Apostolical Baptism, To the reader

Apostolical Baptism · To the reader

TO THE GODLY READER.

IT was well said by a Learned man;Rauleighs Preface to the History of the World. That there is nothing more to be admired more to be lamented; then the private contentions, passionate disputes; the personall hatred, and the perpetuall warre, massacres and murther for Religion, …mongst Christians; the discourse whereof hath so o…pied the world, that it hath well near driv…n the practice out of it: and therefore it may be thought, that to enter any further into disputes about Religion, may be but to adde …ewell to that fire that burnes hot enough. But knowing our Saviours prediction to be true, that he came not to bring Peace on the Earth but a sword, and that five shall be in one house, divided three against two, and two against three, and kno…ing with what deceivablenesse of unrighteousnesse the mysterie of iniquitie hath a long time wrought, as in other points, so in this of Paedobaptisme. I have adventured (though unwillingly) as being conscious of mine own inabilities in a great measure (rather then the Truth should suffer) to defend the true baptisme of Jesus Christ, against the Innovation (to say no more) of Infants Baptisme: Being really perswaded in mine own conscience, and I trust from cleer light, that it is one of the greatest over sights for disordering Churches, that ever came into the Christian world; and untill it be rooted up, there is little hope that Church-Government will come into a right order, h…w confident soever some men may be of their Reformations. Let it not be dreamed pride or sawcinesse in me, to give my advice; which I assure thee Reader, love to the Truth moves me to speak, which is this: That Christians condiscend one to another; Let the Presbyter, and nicknamed Independent, or Congregationall, consent to the nicknamed Anabaptist, or Antipaedobaptist; in exploding Infant baptism: and let the Independent, whether the meer Separate or Antipaedobaptist, yeeld to the Presbyter, in giving more power to the Elders, to prevent tumults and breaches; (but let it be onelyonly in the respective Congregations.) Let the Presbiter yeeld to the Independent, in changing the matter of Churches from mixt multitudes, to visible Saints; that the World and the Church may be severed: Without every of which, I am doubtfull of the Churches attainment to Scripture perfection in Reformation. But if every side, out of a confident tenaciousnesse of their own opinions, shall out of pride or conscience, be loth to comply: What kinde of unitie, will be the like liest bond to binde us all together? Whether the Unity of Verity, or the Unity of Authority, or the Unity of Perswasion, or the Unity of necessity, or the Unity of the Covenant, or the Unity of Charity? Not the Unity of Verity, because one man thinks this to be a truth, and another thinks that, according to the severall light they receive; yet Truth can be but on one side. Not the Unity of Authority, that the Magistrate setting down one uniform practice, shall command all manner of persons to comply thereto; for were any such practice attempted, should persons yeeld to it, it would make many grosse hypocrites, in the highest degree of hypocrisie; and should they not yeeld to it, the Magistrate must fall to persecuting many a precious Saint of God, who with their lives and purses have helpt to defend the life and power of the Magistrate, or else expose himself to contempt and shame, in not daring to punish the violation of his commands or else ashamed hereof.

Nor can an Unity of perswasion be hoped for, seeing both in Presse, in Pulpit, all sides have endeavoured to perswade one another, to little or no effect.

Nor can an Vnity of necessity do any thing to unite all, because the presbiter, independent, and Antipaedobaptist are all in like danger of the common enemy, should the adversary prevaile; for tyes of necessity usually bind no longer then one side hath need of another.

Nor can any unity of Covenant do it, for not to speak of the forcednesse of it in many places, wherein J feare too many may say as the heathen did, Iuravi lingua mentem injuratam gero I swore with my tongue but not with my heart, because heresy, schisme, innovations, &c. Are expounded by the consciences of the Covenanter; so that what is heresie, schisme, innovation, in one mans conscience; is counted orthodoxe, charitable, and anciently Apostolicall, in the conscience of another: Therefore though the Covenant may tye us together, against the common Enemy, yet can it not tye us together among our selves.

What then remains as a most firm bond, to tye all the Godly party together, but only the Vnity of Charitie? Which is, that conscientious men, be left to that light which GOD shall reveale unto them; each of them having a loving affection to all those that fear the LORD, however differing in judgment: and the rather, in that the number of the truly godly is but few; so that they need not to grieve one anothers spirits: And as in this present distresse, one godly party had need of another, without either of which party, the whole had doubtlesse sunk; So no man knowes how soon they may have need of one another hereafter: Many seemingly, few sincerely, adhering to the Godly party.

Reader,

J pray thee take in good part this Rejoynder to Mr. Blake his Reply, wherein I trust thou wilt finde what is materiall therein, to be answered; as the shortnesse …f time wherein I was imployd about it, would permit. So desiring thy prayers for the propagation of the Truth.

J rest;

Thine, in the Bond of the SPIRIT: CH: BLACKWOOD.

p. 1A sober Rejoynder to a Book written by Mr. THOMAS BLAKE; INTITULED, Jnfants Baptisme freed from Antichristianisme. Which was written in way of Reply, to a Book; called, The Storming of Antichrist.

MR. BLAKE, in his Preface to the Reader, and all along his whole Treatise, having many hard speeches; compounded of revilings, and scoffs, as Pag. 20. 21. &c. Which the Lord in mercy forgive: To which once for all I answer; I have not so learned Christ, and shall therefore in this whole Treatise, passe by his revilings, and answer his Reply.

First, Mr. BLAKE is offended at the Title of my former Book, because I stiled it; The storming of Antichrist in his two Garisons, viz. Compulsion of Conscience, and Infants baptisme: Now that compulsion of Conscience is one of Antichrists Garisons, see Apoc. 13.15. The Beast causeth, that as many as would not worship the Image of the Beast, should be killed. As Nebuchadnezz…r did Dan. 3.6. Also, vers. 16.17. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to r…ceive a Mark in their right hands, or in their fore-heads, and that no man might buy or s…ll, save hee that had the Mark, or the Name of the Beast, or the number of his names. See whether this be not the Garison of Antichrist. For when the power of Antichrist (signified by the Beast that came out of the Sea) began to be slighted, the second Beast that came out of the Earth, had power to give p. 2life to the image of the Beast, by this compulsion.

Now why I called Infants Baptisme another Garison of Antichrist? Was, because I conceive it an in-let of Antichristian doctrines, as a false matter of a Church, &c. And because its point-blank against the Commission of Christ, Matth. 28. And because it hath been stablished by so many decrees of Antichrist; and because it enters persons into Church-state, after the way of Antichrist. Now these doctrines of compulsion of Conscience and Infants Baptisme, being set upon on all sides by so many powerfull Scriptures, might be said properly to be stormed by the same; as a Garison is said to be stormed, when it is assailed on all sides, though it be not taken.

The second thing Mr. BLAKE excepts against is; That I make a compulsion of Conscience by Magistrates, which must be Antichrists bane, to be Antichrists last refuge.

Answ. I suppose Antichrist had never any harm by a forced uniformity, for your places for compulsion; as Esa. 49.23. and Apoc. 17.12.16. Let the Reader peruse an answer, Storm. of Antichrist, pag. 31.33. part. 1.

But to answer further to Apoc. 17. Whereas Mr. BLAKE charges me for this Assertion, viz. That the compulsion of the Whore by eating her flesh, and burning her with fire, was not done by penall Lawes, but onelyonly by force of armes. I bring these reasons, why the Whore shall be destroyed in that manner; that is, by force of Armes.

1 Because she shall be utterly burnt with fire: Now Magistrates executing Civill and not military power, use to punish the Offenders, but not to burn places where the Offenders are: See this Apoc. 18.8. She shall be utterly burnt with fire.

2. Because in one hour, so great riches as was in Babylon is come to naught. Apoc. 18.17. Which can be no otherwise, but by the souldiers burning and plundering.

3. Because Apoc. 18.21. Babylon fals like a stone thrown into the Sea, which can be found no more; so the Roman Babylon shall be thrown down and found no more: which can be no otherwise (the circumstances of this Chapter, and the two former considered) then by Warre.

4. Because there shall be such a desolation in her; As appeares, Apoc. 18.22. That there shall no more be heard the voice of Musitians in her: Nor any Crafts-man, of whatsoever craft he be, nor the sound of a Mil-stone shall be heard any more at all in her, nor the light of a candle shall shine no more in her, nor the voice of the Bridegroom or of the Bride, shall be heard no more in her: Now this totall desolation cannot come in any show of likelihood, from the command of the Magistrate in his judiciall sentencing of Babylon, but from the Military force of armes.

p. 3Obj. But you will say, how can this war with Babilon come, if it be unlawfull to compell persons in point of religion?

Ans. These armies that shall destroy Rome, shall be only defendants, Babilon and her Champions shall give the first blow; so that though it be not lawfull for us to invade the Religion of others, yet is it lawfull to defend our own against those that would rob us of it, and now that Babilons armyes strikes the first blow, appeares Apoc. 17.14. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them; the Romish party opposing the Protestant partye, I suppose the Protestante may defend themselves. This same warr I suppose is begun and will not come to an end, till the ruine of Babilon come to passe, in which all the Roman Princes will be ingaged on one side, and all the Protestant Princes on the other. Now that this fall of Babilon shall not be by the judiciall sentence of any Prince or Magistrate, but by the power of our armies appeares Apoc. 17.16. Because her desolation comes not from any one Prince, but from ten princes together, which can be no otherwise then from the mixture of armies. See vers. 16. And the ten hornes which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burne her with fire.

But lest any man should say, what shall become of their popish Cityes and territories, you may see Apoc. 16.19. In the powring out of the 7th. viol, where its said: The great City was divided into three parts and the Cities of the Nations fell, and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fiercenesse of his wrath.

Now whereas Mr. Blake demands, whether this force of Armes against the whore of Babylon be an act of Iustice, or cruelty, and infers; if it be just where Kings and states have a power military, they may not be denyed a power civill. Ans. The just execution of military, power so of civill, which Magistrates have against this whore as a spirituall strumpet, is not because of her spirituall whordome, or because the Magistrate hath power to compell any person to any kind of Religion; but because the whore gave the first onset, to take away the religion of those that have military power in their hands. For,

Quer. Whether every person be not freely born to the choyse of what religion seemeth true to him, and may defend himselfe against invaders thereof, as he may do against the invasion of his estate, liberties, &c. though it be not lawfull for him to invade another mans religion?

To conclude, Is it not highest cruelty to force mens consciences or practices in point of religion (for the distinction now is, the conscience cannot be compelled, but the practise may, or else the person punished by p. 4banishment,Helw. Mistery Iniquity. imprisonmēt, &c.) I say is it not highest cruelty to force mens consciences in their religion, seeing it they erre, they must pay the price of their transgression with the losse of their soules.

Is it not most equall saith one, that men should chuse their religion themselves, seeing they only must stand themselves before the Iudgment seat of God, to answer for themselves; when it will bee no excuse for them to say we were compelled or commanded to bee of this religion by the King, or by them that had authority.

Mr. Fox having spoken of the convertion of Ethelbert King of Kent, by Austin and his company, who was converted to God, and baptized in the 36. year of his reign, the words of the history are these, viz. After the King was thus converted, innumerable others dayly came in and were adjoyned to the Church of Christ, whom the King did specially embrace, but did compell none, for so he had learned, that the faith and service of Christ, ought to be voluntary and not co-acted. Haec ille, Acts and monuments, vol. 1. Pag. 150. 7. Edition.

Neither was this doctrine unheard of in the ancient Church, seeing Lactantius lib. 5.Vide Sculpt. Analis. Pater. de justitia, speaks fully, chap. 19. The persecutors of the Church commit an unexpiable evill, both that they kill themselves by serving devills, and also suffer not God to be worshipped of others, these soule-killers falsely pretend, that they provide for Christians, and that they would call them back to a right mind, for they ought not to do it by violence and torments, but by reason and exhortations. For religion cannot be compelled, Christians are ready to hear; religion is not to be defended by killing but by dying, not by cruelty but by patience, not by wickednesse but by faith; also in the 20. chap. he saith, the Pagans destroy their Gods, by compelling the unwilling to sacrifice, for they distrust the power of their Gods: lastly, these Pagans do neither do a benefit to the Gods to which they compelled Christians to sacrifice, nor to them whom they compell: not to them whom they compell, because it is not a benefit which is brought into one that refuseth; not to the Gods, because it is not a sacrifice, which is offered unwillingly.

Lastly, whereas divers learned men in books and pulpits, render us odious, and so incense the magistrates against us: I shall desire all men, but specially Magistrates, to consider this as a former method of satans; witnesse these instructions given by Pope Adrian to Cheregatus his legate, touching his proceedings in the dyet of Norinberg, how and by what perswasions, to incense the Princes against Luther.

1. You shall declare the greefe of our heart for the prospering of Luthers sect, to see so many souls, redeemed with Christs blood, to be turned from the true religion.

2. The infamy of the Nation, viz. of the Germans.

p. 53. Their own honour, which will be stained if they be not like their progenitours, some whereof led Iohn Hus to the fire.

4. That Luther condemns to hell, all their progenitors that died in the Romish faith.

5. To consider the end whereto the Lutherans tend, which is, under pretence of repressing the usurped Ecclesiasticall power as tirannicall, to infring and breake in peeces the secular state.

6. To consider the fruits which follow of that sect; as slanders, seditions, dissentions, blasphemies, murthers, scoffings, &c.

7. That the Princes should consider, that Luther useth the same way of seducing, that Mahomet did; who permitted liberty of those things which flesh desired, as to have many wives, and to put away those they had if they listed; so Luther to draw away Nuns, Monkes, and Priests that are lascivious, permits unto them that they may marry.

I list not to provoke by making too close applications, onelyonly I shall desire, (that whereas these and such like waies are taken, to render odious those that are no lesse the servants of God then Luther was, and that by aspersing of them and their doctrines, as Luther here was charged,) that the Magistrates imitate the Lord, Gen. 18.21. Because the cry of Sodome is great, I will go down and see, whether they have done altogether according to the cry which is some unto me. It will be well, if Magistrates enquire whether the Antipaedobaptists, so cryed out of, be such persons as they are defamed; if it be enough to accuse, who can be innocent? It was in time of Pagan Emperors, that the name of Christian, was crime enough. Tert. Apol. usque ad gentes. Let it not be so amongst those that seem to professe the name of Christ; if sundry pamphletters that accuse, can prove us guilty of what they accuse, currat lex fiat justitia But if they causelesly irritate Magistrates against us, because we will not prostitute our consciences to creatures, nor practise against our own principles, I trust God will consider the cause of the poorer

For Mr. Blakes exception at this passage in my former book, Part 1. Pag. 32. Little did the Holy-Ghost (using such a similitude of love and kindnesse) think, that men would pervert it to violence or constraint.

And to this I answer, the fault for any thing I know, was the printers not knowing their was such a word in the originall Copie.

2. It might have past by an anthropopathy, as God is said to grieve repent; But had it been a reall oversight, the book going hastily to the Presse, necessity then compelling, ingenuity might have taught you what my meaning was, and that I had no thoughts to limit Gods omniscience.

For your conclusion in your Preface, that your care hath been to render p. 6my arguments to the Reader in the full strength; I appeal not to you, who are a party, and therefore not fit to be a judge; but to the understanding and consciences of those, who have read my former booke; whether you have so done, let the Reader compare the bookes, and he will easily see the contrary. Having spoken to your Preface, I proceed to your Treatise.

Against my first Argument, viz.

The baptisme of Christ is dipping;

The baptisme of Infants, is not dipping; therefore, the baptisme of Infants is not the baptisme of Christ.

To the Major now: Except, viz. That the baptisme of Christ is dipping, you being to prove foreign to signifie to wash, from my own acknowledgement out of the Greeke Lexicon.

Ans. I cite the Lexicographer, only to show his partiality; in that he brings so many authorityes from the Greekes, that knew the true use of the word, that it signifies to dipp; but brings so little authority that it signifies to wash; and none at all that it signifies to sprinkle.

And I do marvell, Pag. 3. That you alledge from the Septuagint on 2. Reg 5. As if they did use the word dipping and washing promiscusly; no plainer place can be brought against you.

Farther, Pag. 3, 4, 5. Whereas I say they were baptized of Iohn into Iordan, foreign, Mark 19. You bring Mr. Cookes Search, Pag. 5. to show, that this signifies in, as well as into; and so there was no necessity of the application of the person to the water.

Ans. In those places, all or most by you cited, and also with words signifying motion (as this doth) it signifies, to, or into, as your own authorityes, Mat 13.33. Shee hid it into 3. Pecks of meale; there was no applycation of the meale to the leven, but of the leven to the meale: so Mat. 10.9. Possesse not money in, or into your purses; their was no application of the purse to the money, but of the mony into the purse.

For your answer to Iohn 3.33. Iohn was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there were many waters there; you answer, that many waters were requisite, not in respect of dipping, but that Iohns disciples might be imployed in baptizing, as well as Iohn himselfe.

Ans. We must take your bare word for this, for you cannot produce any place that Iohns disciple baptized at all, much lesse that they baptized at Aenon, or had any Commission so to do. Nay, Iohn 3.26. Iohns Disciples thought it a strange presumption, to think that any one should baptize, save Iohn himselfe; therefore sure they did not baptize.

For that which you call a criticisme of ascending and descending, from Acts 8.38.39.

p. 7Answ. The light is not more cleerer, then that the proposition signifies (into) that Philip and the Eunuch went into the water; and therefore vers. 39. Its said, they came out of the water.

Next Mr. Blake Pag. 6. Goes about to nullifie the proportion, which the Holy-Ghost makes, as if it were made by me; when I say, dipping signifies death and buriall with Christ, and rising up above the water, resurrection with Christ.

Answ. Peruse Rom. 6.3.4. & Coll. 2.12. And see whether the Holy-Ghost set not before your eyes the same proportion; and read ex positors upon the same, as Paraeus, &c. Must we allow your proportions from circumcising of Infants to prove baptisme of Infants, without any proportion so made by God; and will you not allow this proportion, so cleerly made by the Apostle, as appeares in the word, foreign, Rom. 6.5.

And whereas you seeme to retort the argument drawn from proportion, making a proportion betwixt sprinkliag in water, and the blood of sprinkling; that speakes better things then that of Abell, Pag. 6.

Answ. Your selfe confesse herein, you attempt only a humane proportion, without divine institution, Pag. 6. But had you not said so much, it would have appeared; because the Apostle alludes only to the sprinklings in the Law, and against which and not baptismall water, he opposes the blood of sprinklings, and the sprinkling from an evill conscience, as the Antitype thereof. Pag. 7.

Next Mr. Blake seemes to nullifie my Answers, to Mark. 7.8. Where the Pharisees held the baptisme of Pots, which washing, I affirmed was by dipping, yea totall dippings; for persons use to wash them all over. Mr. Blake saith, its no satisfaction of the objection, unlesse I could prove we never wash otherwise then by dipping.

Answ. Its the intrution of all manner of persons, when they wash any vessell, one way or other, to dipp it, or should they power any water upon it, it were vertually the same.

Further, whereas you desire me P. 7. sincerely to speake my thoughts, whether I beleeve that the Pharisees, as oft as they came from market, plunged themselves over head and eares, before they eat any meat.

Answ. I marvell you should desire me so vehemently, to declare my selfe in so triviall a matter, but to answer; I beleeve so oft as they came from market, they plunged or dipt their hands, though not themselves over head and eares; which if they did, that is all I would deduce from that Scripture.

And whereas you charge me, P. 7. As if I should necessarily imply the word to baptize, to signify to dipp over head and eares: I never maintain'd p. 8any such thing; but the ground of totall dipping which I bring is. 1. Because the Holy-Ghost speakes of much water. Iohn 3.23. Whereas a little water is enough for sprinkling, 2. Because we read of Iohns and Philips applying of the subject to the water, not of the water to the subject, Mark. 1.9. Acts. 8.38.39.3. Because Paul tels us of burying with Christ in baptisme. Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Now the word baptisme signifying dipping, (no adversary being able to deny this) how can there be a buriall therein, unlesse we be under the water, as Persons dying are said to be buried, not when they lye dead in their winding-sheet; but when they are covered over with earth.

After p. 8. Mr. Bl…k… comes to bring arguments, against the necessity of dipping: As first, Pharisaicall washings were not always dippings, but Pharisaicall washings are baptismes. Ergo, Baptisme is not always dipping.

Answ. We may deny the proposition; as it doth not appeare but all their washings were dippings, or that which did amount to the s…me, what doth hinder but that they might dippe their beds? which Mr. Blake brings to oppose it; He knoweth not the forme and manner of the Jewish beds; it may be they might use hammocks, as they use in hot Countryes, which might soon be taken down and dipt, and hung up again. The thing having no weight ile passe it over.

2. Arg. Legall purifications are not alwayes dipping, but legall purifications are baptismes. Ergo, baptisme is not alwayes dipping.

Answ. I deny the assumption, legall purifications are not called baptismes, neither bring you any place to prove it; but were they, it followes not but baptisme might be dipping.

3. Arg. If the way of baptisme were only dipping, then the baptizer must put the baptized over bead into the water, and after a space receive them up againe; but we find no such thing in Iohn to Christ, or in Philip to the Eunuch.

Answ. We find them both going into the water, with the administrators; and we find the Apostle speaking of a buriall, not onelyonly in the death of Christ, but a buriall with him in baptisme, and arising againe, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. which is equivalent with putting the baptized over the head into the water.

Arg. If Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dipp, then the baptizer and batized must both put off their garments, but among all multitudes baptized, there is not one word of unclothing, nor yet the putting on of garments after baptisme.

Answ. What hurt can follow, If both change garments either before p. 9or after, may they not do it so that there be not the least appearance of evill?

2. Though there be nothing spoken directly of their changing garments, yet without doubt they did. Had it not been a kinde of tempting his Father, for Christ when he came out of Jordan, not to have chang'd his clothes? Or the Eunuch, when he came out of the waters? Its not likely a man of that quality that he was of, would go along the way with wet clothes; as he came out of the water.

But for your speech, Pag. 8. viz Therefore those that have put a kinde of necessitie upon Dipping, have spoken much of being received naked into Baptisme. I suppose it would trouble you much to name one such in the world: Search your heart, whether this and such like speeches, come not from, you to breed an hatred in people towards us, rather then out of conscience of fortifying your Argument, where you alledge it? for our parts, we abhor those things in our worship, which are not so much as named among the Heathen.

4. Arg. It was the Apostles way, to baptize Disciples as soon as they were become converts; the same day, yea the same hour; as in the Jaylour, Lydia, &c. But conversion of Disciples sometimes must necessarily happen, when there was no season for dipping; the element of water being over cold.

Answ. 1. Suppose the coldest time that can come, yet know I not the same would prove destructive to any persons for so little time as they are in the water.

2. In case of weaknesse of body, when its truly, and not pretended; such persons, if they did scruple of receiving it, otherwise then in Rivers and Ponds, they might put off their baptisme till the season were more moderate; because God will have mercy, before any other sacrifice.

5. Arg. The number of Converts was so numerous, 3000, 5000, in one day, that there was no possibility of baptisme in that manner.

Answ. Why not as well as by sprinkling? The Dipping is as soon done (in a manner) as the sprinkling.

2. As the Disciples converted were many, so it's probable the Administrators were many; seeing that besides the Apostles, we read of others that baptized; as Philip the Deacon that baptized the Eunuch, & Ananias who baptized Paul.

Arg. Sometimes the baptizers were in that condition, that they were unable for the work of baptizing; as Paul and Silas, when they had been afflicted with such stripes, that their convert was sain forthwith to wash them: And sometimes the baptized have not been in case to be dipt; as Paul when he was led into Damascus.

p. 10Answ. Paul and Silas notwithstanding their stripes, might baptize the Jaylour; especially, having washed their stripes. Besides, it was not necessary that either of them should go so deep into the water, that the water should come as high as their wounds; or should it come so high, I suppose it would rather have been beneficiall, then hurtfull, to such an inflamation as usually arises from stripes.

2. If a person be in such a condition that he is not fit to be baptized, without hazard of health; he may lawfully put it off, till he be able; And I suppose, if Paul had felt his naturall strength to have been so impaired, that he could not have been safely baptized, he would have alledged the same to Ananias, when he asked him why he taried from Baptisme? Acts 22.16. But finding sufficiencie of strength, he submitted.

Now whereas Mr. Blake, Pag. 10. Accuseth us to joyn in Garison with Antichrist, in being so zealous for Dipping, as he saith the Papists are.

Answ. I fear me, he and others that maintain Infants Baptisme, come nearer the Popish party: Seeing by Infants Baptisme, there is one and the same admission of Membership into the Romish Church, and into sundry Protestant Churches hereby.

And whereas, Pag. 10. You conclude the Answer to my first Argument thus:

Every Baptisme, which for the outward Rite is Dipping, Washing, or Sprinkling, is in that respect the Baptisme of Christ:

But the baptisme of Infants, is either Dipping, Washing, or Sprinkling; Therefore the baptisme of Infants, is in that respect the Baptisme of Christ.

To your Proposition: I acknowledge Dipping, and deny sprinkling; neither hath there been any thing alledged by you, to confirm it; and for Washing, such a washing as is by dipping, or application of the subject to the water, I acknowledge to be baptisme: Otherwise, I doubt hereof.

On the contrary, I argue thus; for the cleering of my former assumption, denied by you: viv. That the baptisme of Infants is dipping.

The Baptisme of Christ, is Dipping and buriall therein; Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12.

The Baptisme of Infants is not Dipping, (or though it were) yet not buriall therein:

Therefore the Baptisme of Infants, is not the Baptisme of Christ.

If any shall alledge against the assumption, that some Infants are buried; or that it would be very hazardous?

Answ. I grant it hazardous, therefore it appeares they are not the subjects of baptisme; and though they be so dipt and buried, yet is their dipping and buriall nothing, became the persons that are to be buried, are such as have p. 11saith of the operation of God, Col. 2.12. Which Infants have not, as Mr. Blake seemeth to confesse, by asserting the rationality of the 9. Page of my former book; wherein is proved, Infants have no faith; and no where in all his book asserting them to have faith, so far as I remember: see him, Pag. 23.

2. Suppose baptisme signifie dipping, washing, and sprinkling, the last whereof is denyed, the middlemost much questioned, and the first confessed by both sides; now which of these significations would an impartiall unprejudiced Reader, give to baptism, when he reades this phrase? Rom. 6.4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptisme, &c. And that phrase, Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptisme, wherein also you are risen with him; would he reade it any otherwise then thus? buried with him in dipping, wherein also you are risen againe; yet for so reading and conceiving thereof, is there so much of the reproach and fury of man vented against divers of Gods Saints, especially when they shall practise accordingly.

3. Admit the word baptisme were a word of diverse significations, and should signify washing as well as dipping (for I affirme it never to signifie sprinkling) yet surely there is no doubtfulnesse in the signification of the words, Buried and risen. If the word baptisme do signifie washing as well as dipping (which yet could never plainely appeare to me) yet must there be a buriall in that washing, and ariseing againe therein? as appeares, Rom. 6 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptisme into death, also Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptisme, wherein also you are risen againe, which buriall and riseing againe with him in washing, can be no other wayes then by dipping, yea by to tall dipping; which is enough to overthrow the practise of infants baptisme, commonly used.

Obj. But we are said to be buried with Christ spiritually, therefore spirituall baptisme and not corporall is there meant.

Answ. Outward or corporall baptisme is in both those places meant, in which corporall baptisme or washing, we are said to be buried and risen againe; appeares by these reasons.

1. That which is the likenesse of a spirituall baptisme, cannot be only a spirituall baptisme, but must be also a bodily: but the baptisme expressed Rom. 6.4. Is a liknesse of a spirituall baptisme. Therefore a bodily also, and not a spirituall baptisme only is meant.

The proposition appeares from a received axiome; which is, no like is the same.

The assumption appeares, Rom. 6.5. As we have been planted (viz. by baptisme) in the likenesse of his death, so shall we be also in the likenesse of his resurrection.

p. 122. Where the signe baptisme or washing, and the thing signified, death and resurrection with Christ, are both exprest, there an outward baptisme must be meant as well as an inward. But so it is here, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by baptisme. The thing signified, or spirituall baptisme in these words, viz. Buried with him, the outward signe viz. by baptisme. Therefore bodily baptisme is here meant.

3. That which agrees with the Apostles scope, must needs be meant, but an outward baptisme as well as an inward, agrees with the Apostles scope, for the Apostle, vers 2. Had said they were dead to sin. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? now he proves it, vers. 3. That they were dead to sin, because they were baptized, which is a signe of death to sin; which they could not have been, had they not been deemed dead to sin, therefore a corporall baptisme as well as a spirituall, or washing with the blood of Christ, is here meant.

4. If the paralel place, Colos. 2.12. Buried with him in baptisme, wherin also you are risen again, doth set forth an outward baptism as well as an inward, then bodily baptism is meant, as well as a spirituall washing in Christs blood. But the former is true, viz. Buried with him &c. foreign, in baptism, foreign, in which baptism or washing, you are risen againe; therefore corporall washing, as well as washing in Christs blood, is here meant. Now because this doctrine of dipping, savors so of Novellisme; not to instance in histories, not without difficulty attainable; Peruse the book of Martyrs Edition. 7.

Mr. Fox saith, Augustine and Paulinus baptized them in rivers, not in hallowed Fonts, as witnesseth Fabianus, Cap. 119.120. Acts and Monuments, Part. 1. pag. 138. After speaking of Austin, he saith, he departed after he had baptized ten thousand Saxons or Angles, in the West river that is called Swale, besides Yorke, on a Christmas day. Where note by the way, Christian Reader, saith Mr. Fox, that whereas Austine baptized then in rivers, it followed then there was no use of Fonts, for this story Mr. Fox cites Fabian. Acts and Monuments, Part 1. Pag. 154.

After in the story of King Edwin, he hath this story; Paulinus having convicted Edwin the King, to the faith of Christ, and having baptized him; during the life of the said Edwin, which was six yeares more, Paulinus christned continually in the rivers of Gwenye and Swala, in both provinces of Deira and Bernitia. Acts and Monuments, Part. 1. Pag. 156.

OnelyOnly I cannot but cleere a place in Mr. Blake, Pag. 4. His words are; compare Revel. 19.13. with Esa. 63.3. And you will find there no such difference, but the word be foreign, rendred in our translation dipped, Revel 19. To be no other in Esa. 63. Then be sprinkled. But p. 13what ever the difference bee betweene them, though sprinkling be not at all baptizing, it makes little to your purpose; seeing those that dipp not Infants, do not yet use to sprinkle them; there is a middle way betwixt these two.

Reply. The Reader may observe, Mr. Blake hath a defence for what he is going to say, whether it be true or false, his words are, there is no such difference. Why, if there be any difference betwixt these two sayings, and the Persons of whom they are spoken, is it not enough to disprove that you would prove by them, you bring these two places to prove dipping and sprinkling to be one, yet you your selfe acknowledge a difference betwixt them, in the thing for which you alledge them. Yea, as despairing of the proof, your own words conclude; but what ever the difference be, though sprinkling be not at all baptizing, &c.

2. But had you not confessed the same, we can easily prove it, Esa. 63.3. The words are there, Blood shall be besprinkled upon my garments; where the Prophet speakes of the victory, Christ gets against his enemies, after the manner of conquerors, who when they kill their enemies, the blood of the slaine is wont to besprinkle the conqueror. Hence Iunius reades it, inspersus est Sanguis cujusque robustissimi illorum vestamentis meis, but Revel. 19. Iohu speakes of Christ clothed with a vesture dipt in blood, which was no other then Christs own satisfaction, the righteousnesse of Saints; therefore there can be no parrellellisme betwixt these two places; not to show the difference of the learned tongues herein, the difference of the scope is enough to nullify what is said, to prove the word besprinkled, Esa. 63. And the word dipped, Apoc. 19. To be the same, it must be spoken of the same occasion, of the same time, of the same action, of the same subject, in the same language.

Now 1. The occasion was different, or Esa. 63.1.2.3. There are 2. questions propounded by the Church of the Iews, 1. The Church of the Iews seeing Christ revenging his enemies, askes who he is? verse. 1. 2. Why he was red in his apparell? to which the answer is given, vers. 3. 4, 5, 6. That the cause was the slaughter of his enemies. Now the occasion Apoc. 19. Is of the victory Christ got over the beast and the false Prophet, from vers. 10. to the end of the Chapter.

2. The time is different, one was in the Prophet Esays time, the other was neare to the end of the world; as appeares by the order of the Apocalyptycall historye. Neither let any man say, this place of Esay, might be a Prophesy of the other in the Revelations; for in Esay 63. Theres no mention of Babilon, or any thing that can accord with this historie, in any seeming type.

p. 143. Yea though it were the same occasion, and the same time, yet if in both Scriptures the same action were not mentioned, the argument of foreign, dipped, in Revel. 19. And the word sprinkled, Isay 63. Would not follow to be the same, now that the action is not the same, appeares because there are no such questions propounded, Apoc. 19. As are propounded Isay 63. Nor no victory against the beast and false Prophet, mentioned, Isay 63. As is mentioned Apoc. 19. With many other differences of the actions, which any man that looks both texts may see. If so beare allusion of a word in the new Testament, to a word or phrase in the old Testament, will serve to prove points; we may make every thing of any thing, and make Christian religion more doubtfull, then the oracles of Delphus.

4. Theres difference in the subject; Though the occasion, time, and action were the same, yet if the subject, viz. The enemies over which Christ triumphs be not the same, then it followes that sprinkled, Isa. 63.3. And dipped, Apoc. 19.13. Are not the same; but so it is that the enemies over which Christ triumphs, are far different; for when Christ triumphed over his enemyes, Isa. 63. He came out of Edom, and with dyed garments from Bosrah, vers 1. Which Bosrah was the Metropolit of Edom, Isa. 34.6. 1 Machab. 5.26. So that his victory was there (in the true history) got over the Edomites and Bofraites; but this victory Christ gets, Apo. 19.13. Was over the beast and …alse Prophets in another part of the world, together with a many of Kings, & Princes, their confederates.

Which being so cleere, not to trouble the reader in so plaine a case with more differences, it followes that sprinkled, Isa. 63.3. And dipped, Apoc. 19.13. Are not the same; but the allegation is a meer flourish, to deceive supeficiall understandings. If any aske why I have been so long upon so weake an argument. It is to undeceive those, who have been by diverse learned men (some whereof are of great note) been deceived in this particular, by the counterfeit Parrellellisme of these two places.

Arg. 2. Mr. Blake, instead of taking away my answers to exceptions against Christs Commission, takes a long discourse out of his Book called, Birth priviledge; which is nothing, but foreign, only instead of answering one foreign, he inserts this long discourse, P. 11. 12. 13. out of which, all that I can deduce, is only 2. arguments against infants baptism.

1. Esay 49.22. Behold, I will lift …y my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the people; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders: Therefore, Infants may be baptized.

Answ. For the opening of this place at large, I refer the Reader to my former book, part. 1. pag. 31.

p. 15In a word, God promised the Jews, that though now in Captivitie their Land were desart, and their desolations great; yet the Inhabitants should be so many, that the land should be too strait for them, vers. 19.20. Hence, vers. 21. They fall to enquiry who hath begotten these? Seeing themselves were desolate and sorry Captives: To which the Lord answers, vers. 22. Thus saith the Lord, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles: As if he should say, it shall be my Work. There shall sundry of the Gentiles come in to them as Proselites, and not onelyonly themselves, but they shall also bring their children in their armes, and upon their shoulders, with them; and so by multiplication of Proselytes, the Land in a short time became too strait for them. But what is this to the baptizing of Infants?

But that the Prophet should speak of the rejection of the Jews, and the call of the Gentiles in their stead, as Mr. Blake would have it; it's both contrary to the tenor of Scriptures which affirm, that the Jews at their last conversion, shall be taken into the Gentiles, not the Gentiles into the Jews. See Rom. 11.12.15. and contrary to the tenor of that place, which speakes of a bringing in many Gentiles to the godly Jewes. And what if the godly Gentiles be so zealous, that rather then they will lose the benefit of Ordinances, by tarrying at home and looking to their infants, will take so much paines as carry them in their armes and shoulders unto them, what can hence be deduced for the sprinkling of Infants? And that this is the meaning of it, if there be any litterall sence therein, appears because the Prophet saith, I will set up my standard to the people, and they shall bring their sons, &c. which standard, is nothing but the preaching of the Gospell. Howbeit, I rather lean to Iu…ius, who acknowledges all these things to be spoken Allegorically, of the enlargement of the spirituall Kingdome of Christ; as the Prophets are wont to speake.

Mr. Blake's next intermixed Argument is;

2. A…g. To belong to Christ, and be a Disciple of Christ, are both one; Matth. 10.42. compared with Mark. 9.42. Infants belong to Christ, therefore they are Disciples, p. 13. 16.

Answ. To your proposition, I answer; First, its true of such Disciples as Christ spoke of, which were converted to the Faith, but not of others; neither Infants who are not yet enlightened, nor of Elect persons unborn, who belong to God in respect of Gods decree, yet cannot properly be called Disciples; as not having any being: these to belong to Christ, and to be Disciples of Christ, are two severall things; the one, that is their belonging to Christ, is in present; the other, that is, their being Disciples, is in future: To this Mr. Blake gives a scoffe, instead of an answer, p. 16.

2. Children cannot be Disciples,See Mr. Den An… to D. Fea… P. 10. because they cannot take up Christ his crosse, Luk. 14.26. Now what Infant hath an habituall intention to take up Christ his crosse?

p. 163. Disciples of Christ, they have a call into that state, either extraordinary, or ordinary.

But what call have Infants in that state?

4. Infants cannot be Disciples, because they are not capable of learning reason, much lesse deep things of Religion: Now Disciple in English is a scholler.

5. I will not speak of sundry badges of Disciples, whereby all men may know them; as Joh. 12.35. By this shall all men know ye are my Disciples, if ye love one another; and fruitfulnesse, Joh. 15.8. Herein is my father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my Disciples. So Joh. 8.31. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed. Now how can love, fruitfulnesse, or continuance in Christs word, be ascribed to Infants? which they must be, if Infants were Disciples: As Mr. Blake would make us believe.

But still Mr. Blake, lest he should seem to have said nothing, distinguishes— p. 18. that a Disciple is taken two wayes;

1. Strictly, for one that actually learnes.

2. Largely, for those that are taken into the number of those that do actually learn, though themselves do not; and in this order he would make us believe Infants to be Disciples, p. 18, 19, 20.

Answ. 1. There are none are Schollers in Christs School, but do learn; and therefore the similitude from little ones being called Schollers, though they do not learn, is of no weight.

2. Christ cuts off that distinction of two sorts of Disciples, in requiring one sort of qualifications in all his Disciples, as was shown before; Luk. 14.26.27. Joh. 8.31.12.35. Whosoever will be Christs Disciple, must hate father and mother.

Further, Mr. Blake goes about to weaken my answer to Mr. Marshals Argument, out of Acts 15.10. which was this; p. 17. All they upon whose necks the false Teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision, are called Disciples: But they would have put this yoke upon Infants, therefore Infants are Disciples.

Answ. Not to repeat my former answers, assailed by Mr. Blake, but not overcome, I answer:

We deny the Proposition; All that can be deduced from this Text is, that they would have put a yoke upon the neck of all the Disciples; Not that all were Disciples upon whom they would have put this yoke, or that they would have put the yoke onelyonly upon the Disciples. See this answere with cleer demonstrations for it, in Mr. Dens Answ. to Dr. Fearley, pag. 11. 12. Who hath spoken so fully to it, that I need not adde thereto.

There are some other small exceptions, which Mr. BLAKE hath against my vindications of Christs Commission, which because they are not materiall, as p. 14. and p. 20. I will not insist upon, he having past over so many matters p. 17of moment, alledged concerning Christs Commission, as the Reader may easily observe.

Only the 5. exception he punisheth with very grievous stroakes, to make it an example to all the rest.

The exception, word for word by me a…ledged, is thus. viz.

Obj. Christ saith, baptize all nations, but Children are part of the nation, therefore they may be baptized.

Answ. In the proposition, there is a fallacy of division, whereby one conjoyned proposition, is divided into two pieces. As a certaine Athiest, that would prove out of Scripture, there was no God; for which he alledged, the 14. Psalme, vers 1. Where it is said, there is no God; but he left out the foregoing words, the foole hath said in his heart. So here Christ saith, baptize all nations, but he conjoynes with it, make disciples all nations; which the objector here left out.