens common disciple-ship.

Heer first in answering Ioh. 1. 19. 25, for their own credite3 Proof. they disgrace the Priests and Levits, as blind and ignorant Pharisees, for demanding of Iohn, by what authority he baptized. But considering both their places, and Iohns practise in bringing a new ordinance of Religion into the Church, they did nothing herein not well sorting with their office.

Secondly, their answer, that Iohn proovs his authority to baptize, by proving his authority to preach, from Esaias the Prophet: Esa. 40. 3, shews, how short their wits are in gageing the depth of the Scriptures. He doth not proue his authority to baptize, by a common authority or liberty to teach, which any of Israel (gifted) might use; but he justifies his whole ministery, in all the parts of it, by his speciall calling, as the harbinger and fore-runner of Christ, plainly foretold by Esay and Malachy. Doe they think, that the Prophets words, The voyce of one crying in the wildernes, appertained to every Israelite that could teach; as they ascribe power to baptize to each of their teaching disciples? Or might Iohn, without a special calling, hauehave instituted and brought into the Church, as he did, a new ordinance? Yea I would know, which of Iohns disciples ever offered to baptize? Of whom yet it cannot be doubted, but divers were able to teach.

As Cowards most vilifie in words, where in deed they dare4 Proof. Pag. 169. doe least, so doe these men account this proof most vain, against which they hauehave nothing to bring, saving an equivocation in p. 197the word Ordinances, and a cunning course in leaving out that which I alledg from Rom. 12. 3, which would discover the fallacie. The different nature of baptism and teaching (meerly by a personall gift) is evident. A man becomes a Prophet, and able to teach, by the gifts of the Spirit, knowledge and utterance. 1 Cor. 1. 5▪1 Cor 1:5But I would know by what gift of the Spirit any becoms a Baptizer, or able to baptize? 2 Besides the Scriptures, 1 Pet. 1. 12, the light of nature, and generall law of louelove, shews, that he who knows any thing profitable for another, should in his place, & upon occasion declare it to him: so as teaching by him that hath abilitie, hath its plain foundation in nature: But so is not Baptism by the light of nature; but meerly ordained and instituted of God by supernaturall revelation; in which respect I call it an ordinance▪ And this consideration alone, if there were nothing else, wil with reasonable men, oversway all their presumptions▪ Actions of religion are some of them performed immediately from a personall gift, and grace of the spirit in the heart, as preaching, or prophesying, and prayer, out of a speciall state or office; others, by no speciall gift of the spirit at all, but by authoritie conferred upon some speciall person; as the ministration of Sacraments, censures, ordination, & the like: & lastly, some others by both, as pastoral preaching, prayer, &c: the gift ministring abilitie; and the office charge to use the gift, for feeding of the flock committed to the officer.

In answering my fift Proof, the alledg things partly imper…n…nt,5 Proof. Pag. 169. and partly unreasonable. Of the former sort is their discourse about the Eun…chs being a member of Christ, and his remaining in any particular Church: Whereas they should hauehave answered directly, whether by his faith and baptism hee had been made a member of any particular Church, or not? But they seeing what would follow upon a direct answer, hauehave rather chosen an indirect evasion. Of like hue is that which they add of Israels renewed covenant, (conceiving Israel as a true Church) which we meddle not with in this businesse.

Absurd it is in it selfe, and a slandering of our practise,Pag. 170. which they affirm of one casting out another, where there p. 198are but two of a Church. Which of us ever so held or practized? One man, or woman either, may upon just ground, separate from a whole Church: may he, or she therfore excommunicate a whole Church? Or hath I. M. excommunicated the whole Church of England? Separation, where lawfull, onelyonly shews the liberty, which every Christian hath to keep himselfe pure from the sins of others: Excommunication imports a judiciarie power and state of authority to execute a solemn censure and punishment: which appertains onelyonly to the Church gathered together in Christs name; which one cannotMath. 18. 19▪ 20. 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5Matt 18:19Matt 18:201 Cor 5:41 Cor 5:5 be. Two may joyn together, and so receiving one another mutually may become a Church: or may, upon just occasion, part a sunder, and so dissolv: but cannot receiv in, to speak properly, or cast out one another, by solemn ordinance: this imports authority; the former, liberty onelyonly. But thus it becomes the new builders of Babylon, to use brick for stone, and lime for well tempered morter.

Their answer to my sixt proofe about witnesses of the baptism,Proof. 6. Pag. 170. that Phillip baptized the Eunuch, and Ananias, Saul, none else being by, is presumptuous. It is apparant, Act. 8, that the Eunuch had divers in his r…tinue, and most probable, that some of them were godly also, and baptized with him, though the story mention him alone. Neither is it like, that Ananias in that citie, where so many Christians were, was not accompanyed with some or other of them. Besides, those Baptisms were administred by extraordinarie, and miraculous direction, and assistance; and therefore not to be drawn, for the manner, into ordinarie example. Lastly, these instances overthrow their main ground, which is, that all particular Churches, are gathered by Faith and Baptism. One alone cannot be a Church: Neither is a Church gathered by that which may lawfully be performed without a Church-gathering. Pauls own manifestation of the grace of Christ received, was sufficient testimonie of his conversion; and the Churches weaknes it was, to stand need of further witness.

In their answer to mine other demand, that any disciple p. 199Pag. 161.present, though no instrument of conversion, may baptize, they raze their own main ground (which how sandie soever, yetPag. 162. is theirs) from Math. 28. 19, that Every Disciple, that can teach, or make disciples, according to his best abilitie, may baptize; and whosoever makes a disciple may baptize; and that Christ hath coupled them together, and that no man should seperate them, &c. yet here themselvs seperate them, in affirming that any disciple, though making no disciple, nor being instrument of conversion, may baptize. Their instances of Christs baptizing none, but leaving that to his followers, and Pauls baptizing few in Corinth, are too presumptuous. It is too much vanity for base persons to play on stages the parts of Kings: what is it then for Iohn Murton, to play Christ and Paul (if yet Paul had not Evangelists in his companie) in commanding others of his disciples to baptize his converts, as Christ our Lord did his?

About womens baptism, they are like a bird in a net, seeking many holes to get out, but finding none. First, they answer, that women may neither teach nor baptize in the Church: True: But why not, as they doe? which is, not in the Church; but out of it, and in a corner, where, it may be, none is present but the baptizer and baptized? They say further, that women hauehave been, and may bee, worthy instruments of converting of others. I grant it, and that even of men. But may they therfore baptize them? This they dare not say, nor doe; and yet except they say it, they must unsay their so oft repeated lesson, They that may convert, may baptize.

Their dispute from my former plea out of Mr. Perkins, that where God giues the word, he giues the power also, helps not: For first, both Mr. Perkins, and I, speak of a Church having1 Cor. 1…. 19.1 Cor 1:19 this power of the Lord, and not of a single person. If all the body were one member, where were the body, or Church, saith the Apostle? These men make all the body, and one member the same. One and all, and all and one, is all one with them. Secondly, we speak of having and using the power of the Lord, according to the Lords order; and not in their confused▪ p. 200fashion. Which order of the Lord is, that men first be called (ordinarily) by the Church, and so minister baptism as the stewards of the mysteries of God.

Lastly, they most wrongfully accuse Peter Martyr, and me from him, as pleading for womens baptism: the Reader that pleaseth, may see the contrary.

I doe not, as they here challenge me, in answering their objection,Pag. 172. that because men, by vertue of their gift, without other calling, may doe the greater which is teaching, they may doe the lesse, which baptizing is: wrong them; as saying, having no calling, but no other calling but by their gift. If they hauehave any other calling, though not Pastorall, let them shew it; and so renounce their former plea raysed from their personall gifts alone.

Their proof that he that may doe the greater may doe the lesse, Pag. 173.is taken from Mathew 23. 16. 17. - 19. 20. &c. Wherein they say, Christ proveth plainly, that either it was not lawfull for them to swear by the gold, and the offerings, which were lesser: or that it was lawfull for them to swear by the temple, and altar.

Nothing lesse. It was lawfull to swear by none of themLev. 6. 13. & 10. 20,Lev 6:13Lev 10:20 all, but by the Lord onelyonly: The meaning of Christ was to reprove the hypocrisy and coveteousnes of the Pharisees, that bare the people in hand, that if they sware by the altar, and temple, it bound them not, at least, in comparison; but if they swore by the gold, or offering, that oath bound them to performance; that by this means, they might possesse the peoples minds with an high opinion of the offrings, and gold, which turned to their proper advantage and profit. If from hence they would conclude any thing as lawfull from the greater to the lesse, they must argue thus. If it be lawfull to swear by the greater, then by the lesse much more: But it is lawfull to swear by the greater, and greatest, God himself, that dwelleth in the temple: Therefore it is lawfull to swear by the temple, altar, sacrifice, heaven, earth, &c. If they would be ashamed of this conclusion, so may they be of their argumentation.

p. 201My plea for the power of calling ministers, and censuringPag. 174. offenders by the Church where officers are wanting (which here again they bring in) is in their hand, like a sword in a childs hand, wherewith he sooner hurts himself, then his enemie. For (to let passe the difference between the power of receiving in, and casting out of members, and so of chusing of ministers, on the one side; and of baptizing on the other, elswhere manifested) they here strike thorow their own course, in confessing that these things must be done by the Churches power and right; by which they baptize not, but merely by a personall liberty: by which yet they themselvs, I suppose, would be loath to avow the calling of ministers, and censuring of offenders.

That my collection from Scripture is their conviction, & makes plainly against their corner stone, that he which may doe the greater may doe the lesse, they may see, if they please to consider it. For if the Prophets in Israel (not being Levites) though preaching Gods word, might not carry the ashes from under the altar; but the Levites onelyonly; then their rule holds not absolutely, that he that may doe the greater, may doe the lesse; and so they must confesse, except they will deny the preaching of Gods word to be a greater thing then the carrying of the ashes out of the Temple.

The former part of their first answer; that the preists onelyonly Num. 4. 13Num 4:13(they should say the Levites) were appointed to this, makes against them, as shewing, that we are not to measure our liberty or power by the greatnesse or smalnesse of the thing, but by Gods appoyntment, who hath allotted to every one his portion. Their second answer is of admirable devise, that as the preists might meddle with all the services of the old Testament; So all the saints being preists unto God (no men excepted) may meddle with all the services of the new Testament.

But why might, and may; and not ought, and must? The Preists under the Law were bound (leaving unto the high Preist his function, and to the Levites, theirs) in their courses, to all the services of the Tabernacle, and Temple p. 202So by their crooked rule, every Christian (no men excepted) not onelyonly may, in liberty, but must in duty, minister not onelyonly baptism but the Lords Supper also, and all other ordinances, in his turn: and so all must be alike for publicke ministrations; for all are Preists to God alike. All the congregation Num. 16. 3.Num 16:3are holy every one of them, and the Lord is among them, and you Moses and Aaron, take too much upon you; said Korah of old. They err grosly therefore in making all Preists, for all publique ordinances in the Church: whereof some appertayn to Christs Propheticall administration as the sacraments, which are seales of the Covenant dispensed by preaching: others to his kingdom, as the appointing of officers, and censuring of offenders. Our Christian Preisthood stands onelyonly in our offering of spirituall sacrifices to God, our selvs first, and so consequently the sacrifices of prayses, and prayer from a broken heart, works of mercy, and the like.

That baptism is a service of the Temple, that is, an ordinance of the Church, we hauehave formerly proved: And surely strange it is, that I should need to proue, that there is any ordinance of religion which the Church is not to administer. Paul and Apollos, and Cephas are the Churches, and is not their baptism theirs? This whilst they compare to the hewing of stones in the mountains, they lay in common for ministration to very unbeleevers, with disciples: for the Zidonians, or other of the Heathens, as well as Israelites might either square 1 King. 7. 18.1 Kgs 7:18stones, or hew wood for the Temple.

Lastly, touching my similitude. As it cannot be denyed, but that the setting of the seal unto the Kings pardon granted to a malefactour, is a matter both of more solemnity, and authority, then the bare manifestation and making known of the same pardon; which any, ordinarily, may do to any, as oportunity servs: So hauehave I proved long agoe against these Adversaries, by many Arguments, hitherto by them unanswered, and I assure my self unanswerable, that the outward baptism, of which we speak, is an outward seal of the Covenant of grace: that is, an holy outward signe ordained of

p. 203God, as a means by the work of the spirit, to confirm the faith of the Church in her washing, both from the guilt and contagion of sin, by the bloud of Christ Iesus. More then this, we mean not in calling the Sacraments Seals, with the Apostle;Rom. 4. 11▪Rom 4:11 and lesse none can yeeld them, that hath learnt their right use, either from his own fruitfull experience, or the Scriptures information. Glory be to God, and good to men.

FINIS.

Courteous Reader, take knowledge that (the Author being absent) through oversight these faults (mostly materiall) hauehave escaped, which I pray thee correct as thou readest: if more thou findest, impute them to hastie oversight.

PAge 24 line 5, for sin stands not in &c. reade, sin stands in, &c. pag. 40, lin. 1, for are done, read, are not done: p. 44 l. 3…, for of themselvs the, r. of the: p. 45. l. 20, for and, r. add: p. 56, l. 12, for calling, r. calling: p. 72. l. 6, for falsifying, r. falsitie: p. 80. l. 11, for purpose, r. purposes: p. 81. l. 8, after vers. add comma: p. 93. l 4, for but will, r. but nil: p. 134, l. 4, for regenerate, r. unregenerate: p. 137. l. 25, for indossolible, r. indissolible: p. 156, l. 12, for casuality, r. causality: p. 168, l. 22, for or Will, that, in r. or Will in… p. 175, l. 15, for things, as, r. things? As.

End of the text · John Robinson, Defense of the Synod of Dort (1624)