The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 2 · Argument 6
UI. Argument.
AS God hath made an everlaſting covenant with Abraham and his ſeed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sathan and all his inſtruments ſhal never be cut of: So he preſerved both in the Apoſtacy vnderunder the law & Goſpel, the ſeales thereof for the comfort of the faithful. And therefore the Anabaptiſts in rejecting that baptiſme of Chriſt, whereof they were partakers, in the Apoſtate Church, and deviſing a new, do bring in a new covenant and a new Goſpel taking vponupon them to baptiſe themſelves without al warrant from the word, for I am ſure it cannot be ſhewed that any did ever baptiſe him ſelfe without ſpecial cōmaundement frō God, as Abraham had for circumciſion. Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptiſme. Mark. 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling. Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be ſayd the tymes be extraordinary, I anſwere, the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule, whereby we may in extraordinary tymes, have a ſure warrant out of the world to informe vsus in every thing that we ought to do.
Mr Smyth.
I anſwere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus, Anſ.If the gates of Hel ſhal never prevayl againſt the Church, then there hath alwayes bene a…rue Church, and antichriſt could never make the Church falſe: and ſo you of the ſep…ration have ſinned moſt ſhamefully in callinge the Church of antichriſt falſe: verum …rimum: Ergo ſecundum.
Rich. Clyfton
Firſt I deny that your Argument is of like nature, neither wil your falſeRe. relating of my words give you this advantage: for it is one thing to ſay, that God hath preſerved the ſeales of his covenant, and an other to ſay, that theſe ſeales cannot be aboliſhed through the malice of Sathan. I know the outward ſeales and other ordinances of God might have been aboliſhed by the malice of Sathan, if the Lord would have permitted it. For as Antichriſt, (Sathans inſtrument) hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to aboliſh them out of the church: As the worſhip, Miniſterie, Government, Cenſures, &c. ſo hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptiſme: and if God had not otherwiſe diſpoſed, could have foyſted in a new forme of baptiſme in the roome of it.
2. It is not the meaning of Chriſt in that place of Math. 16, 18. that there ſhould alwayes continue a true viſible church upon the earth, which Antichriſt could never be able to deface and corrupt: for the Scripture †2 Theſ. 3. - 7. Re… 13. 11, -… & 18. 4.ſpeaketh to the contrarie. But the promiſe of Chriſt to his church is this, that the gates of Hell ſhal not prevaile againſt it, that is, againſt his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Chriſt: this promiſe the Lord performeth to everie true viſible Church, ſo long as they cleave unto him & continue faythful, and to his inviſible for ever: even in the very dayes of Apoſtaſie, Sathan did not prevaile againſt the elect of God. The Lord had ſome witneſſes of his truth in al the tyme of Antichriſt, as even Re… nerius the Popes Inquiſitor acknowledgeth, whoſe Teſtimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true underſtanding, yet doth it not follow, that that church from which we did ſeparate, was that true church, or yet that this true church, was alwayes viſible. But I come to your ſecond anſwer which is more properly (as you ſay) ſolvendo.
That the covenant is ſayd to be everlasting not in respect of the viſible real exiſtance Anſw.in the world in an establiſhed church: but in respect of the ſtabilitie of it in regard of Sathans inalice &c.
This anſwer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looſeth it not: forRep. I did not intend in ſaying, the Lord preſerved or continued his covenant to his people againſt the malice of Sathan, that there was alwayes a true viſible church walking in all the commandements of God, but this I mynded, and do ſay, that the covenāt of God could never be cut off through the malice of Sathan, but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes, yea through the great Apoſtaſie of Antichriſt. You ſay.
There was no true church in the depth of Antichriſtianiſme, and ſo no true baptiſme.Anſ.
This conſequent will not follow, for though the church of Antichriſt was no true church: yet everie thing therein was not ſo: for the Scriptures (though by them abuſed) even in that Church were the true word of God,…ep. and ſo baptiſme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned, though corruptly adminiſtred.
I deny that the covenant, Church, or baptiſme was viſible alwayes.An. …epl.
Baptiſme, which was appointed to be a ſeal of Gods covenant hath ever ſince the firſt inſtitution of it, been viſible, & that even in the deepeſt of Antichriſts Apoſtaſie. And the ſtate of Apoſtate churches is not as the heathen, wher is no apparance of Chriſtianitie, for in them remaynes ſome kind of viſibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or leſſe, accordingly as they are more or leſſe corrupted: For if all viſibilitie ſhould ceaſe, they ſhould ceaſe to be called Apoſtate, and indeed become no churches.
And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footſteps of that image of God, wherein he was firſt created: ſo in churches degenerate from the truth, remaynes ſome remnants of Gods ordinances that were given to his church. The covenant is ſpoken of, and preached in thoſe Apoſtate churches. And baptiſme likewiſe adminiſtred, but not in that puritie and light, as they are in true churches. And as in the heavens, when the ſunne is ſhadowed with clouds or miſt, the proportion of it may be diſcovered in the miſt or cloudes, & be perceived to be the ſunne: So is the covenant of God and the ſeal thereof, wading through thoſe foggie myſts of Popiſh errors and Antichriſtian ſuperſtitions diſcerned & ſeen to be from heaven, of al the people of God, whoſe harts the Lord opens to apply them aright. Which if it were not ſo, God could not have his people in Babylon, or church in the wildernes.
As you take upon you to ſet up a true church (as you ſay, but we ſay a falſe church) An.& wil not be ſayd to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel &c. (for you in your ſelf conceitednes wil reiect them as Heretiques, if there be any that dare ſo ſay of you, forſooth:) So the Anabaptiſts (as you cal them) do not ſet up a new covenant and Gospel, though they ſet up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptiſme which Antichriſt had …verthrowen.
To paſſe by the manner of your ſpeeches which well might be amended:Rep. I anſwer, firſt, that for the ſetting up of churches, it is the Lords work and not ours, †Ioh. 10.who gathereth his ſheep into his fold, and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to joyne together to walk in his ordinances, who alſo inableth us hereunto, accepteth us to be his people, and *Eph. 2.to be citizens with the Sainctes and houſhold of God. Therefore it cannot properly be ſayd of us that we ſett up a church: but that God buyldeth us up to be his Temple. And being thus “Mat. … 20.gathered together in his name, we have the †Mat. 2… 20.promiſe of his preſence, and are aſſured of our ſtanding, and that we are a true viſible church of Ieſus Chriſt, (though it pleaſe you to call us a falſe church,) and doubt not to approve our calling againſt you and al our adverſaries. And whereas you account it ſelf conceiptednes in us to reject for Hereticks ſuch as bring in damnable Hereſies: it were good for them, whom we ſo reject to look into their eſtate, and not wilfully to abyde in their errors to their perdition.
For the Anabaptiſts, whom you ſay, do not ſet up a new covenant and Gospel, though they ſet up a new baptiſme. What they do, both their writings and practiſe ſhewes: but howſoever they perſwade themſelves to retayne the old covenant and Goſpel, yet is it not ſo; for whoſoever receives not that Goſpel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham, and pretends to receive a Goſpel or covenant, they receive a new covenant and Goſpel. But the Anabaptiſts receive not the Goſpel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant. Therefore it is a new covenant and Goſpel which they receive. For that Covenant which was given to Abraham, was given to him and to his ſeed, to the Iewes and their ſeed: but the covenant which the Anabaptiſts plead for, is a covenāt that ſhould be made to the parents and not to their ſeed, & therefore is not the ſame, but a new and ſtrange Goſpel, never heard of in the dayes of Abraham.
Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a ſealed covenant to *Gen. 1… 10. - 13. The A… baptiſts … ny baptiſ… to be a ſe… of the cov… nant, & indeed t… have no outward ſ… led covan… at al.him and to his natural ſeed: but that covenant which the Anabaptiſts wil enter into and receive, is an unſealed covenant, at leaſt but ſealed onelyonly to the parents and not to their ſeed: and ſo is not the ſame but a new Goſpel.
In my former anſwer I ſayd, that it can not be ſhewed that any man did ever baptiſe him ſelf without ſpecial commandement from God &c. and you thus replie. I ſay, as much as you have to ſet up a true Church▪ wherein you anſwere not directly to the point, but ſhift it of, with ſaying, that you have as much power to ſet vp baptiſme, or baptiſe your ſelfe, as we to ſet vp a Church: for ſuppoſe we have not this power to ſet vp a Church, then how is your action of baptiſing your ſelfe iuſtified? But how we have power, for that we have done, I have formerly ſhewed, viz. that we have power by the Lords commaundement to * come out of babylon, to obey the truth reveiled…ev. 18. vntounto vsus, and to ioyne together in the † feloſhip of the Goſpel, to walk in al the wayes of God. This is that we can do, and all that we do is byPhil. 1. 5. divine commaundement, for if the Lord had not ſo inioyned vsus, our coming together ſhould have bene but an aſſembly of our owne deviſe, and no Temple for the Lord. Now if you wil make your argument (which ſtands vponupon compariſon) anſwerable, you muſt bring like warrant from the Scripture, that you being vnbaptiſed, may baptiſe your ſelfe, or els that which we have done ſhalbe iuſtified to be of God, and your baptiſme prove but a vayne fanſie. Further I deſire it may be ſhewed, that baptiſme, which is a part of the worke of the Miniſtery, can lawfully, and by warrant from God, be adminiſtred by any, but eyther by extraordinary authority, as by Iohn, Ananias, the Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts: or ordinary, as by Paſtors and Teachers. Or that a perſon vnbaptiſed without ſpeciall commaundement from heaven (for ordinary rule there is none) may baptiſe himſelfe, and having ſo done without any further calling to office, take vponupon him to baptiſe others. And to do this, I would knowe, if it beCor. 4. 6 not † to preſume above that which is written. For if you that baptiſe your ſelf (being but an ordinary man) may this do, then may an other do the like and ſo every one baptiſe himſelfe. You that ſtand ſo much for commaundement and example, ſhew vsus eyther of theſe two if you can, or any ſound reaſon out of the word? or els conſider wel, if that you be not fallen into that, which you would condemne in others, viz. the practiſing of an vnwarrantable action. But you ſay.
A true Church cannot be erected without baptiſme &c.
If this be ſo as you ſay, then eyther that baptiſme which we receaved in the Antichriſtian aſſemblyes is baptiſme, or els one that is no member of a Church may induce the forme (as you cal it) vponupon Diſciples, to make them a Church, and this have we neyther commaundement nor example for. He that was the firſt Miniſter of baptiſme ſtode then a member of the Church of the Iewes, & had alſo commaundement to baptiſe: but this new doctrine teacheth that one that was never member of any Church ſhall baptiſe & make a Church, & that without cōmaundemēt from God. Now you ſay a Church can not be erected without baptiſme, becauſe baptiſme is the viſible forme thereof, conſider you; (that are ſo barren of proof for the adminiſtring of Baptiſing to your ſelf, that you can not ſhew one good reaſon to warrant it to be lawful) if by condemning & reiecting of that baptiſme which you received in Antichriſtianiſme, you overthrow not your new Church: for if a Church can not be without baptiſme, and you not able to prove your new baptiſme from the ſcriptures, which have reiected the old: Then is your aſſembly an idol: And ſo while you condemne other Churches vniuſtly, for falſe, yours proves more falſe then any.
But concerning baptiſme, which you call the viſible forme fo the Church: I anſwer, 1. the forme of a Church is cōmon to all together. 2. If Baptiſme be the forme, thē it may come to paſſe, that one man may be a viſible Church as he that firſt in the company baptiſeth himſelf, he is a Church being baptiſed, for he that hath the forme upō him, muſt needs be the thing formed, And ſo Mr Smyth was a Church, when he baptiſed himſelf, which is abſurd to think.
But cōcerning the matter & forme of the Church, this you have written, That *Paralels… &c. pa. 11…two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Teſtament: and therefore have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament, induced vponupon them. Againe, ſpeaking of the exiled Engliſh Church at Amſterdam, you ſay, that they have reduced the Church to the Apostolike conſtitution, Differenc… &c. in the Preface.which conſiſteth in 3. things, 1. the true matter, which are Saincts onelyonly. 2. The forme, which is the vniting of them together in the covenant. 3. the true propertie, which is communion in all the holy things. Thus you contradict your ſelf: here you teach us that vniting of people together in the covenant is the forme of the Church. And in this writing, that baptiſme is the forme. Certeynly the holy Ghoſt *Act. 2. 3. 39. Ephe. 4… 4. 5.diſtinguiſheth baptiſme both from the covenant and the body. But to contend about the forme of the Church, is here not to the purpoſe; ſeing both you and we graunt that a Church muſt conſiſt of baptiſed perſons, you contending for your new deviſed baptiſme, we holding that baptiſme which wee have already received.
Further you reaſon for the erecting of your baptiſme
That when al Christ viſible ordinances are lost, eyther men muſt recover them agayn Anſ.or muſt let them alone, if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues as the Apoſtles did, then men are FAMILISTS, or if they muſt receive them, men must begin ſo to do. And then two men ioyning together may make a Church, (as you ſay) why may they not baptiſe, ſeing they can not conioyne into Chriſt but by Baptiſme. Mat. 28. 19. compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christs commaundements muſt be obeyed: Ergo, this commaundement, &c.
Firſt for the viſible ordinances of Chriſt, his Church hath right unto them, and his people are to have the vſe of them by ſuch means and Miniſtery as he hath appointed: but every man may not take upon him the adminiſtration of theſe ordinances, but * they whom the Lord hath givenHeb. 5. 4. authoritie and office thereunto. God is not the † author of confuſionCor. 14. but of order. It wil not follow becauſe the Church is to have baptiſme therefore any one may adminiſter it when al are vnbaptiſed. Thus might Ieroboam plead for the * Preiſts that he made of the loweſt of the people,King. 12 that it was a neceſſity ſeing al the Prieſts of Levi were departed, and as at this d…y they plead in England for their vnpreaching Preiſts, that eyther they muſt have ſuch, or be without ſervice and Sacraments, which plea, as we condemne in them: ſo do we the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, or other of Gods ordinances without warrant from the Lord. And therefore they muſt be let alone til they may be had by that rule that Chriſt hath left vsus for the injoying of the ſame. For this I am ſure of, that the word of the Lord is perfect, and CHRIST hath left vsus certayne direction for the practiſing of al his ordinances at all tymes. Now if the Scripture have not ſhewed who ſhal baptiſe in the Churches ariſing out of Apoſtacy, then who dare take vponupon him to give direction? And though we are not to loke for extraordinary men (which to do, ſay you, were familiſme) yet muſt we loke for ordinary meanes: men muſt not do that which they are not warranted by the word, though the thing be to be done.
Secondly, for two being ioyned together in covenant with the Lord, to walk in his wayes, they have * warrant ſo to do (if there be no viſible Church for them to ioyne unto) although I do not approve that every twoMat. 18 or three ſhall ioyne together & ſo walk, when they may conveniently ioyne to a Church ſet already in the wayes of God; neyther may they attempt any thing beyōd their meaſure & calling, leaſt they fal into the ſinne of Corah &c. And as for two baptiſing themſelves or one an other, that can they not do without calling from God. And therefore you not having calling herevnto, & being as you ſay vnbaptiſed, I pray you tel me how you are authoriſed by Chriſt herevnto, & conjoyned into his name? The Admiſtration of Baptiſme is by Chriſt †Mat. 19. Ephe. 4. 11 12.commaunded to his Apoſtles and Miniſters of the word, as before is ſhewed.
As for your reaſon which is: That els they can not conioyne into Chriſt, but by baptiſme. I anſwer, we may be ioyned into Chriſt, by being vnited in one ſpirit into his covenant of life. And though perſons that were never baptiſed, be received into the Church by baptiſme, yet wil it not folow, that ſuch as are baptiſed in apoſtate Churches …, muſt any more be baptied, thē they that being circūciſed were recircūciſed when they ioyned to the Church of the Iewes. And baptiſme is not our graffing into Chriſt, but the ſigne or ſeale thereof, and ſo are thoſe Scriptures which you alledg to be vnderſtode. And as you ſay▪ The commaundement of God must be obeyed, and ſo this commaundement. It is true, being done according to the order and way that Chriſt hath appointed, & therefore you break the commaundement, to baptiſe your ſelf & others without commiſſion from Chriſt, & are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes & Phariſees, *Mat. 15 3.who trāſgreſſed the commandements of God by their traditions: ſo you do in this your new baptiſme tranſgreſſe Gods cōmaundement, to magnifie your own deviſed practiſe. Look well to it, the Lord hath thus pronounced upon ſuch tranſgreſſors, †Mat. 1. 5…In vayn do they worſhip me, teaching doctrines mens precepts. & the Pſalmiſt ſayth, “Pſal. 11… 21.curſed are they that do erre frō thy cōmaudemēts: the which iudgemēt of God you may behold in your ſelves (if God ſo open your eyes) who of one company, are now at leaſt divided into 3. ech one refuſing communion with other, & ſtil increaſing in nevv errors.
But for the baptiſing of a mans ſelfe, you ſay,
There is as good warrant as for a man churching him ſelf, for two men ſingly are Anſ.no Church joyntly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church vponupon themſelves: So two men may put baptiſme vponupon themſelves.
This phraſe of Churching a mans ſelfe, is not the phraſe of the holy Scripture,Repl. it is the Lord that †Mat. 2… 19. Act. 1 46. 47. E… 4. 11. 12.calleth men out of the world & gathereth thē together by his word, and buildeth them vp to be his Church as Chriſt ſayth. *Ioh. 10.other ſheepe I have which are not of this fold, them alſo I muſt bring and they ſhall heare my voice. And they whoſe harts the Lord openeth, do willingly obey his voice, and beleeving, †Act. 2. 42.walk together in his wayes as before I have obſerved. To paſſe by your ſtrange phraſes, the ſcripture thus ſpeaketh, that the Eunuch, Cornelius and others received baptiſme adminiſtred unto thē by the Miniſters of Chr. but that they or any other, did ever put baptiſme, that is, (as I underſtand you) adminiſter it upon thēſelves, I never read thereof in the ſcriptures: unleſſe we ſhould think that Iohn B. did it, who if it were ſo, had his calling extraordinarie from heaven.
As two perſons unchurched have power to aſſume the church, ech of them for himſelf Anſ.with others in communion: ſo each of thē unbaptiſed have power to aſſume baptiſme for himſelf with others in cōmunion.
Theſe things would do wel if they were proved. Concerning 2. perſons or moe cōing into cōmuniō together, I have before ſet down what I think. And now for aſſuming of baptiſme, if you mean therby receiving of it, (being lawfully adminiſtred) thē I grant, that they which are unbaptiſed † may…cts. 10. & 8. 12. … & ought to receive baptiſme in the cōmunion of the Saincts. But that 2. perſons or moe may take and baptiſe thēſelves or one another in your cō munion, I abhorre as an humane invention. As for the exāples of Abr. and Iohn B. adminiſtring the Sacrament upon thēſelves, if ſo it were, yet ſerve…en. 17, …. 13. … 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. & … 25. - 27. …. 13. - 15 nothing to your purpoſe: for Abrabā had a * ſpecial cōmandement to circumciſe: ſo had Iohn for his “baptiſme warrant frō God. But wil it follow becauſe theſe 2. adminiſtred the Sacramēt upon themſelves, therfore who liſt may conſecrate his hands to that office? What is this …ls that you plead for, but to overthrow that order that Chriſt hath …et down in his Church, to make every one a Miniſter of the Lords Sacraments. Cōcerning the Proſelytes, that they did every one circūciſe thēſelves, is not proved by that of Exo. 12, 48. for it is ſayd there: when a ſtranger ſhal dwel with thee & wil obſerv the paſſeover of the Lord, every male ſhal be circūciſed unto him. This ſcripture ſaith not that every one did circumciſe himſelf, but that every male ſhould be circumciſed: Neyther if the Lord had ſayd, as the Tranſlation is, let him circumciſe al the males that belong unto him, had this proved that al the Proſelytes had done it themſelves; for it is ſayd of Ioſua, that the Lord bad him make ſharp knives, † & return & circūciſe the ſons of Iſrael the ſecond tyme. And…. 5. 2. yet wil any think that Ioſuah did himſelf circumciſe every uncircumciſed male in Iſrael? or rather, that the Lord commanded him to ſee that it were done. And ſo that cōmandement given to Proſelytes was, that they ſhould cauſe al their males to be circumciſed, or els they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Paſſeover.
But graunt that this was a ſpecial precept to the ſtranger to circumciſe himſelf and his familie, the Lord laying this upon him, he had good warrant ſo to do: but ſeing the Lord hath commanded the adminiſtration of baptiſme to the Apoſtles and Miniſters of the word, now it is to preſume above that which is written, for any man to take upon himſelf, to adminiſter baptiſme to himſelf or to others. Neyther is this to follow the example of the Proſelytes, if they had done as you alleadge: for then the Maſter onelyonly and none els circumciſed, and he circumciſed but his familie. But this new opinion inableth any man, be he Maſter or ſervant to baptiſe himſelf, and alſo to baptiſe others that are not of his familie. Note wel how this example ſerves to your purpoſe.
Howbeit for circumciſion, I take it, that it was adminiſtred by the Levites after that they were called of office, becauſe †Num. 8. 14. - 18.they were appointed in the roome of the firſt borne of Iſrael for the ſervice of the Lord. And as I have heard, the Levites amongſt the Iewes, do circumciſe at this day.
But one thing more I would aske you, whether by two aſſuming baptiſme in communion, you mean that two conſenting together may the one baptiſe the other, at one and the ſame inſtant, or that one ſhal baptiſe the other firſt, and then he that is baptiſed, baptiſe him that was his baptiſer, and what rule or warrant you have ſo to do? and do not with obſcure termes ſeek to ſet a colour upon your errors to deceive the ignorant.
As concerning the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper, to a mans ſelf in communion with others, & prayer propheſying & prayſing of God uttered for a mans ſelf as wel as for others, of every unclean perſon waſhing himſelf at the door of the Tabernacle going to ſacrifice, of every maſter of a familie administring the paſseover to himſelf & all his familie, the Prieſt dayly ſacrificing for himſelf & others. All theſe proves not your deſyre.
For as touching the adminiſtration of the Lords ſupper, it appertaines to the Miniſters of Chriſt to do it & not to every man. And by vertue of their office they do adminiſter, and as they are members of the church, they participate of thoſe holy things with the reſt of the brethren: And this is Gods ordinance: your caſe of baptiſing one another, is not alike: for there he adminiſtreth the Sacrament that hath no calling, and he that is unbaptiſed himſelf, preſumeth to ſet the ſeal upon himſelf or upon an other. Alſo in the Lords Supper al are agents according to their eſtate and nature of the action: but in the receiving of baptiſme we are onelyonly patients.
As for praying, propheſying and prayſing of God, uttered for a mans ſelf as wel as for others; this is Gods ordinance that men ſhould † pray &…at. 6, 6, … &c. …ph. 6. 18 …. 2. 42. …. 47. Tim. 2. 1. praiſe God for themſelves and others, and is not onelyonly a work of the miniſterie, (ſave in publike) but a general duty apperteyning to * all the brethren: but the adminiſtration of baptiſme, is appointed to the Miniſterie. And there is great difference between our prayers and ſacrifices offered to God, and the Lords Sacraments and word miniſtred unto us, the former we are commanded to doe our ſelves in our due place: the other is from the Lord unto us, and we are the ſubjects to receive the ſame by the adminiſtration of Gods Miniſters, and al theſe things are the commandements of God.
Concerning thoſe in the old Teſtament, that being unclean did purifie or waſh themſelves, they did thereby ſhew forth their continuall & voluntarie repentance and fayth to be clenſed from their pollutions and ſinnes by Ieſus Chriſt. Ioh. 13, 10. Neyther did they this without the LordsLev. 13. …. & 15. …. 27. commandement. For were not the * purifyings of the unclean preſcribed by Moſes? ſhew us the like warrāt for the new baptiſing of your ſelves, and the controverſie is ended; and unleſſe you do it, what do all theſe examples prove for you? ſeing al theſe were done by warrant of the word, and you have no ſcripture to alleadge for your doings. And for the Prieſts waſhing themſelves in the Laver, “Exod. 30 …. 21.God ſo commanded. But the Prieſts (you ſay) waſhing in the Laver at the door of the Tabernacle was a type of baptiſme the doore of the church. would you then have us to think that every one cō ing to the Church: ſhould baptiſe himſelf, yea & that alſo every tyme they come to publike worſhip? For if you hold thus, you might alſo thus reaſon from your ſimilitude. But ſimilitudes and allegories muſt not be preſſed further then the intendement of them, & proportion of fayth wil ſuffer. That waſhing, no doubt did ſignifie that ſuch as come into Gods preſence to offer any ſacrifices, muſt be clean and holy: & the water in the Laver might wel be a type of the blood of Ieſus Chriſt, & of regeneration▪ in him, teaching that al the faythful (being made Prieſts unto God) ſhould be waſhed from al their ſinnes in the bloud of Chriſt, and ſanctified in him to the ſervice of the Lord. And that therefore they ſhould continually repent of their ſinnes and have fayth in Ieſus Chriſt, that ſo through him, they and their works & ſervice, may be accepted of the Lord, and they in the end be received into his heavenly kingdome. But this wil not juſtifie your baptiſing of your ſelves, for beſides that which is anſwered before, the Prieſts were commanded to waſh their hands & their feet themſelves, for ſuch uſe as is aforeſayd. But in the new Teſtament we are appointed to be baptiſed by the Lords Miniſters, as hath bene declared already. The ſame anſwer may be given to that of the Prieſts ſacrificing for themſelves, that they had the word for their warrant, and were firſt to offer for their owne ſinnes and then for the peoples. And this was an offering up to God: but baptiſme is the Lords ordinance to be adminiſtred to us, and therefore in this reſpect alſo, your reaſon is not alike.
Laſtly, for that of every Maſter of a familie adminiſtring the Paſſeover, the ſame is to be mynded, as in the former inſtances. And ſeeing they were altogether to eat of one food, (which ſhadowed out Ieſus Chriſt and our Redemption by his death,) it lay upon the father of the family, not onelyonly to do the things of miniſtration parteyning to him, but to partake alſo himſelf of the ſame common food and banket with the reſt. Moreover, although the maſter of the familie did ſo as then was appointed to be done by him: yet wil it not follow that every man may now adminiſter baptiſme to himſelf and others. The Maſter did that then for himſelf and his familie, by the †Exo. 12. 3… 4. - 10.commandement of the Lord, who was as a Biſhop & a Prieſt in his owne howſe, and beſides him none in the howſe might do it. But after that God had to his church by Moſes given lawes and ordinances, and the Prieſts to do the ſervice of the Lord: the *2 Chr. 3… 17. & 35. 1… 11.killing of the Paſſeover was performed by the Levites and Prieſts: which teacheth us that it is not in every mans power to be a Miniſter of the Lords ordināces, ſave they that have calling thereunto. And therefore I marveil that you will bring in ſo many inſtances ſo unfitting to your practiſe: all which examples might have taught you rather the unlawfulnes of your action, they being al done by warrant, & yours without altogether.
Laſtly, you ſay, A man cannot baptiſe others into the Church himſelf being out of the church. Then I pray you Sir, reſolve me how you can baptiſe your ſelf into the church being out of it, yea and where there was no church? or how you could baptiſe others, your ſelf being out of the Church? or how two can baptiſe themſelves to be a church that are unbaptiſed and without the church? And what concluſion is this to ſay, A man can not baptiſe others into the Church himſelf being unbaptiſed: therfore it is lawful for a man to baptiſe himſelf with others in communion? If you have no better warrant for the practiſe of your doings, then theſe reaſons which you have already alledged, youn…ed not to boaſt of your Plerophory of your Practiſe. But what is now become of your plerophory and ful perſwaſion about it, ſeing you have already chaunged your mind againconcerning your baptiſing of your ſelf, & for this cauſe & other the like matters, are by ſome of your people excōmunicate,. It were good for you to remember and keep that ſaying of the Apoſtle, It is good alwayes to be zealous in a good thing. Gal. 4. 18.