A briefe answer to A discourse, lately written by one P.B., to prove baptisme under the defection of Antichrist, to be the ordinance of Iesus Christ, and the baptizing of infants to be agreeable to the word of God wherein is declared ... that true baptisme and a false church are inconsistent, and cannot stand together : and also maintained, that the baptizing of infants hath no authority from the Scriptures / by R. Barrow.

A briefe answer to A discourse, lately written by one P.B., to prove baptisme under the defection of Antichrist, to be the ordinance of Iesus Christ, and the baptizing of infants to be agreeable to the word of God wherein is declared ... that true baptisme and a false church are inconsistent, and cannot stand together : and also maintained, that the baptizing of infants hath no authority from the Scriptures / by R. Barrow.

Table of contents

Title page

To the READER.

A BREIFE ANSVVER To a Discourse, lately written by one P. B. &c.

§

[Page]

A BREIFE ANSVVER To a Discourse, lately written by one P. B. &c.

FIrst, he saith, that the visible Church of Christ hath had a perpetuall continuance in the world from the first plantation thereof by Christ and the Apostles, and shall so continue unto the end of the world; this he saith was prophesied, Esa. 9.7.59.21. witnessed, Luke 1.33. Acts 5.29. and confirmed, Matth. 16.18.28.20. and these Scriptures are stable and true, and so to be accounted by all the Saints, page 1.

I answer, That these Scriptures, and all other, being delivered by the spirit of God, 2 Pet. 1.21. are stable and true, and so to be accounted of all the world, Acts 3.22.23. and yet are not therefore the severall glosses and understandings of men given upon these or other Scriptures alwayes stable and true, nor so to be accounted of any man. Before wee give credit therefore to his construction of these Scriptures; wee will a little examine how he makes the truth thereof to appeare: he saith, that the perpetuity of the visible Church was prophesied, Esay 9.7.59.21. And the Word is yea and Amen, &c. whereupon then it must needs follow, that if the visible Church of Christ hath not had a perpetuall uninterrupted succession in the world ever since the first plantation thereof, untill these dayes, though this prophesie in it selfe be true, yet his understanding and interpretation thereof must needs be false. This rule the Lord himselfe hath given us, thereby to distinguish the true Prophet from the false, Deutron. 18.22. hee saith, when a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, and if the thing follow not, nor come to passe, that is, not the thing which the Lord hath spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Now, as hereby wee are taught to distinguish the true Prophets from the false, so likewise are wee by the same rule taught, to know the true interpretation of every [Page] prophesie from the false, and therefore when any interpretation of any prophesie is given, and accordingly the thing follow not nor come to passe that is, not the thing which the Lord hath spoken in that prophesie, but it's a false interpretation, and he is a false Prophet that hath given the same, of whom wee are taught to beware, Matth. 7.15. from which imputation, we shall now see how well he acquitteth himselfe.

First, he telleth us, that the defection and falling away under Antichrist was very generall and marvellous universall; and this he proveth, Rev. 13.8, 16. (to which also he might have added the 3.4. and 7. verses) and unlesse the defection under Antichrist had beene thus universall, he saith the Waldenses, who appeared in the dawne of the day, could not truly have beene called the first fruits unto God, as he conceiveth they were, pag. 2. We say so too, and also firme that the visible Church could not continue under that defection, because it's said, it was given to him to make warre with the Saints, and to overcome them, and if to overcome them, they could not continue, for if they had not continued, then he did not overcome them and kill them with the sword, as it is said hee did, Rev. 13.7.10. compared with Dan. 7.21.25. Moreover, it is said, that those which worshipped the Beast, were such, whose names were not written in the Lambs booke of life; therefore the visible Church could not continue under that defection. But if it did not there continue, yet haply it might continue under the Greekes? To this he answereth, that indeed the Greekes did not alwayes subject themselves to the Romane power, yet were they very little short in defection, in so much, that according to the measure whereby the Romanists are measured, they will stand and fall together; well but I demand (although the Church did not continue under the defection of Antichrist, nor yet under the Greekes) whether he doe not conceive that some man may be found able (though hee cannot himselfe) to make it appeare that the the visible Church hath continued elsewhere in the world? Vnto this he answereth, that he believeth none can be found able to make any such continuance of the Church to appeare, page 3. if any could, he would thanke God for such a discovery. And who then can believe his exposition of Esay 9.7.59.21. &c. seeing that his owne mouth testifieth that no man can be found able to make the truth thereof to appeare; and therefore it must needs follow, that he hath given a false interpretation of the Scriptures by him alledged to prove the perpetuity of the visible Church; neither will he himselfe, nor any other▪ be able to cleare him from the imputation of a false Prophet, and one that hath spoken [Page] presumptuously in the name of the Lord, Deut. 18.22. therefore having thus confuted himselfe in this point, I thinke it a needlesse thing for mee to spend any more time in the confutation of it. But seeing hee confesseth that none can be found able to make any such continuance of a visible Church (as he speaketh of) to appeare, why are we by him blamed for not believing such a continuance, page 4. and why are we so often charged for not believing the continuance thereof under the defection of Antichrist, pag. 3.4.5. and 9. And why also are we accused for making Christ a widower, in not believing a perpetuall succession of the visible Church of Christ, seeing he himselfe believeth no man can prove the perpetuall succession thereof? What, would he have us believe that which he cannot believe himselfe? Herein hee is much more uncharitable then the Pope; who requireth none to believe what hee and his Church believeth not. If Christ must be a widower, except he hath alwayes a visible Church in the world, then there is no salvation out of the visible Church, because none can be saved which are not first united to, and made one with Christ, (and then what shall become of those believers which in all ages have appeared, such as Ierome of Prague, Iohn Hus, &c. who lost their lives for the testimonie of Jesus, and were never members of any true visible Church: I hope P. B. will not say that they perished in their sins) and if they were saved, then were they espoused unto and united to Christ; and if so, then Christ hath, and so may have a Spouse, although no visible Church, but P.B. I conceive, was so studious when he wrote his booke, to bring absurdities upon us, that he altogether forgot himselfe.

Furthermore, seeing hee cannot believe that any can be found able to make the continuance of the visible Church to appeare, and that as hee saith, The administration of Baptisme doth so depend thereupon, that by no meanes possible it can be had elsewhere, without a speciall commission given from heaven for that purpose, such as Iohn the Baptist had, page 4. & 6. I demand where, or of whom P. B. received his Baptisme: from the visible Church he received it not, for he knoweth not where any such Church is, neither doth hee believe that any man can make any such Church to appeare to have continued in the world, if any could, he would blesse God for such a discovery, page 3. & 4. Belike then hee received it from one that had a speciall commission like to that of Iohn the Baptists, at least by his discourse he would have us to thinke so, but I know it will appeare that it was but a Bull.

But being unwilling to receive this confutation from himselfe, or having begun a Discourse, so quickly to finish it, hee proceeds, and tells us, that seeing he believes that none can make it appeare [Page] that the visible Church hath continued from under the defection of Antichrist, then it is more then probable, that it hath continued under that defection, page 3. But I demand how that can be probable, seeing that but a little before he told us, and also proved, that the defection and falling away under Antichrist, was very great, and marvellous universall, and therefore were the Waldenses, who appeared in the dawning of the day, not unfitly called the first fruits unto God; for they could not be the first, if there had beene a continuance, page 2. but he saith, 2 Thes. 2.4. it is said, That the Sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe above all that is called God; or that is worshipped, sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himselfe that he is God, and therefore the Church hath continued under the defection of Antichrist, What is this, but I Sir, no Sir. But I answer, That the Temple here spoken of, wherein the Man of Sinne sitteth, and is worshipped, cannot be taken to be the Church of God, or that Temple of the living God. whereof Iesus Christ is the Head, Ephes. 1.22 and wherein God himselfe dwelleth and walketh, 2 Cor. 6.16.17. The reason is, because that in 3. verse of this Chapter it is said, That the Man of Sinne is not revealed untill first there be a falling away, and therefore his comming is said, verses 9. & 10. to be withall deceivablenesse; in whom? (not in the Church, but in them that perish, who, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, therefore God sent them strong delusions, that they should believe lies, that all they might perish, who received not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousnesse verse 9.10.11.12. Whereupon it must needs follow, that that Temple or Societie wherein Antichrist sitteth and is worshipped; consisteth of persons departed from the faith, verse 3. who are by God justly for that cause given up to believe lies, that so they may perish and be damned; and therefore not in any wise to be esteemed the Church of Christ, or Temple of the living God. And this must needs be so from his owne ground, seeing that by Antichrist here spoken of, he understandeth the Beast mentioned, Rev. 13. as apeareth by his applying this Scripture against Antichrist, pag. 2. Now, for as much as those that wonder after the Beast, and worship him, are said to be such, whose names are not written in the Lambs Book of Life, Rev. 13.8 he cannot therfore understand the same to be the Temple of God, where Antichrist sitteth and is worshipped (unlesse he conceive that the Church of Christ consisteth of such persons, whose names are not written in the Booke of Life, which I suppose hee doth not) and therefore I conclude from his own grounds, that the Temple spoken of in the 2 Thes. 2.4. is no more the Temple of God, then Antichrist, who sitteth therein, and is worshipped, is God himselfe, nor is otherwise to be esteemed, nor hath hee any reason more to affirme [Page] the one, then he hath to affirme the other; from hence therefore it cannot be made to appeare probable that the visible Church hath continued under the defection of Antichrist, but it must stand as P. B. at first affirmed, page 2. that under the defection of Antichrist it could not continue.

But suppose it were probable, that the Church had continued under that defection, then he saith pag. 3. that Baptisme by which the matter of the Church is differenced, hath there likewise continued, and there also it will be probable, that his Baptisme derived from thence is the Baptisme of Iesus Christ. (Here we may take notice by way) that the best ground he hath for his faith in this particular, is but a probability: well, but seeing that he holdeth that baptisme dependeth upon the true Church, then where no true Church is there can be no true Baptisme. Now, I need not here demand whether conceives the Church of Rome to be a true Church, because in his Epistle to the Reader, page 5. he desireth that none should thinke so of him, for there he saith, that he holds that state to be the mother of Fornications, the great whore, Sodome and Egypt, &c. therfore it must needs hence follow, that the Church of Rome hath not Christs Baptisme; for thus he reasoneth, if the Church hath continued, then Baptisme by which the matter of the Church is differenced hath continued, page 3. But the Church of Rome hath not continued the Church of Christ, but is become the mother of fornications Sodome and Egypt, as he faith in his Epistle, page 5. therefore the Baptisme of Christ by which the matter of the Church is differenced, hath not continued in the Church of Rome; whereas therefore, page 5. hee desireth those which hold that the Church and Baptisme hath not continued under the defection of Antichrist would shew him the error and absurdity of such an opinion; he may easily discover the error and absurdity hereof himselfe, if he will but take notice of what hee hath herein written, viz. That Baptisme differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false, pag. 3.4. whence it will necessarily follow, that if the baptisme of the Church of Rome be the Baptisme of Christ which differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false, then Rome the false matter must thereby be differenced from it selfe, and become a true Church; as when at first shee received Christs Baptisme, and then shall Rome be no longer Rome, but a true Church and State, differenced from a false by her baptisme which differenceth the true matter from the false; and therefore for any to hold the church of Rome to be a false church, as P. B. doth, and withall to maintaine that she retaineth the Baptisme of Christ, whereby the true matter of the Church is differenced from the false, is as much as if a man [Page] should affirme even as he doth, that Rome is the mother of fornications, and also that Rome is the true Spouse of Iesus Christ, which is both absurd and contradictory.

I will therefore conclude this point thus, Seeing that true Baptisme differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false, as P.B. saith, and yet the baptisme of the church of Rome doth not difference her from the false matter, as he also affirmeth in his Epistle, page 5. therefore the baptisme of the church of Rome is not that Baptisme of Christ, which differenceth the true matter from the false, page 3.4. Secondly, That Church which hath no other baptisme then the Baptisme of Rome, which differenceth not the true matter from the false, cannot thereby be differenced from the false church; but P.B. and his church have no other baptisme then the baptisme of the church of Rome which differenceth not the true matter from the false, therfore, P. B. and his church, are not yet differenced from the false Church. Whether therefore Christ will owne the same for his Spouse, or reject her as a Harlot sprung from the mother of Fornications and Harlos, may very well be a question without Question.

But he saith, page 6. If the visible Church hath not continued, then Baptisme is ceased, and being ceased without a speciall commission, such as Iohn the Baptist had at first to baptize, it can never be againe obtained.

To this I answer, That although Baptisme were ceased, as hee intends it, viz. That there were no baptized persons in the world to be found, yet so long as Baptisme the Ordinance of God is found in the word, with a Commission serving to the end of the world for Believers or Disciples to make and baptise Disciples, as Mat. 28.19.20. Baptisme may be againe obtained without any such speciall Commission as that which at first was given to Iohn the Baptist; for it will not follow, that because Iohn the Baptist might not baptise before baptisme was instituted & he commanded to baptise, that therefore Believers after baptisme is instituted and commanded to make and baptise Disciples may not lawfully baptise such as are made Disciples, no more then it will follow, that because Abraham might not circumcise himselfe and his Males, before circumcision was instituted, and he commanded so to doe; that therefore the Israelites after circumcision was instituted, and they commanded to observe the same, might not, without a speciall Commission, such as Abraham had, lawfully circumcise their Males. It was necessary indeed, that Iohn the Baptist should have a speciall commission to baptise, Baptisme being not before instituted nor yet he, nor any other person required to baptise; as it was necessary to the first building of the Temple, that a patterne should be given, [Page] Chron. 28.11.12. but as then another patterne was not expected as necessary for the rebuilding therof at the peoples returne out of captivity, who performed all things according to the first appointment and ordination, Ezra 3. so neither is it requisite, now baptisme being ceased, that a new Commission should be obtained for the raising of it up againe. But that according to their example in the former instance all be done according to the first institution and ordination of Jesus Christ, Mat. 28.19. If it be objected as in page 8. that the commission was given to baptised persons, such as had received their baptisme from Iohn, and therefore it intendeth none that are unbaptised; I answer, that this commission requireth all such persons, who by the preaching of the Gospell, either are or shall be made Disciples unto the end of the world to be baptised, and Christs voyce must be obeyed in all things whatsoever he saith, Act. 3.22. and that without delay, as Acts. 22.16. therefore there lies a necessity upon all believers to be baptised. What is now to be done in this case? Baptised persons from whom they may receive the same as in a right line, P. B. believeth none can be found, pag. 2.3. for if none can make it appeare that the visible Church hath continued, as he believeth none can, then can none make it appear that there are any baptised persons to be found in the world, and therfore ought cannot be had from any such, how then? why in the 2 Tim. 2.16. & 17. the Apostle telleth us; that the Scripture is profitable, and serveth for instruction in all righteousnesse, that the man of God may be perfect and throughly furnished unto all good workes, and if unto all, then unto this of Baptisme; whereupon therefore I confidently affirme, that as at first, Iohn the Baptist, at the command of God baptised others, though he himselfe was unbaptised: even so now (according to his example (which amongst other things was written for our learning, that we thereby might be taught what to doe in the like case of necessity) Rom. 15.4. May a Disciple at the command of Jesus Christ, Matth. 28.19. having made Disciples by the preaching of the Gospel baptise them for the remission of their sins. Act. 2.38.

If it further be objected, that this example is extraordinary, and therefore not exemplary; I answer, that every approved example, though extraordinary, serveth for our instruction and direction in the like extraordinary case; and this is warranted by Christs owne testimony, Matth. 12.3.4. where he declareth, that although in ordinary cases it was unlawfull for any to eate the Shew bread, save onely the Priest, yet in case of necessity it was lawfull and warrantable, both for David, and also for souldiers to eate thereof, whereby he justifieth his Disciples, who in the like case of necessity, [Page] were enforced to doe that which otherwise was not lawfull to be done on the Sabbath day. This is our case, and hereby wee justifie our practice in the point in hand, and by all which it doth appeare, that although baptisme were ceased in that sense wherein he speaketh, yet seeing that that there is a commission already given for baptisme, which by Christ himselfe is extended to the end of the world, there is no need of a new commission for the raising of it up againe; and therefore, from that which P. B. speaketh concerning Nadab and Abihu, their offering of strange fire, which the Lord commanded not Lev. 10. hee might more fitly have applyed against his strange baptisme, viz. the baptisme of Infants, of which the Lord hath never spoken, then against the baptising of believers at his command, and according to his owne institution, Matth. 28.19. but for want of better matter to fill up his booke, he was, it seemes, inforced to make use of vaine words.

But this is not all for although it be proved that there is commission and authority for Disciples to baptise, though they themselves be unbaptised in the case before declared; yet there is another thing whereat P. B. is greatly offended, and that is the manner in which this new baptisme (as he calleth it) is administred (which according to the institution) is by dipping the whole man in water or burying the whole man under the water, Col. 2.12. Rom. 6. This although the Lord command the same, Mat. 28.19. and examples both of Christ himselfe, Mar. 1.9. Mat. 3.16. Iohn the Baptist, Ioh. 3.23. Philip and the Eunuch, Act. 8.38.39. all of them giving witnesse therunto, yet he cannot believe it to be so necessary, as that a person who is onely sprinkled with water, should be esteemed unbaptised, p. 12. But what are his Reasons that perswade him thus to judge? he saith, at the most, sprinkling can be but a defect in the quantity of the element, and it's wonderfull that a Nullity should follow thereupon. I answer, that it's wonderfull that any should esteeme that to be an ordinance of Christ, which Christ hath never ordained; but Christ never ordained sprinkling for his baptising but dipping Mat. 28.19. therefore sprinkling is none of Christs ordinance and so by consequence must needs be a nullity; but he saith, by thus urging the Text, we place the substance of an ordinance in the criticknesse of a word, page 13. I answer, that we doe place the substance of every ordinance in it's conformity to the Word of God, which alone giveth being thereunto, and for any to doe otherwise, it is very strange: but belike, he that by the word baptise will not understand to sprinkle, and accept the same for Christs ordinance in baptisme, which is as much as if by the word (circumcise) the Iewes should [Page] have understood to prick the finger▪ & should so have practised and owned the same for the ordinance of circumcision in the judgement of P.B. he is a meere Criticke, and placeth the substance of an ordinance of a high nature in the criticknesse of a word, as he speaketh.

And whereas it is said that baptisme resembleth our buriall and resurrection with Christ, which sprinkling cannot import, Rom 6. Col. 2.12 He answereth, that sprinkling or powring water on the face doth hold forth both buriall and resurrection, page 14. for those (he saith) that are sprinkled are under the water and buried, if not so, then he demandeth how they were baptised unto Moses in the cloud▪ and in the sea, when not so much as a hayre of their head was wet. I answer, that by this reason as they should not be dipped in baptisme, so neither should they be sprinkled, and yet shall they be under the water, and buried neverthelesse; This sure is one of the mysteries which hee speaketh of, that cannot easily be perceived, page 10. but seeing he thus urgeth the baptisme of the cloud and of the sea in this and divers other places desiring that it may be well minded, as page 14.29.30. I desire to know, whether thereby he understandeth the baptisme instituted by Jesus Christ, Mat. 28.9. if he doe not, then I demand, why he so often urgeth the same for an example in this point? if he doe, then further demand why contrary thereunto in baptising his Infants (as hee would have it esteemed) he sprinkleth water in their faces? this practice of his to sprinkle water in the face, if persons may be baptised without water, must needs be a point of voluntary religion, as he speaketh of the Surplise, and baptised garments, page 15. and hereby any may see how pertinently he allegeth the Scripture. But he saith, that whilest we thus urge baptisme to hold forth buriall and resurrection▪ we lose that which it holdeth forth equally therewith (namely) the sprinkling of the conscience in the blood of Christ. Esay. 52.15. Heb. 10.22. Ezek. 36.25. Heb. 12.24. and the laver of regeneration and our washing in the blood of Christ, that blessed Fountaine, Acts 22.16. Heb. 10.22. 1 Cor. 6.11. Rev. 1.5. To which I answer, and deny that sprinkling in the blood of Christ is required to be holden forth in baptisme, or that any of the Scriptures by him aledged, doe prove any such thing, or make any mention at all of baptisme, and therefore are not to be applied thereunto being onely metaphors borrowed from those sprinklings used under the Law, Heb. 10.19.20.21, 22. which, although the matter thereof might or did set forth the blood of Christ, and the nature of it, being applied by faith, as 1 Iohn 1.7. yet did not the same at all set forth the manner of baptisme, which onely is to be found in the institution, [Page] Matth. 28.19. and those examples which the Scripture affordeth us thereof, Marke 1.9. Matth. 3.16. Acts 8.38.39. together with that conformity and agreement with it, hath with death, buriall and resurrection whereunto the Lord is pleased to resemble and compare the same, Rom. 6.4. 1 Cor. 15.29. Col. 2.12. And hee that shall affirme that that act of sprinkling, used under the Law, is to be observed in baptisme, because the matter thereof did set forth the blood of Christ, the matter of our cleansing may by as good reason maintaine that all those particular actions required to be used under the Law for the cleansing of the Leaper (namely) the applying of the blood of his sacrifice to the thumbe of his right hand, to the tip of his right care, and to the great toe of his right foot, ought also to be observed in baptisme, seeing, that the matter thereof pointed out the blood of Christ as well as that did, which was used in sprinkling then which nothing more absurd can be imagined. As concerning our washing in the blood of Christ, that blessed fountaine, the other particular in which he instanceth, and saith, that we lose by urging baptisme, to hold forth buriall and resurrection. I answer, that he is much mistaken therein; for as dipping in the judgement of the spirit of God is washing, 2 King. 5.14. compared with 10. so likewise unto washing by dipping is necessarily required much water, as is seene, Iohn 3.23. whereupon it doth follow, that like as dipping of the whole man in water, and his rising againe forth of the same, doth lively hold forth and represent his death, buriall and resurrection with Christ, according to Rom. 6.3.4.5. Col. 2.12. so likewise his dipping or washing in much water, must needes be a full resemblance of his washing in that blessed fountaine, the blood of Christ, set open to wash in for sinne and for uncleannesse, Zach. 13.1. We therefore by urging baptisme to hold forth buriall and resurrection, lose not that which ought equally to be holden forth therewith (namely) our washing in the blood of Christ, &c. But P. B. himselfe, who for baptisme useth sprinkling, loseth both buriall and resurrection, and that which ought equally to be holden forth with them both also, to wit, our washing in the fountaine of the blood of Christ, for that sprinkling hath neither similitude, nor any proportion with any of them.

But he saith that a thing that is dipped in water, is not therefore washed and made cleane; to which I answer, that then much lesse is that which is onely sprinkled with water therefore washed and made cleane, but I have proved before that dipping is washing, and therefore he that is dipped, is washed, and consequently made cleane so farre forth as the ordinance of baptisme doth require, that alone [Page] serving fully to demonstrate our death, buriall, resurrection with Christ, and the washing away and cleansing us from all filthinesse in the fountaine of his blood Zach. 13 1.

Yet this will not suffice, therefore he further urgeth, that in those Countries where baptisme first begun, they dipped often, and also rubbed thereby to cleanse pag. 14. I answer that they dipped in those countries, where baptisme first began, is most certaine, and accordingly do we practise; and when P. B. can prove that they dipped often, &c. and also justifie their practice by the Word of God, wee shall therein also follow their example. But seeing that he conceiveth they dipped, and not onely so but also dipped often, &c. Why then doth he accuse us▪ who dip but once, as though that were too often? and moreover if they used to dip where baptisme first began, then is dipping the old, and so consequently the good way, Ier. 6.16. and why then doth he reproach the same as a new way, pag. 3. and doth not rather, as he would teach his reader in the frontice-piece of his booke, walke in the old and good way, that he may finde rest? Ier. 6.16. but it appeares that he loves to wrangle, and therefore, now contrary to dipping often, and rubbing to cleanse, he saith, that a little water serveth to set forth our washing in the blood of Christ intended in baptisme as well as a great deale, and the washing of a part, as the face, according to the present custome as well as washing of the whole man as appeareth by Christs washing of Peters feet, Iohn 13.10. I answer, that a little water serveth not so fully to set out our washing in the blood of Christ as a great deale doth, and therefore, when the Lord himselfe would set forth this thing unto us, he doth it not under the resemblance of a little water, but of a fountaine of water, Zach. 13.1. And hence it was, that his messenger baptised in much water, Iohn 3.23. Neither doth the washing of a part set forth the cleansing of us from all filthinesse. 2 Cor. 7.1. Like as the washing of the whole man doth, and therefore, that we might draw neere in full assurance it's required (not our faces or feet) but that our bodies should be washed in pure waters, Heb. 10.22. Christs washing of Peters feet he applyeth that as well as he doth the baptisme of the cloud and of the Sea, and therefore, as I answered him in that, so I shall also in this; if hee conceive that Christ by washing of Peters feet would set forth unto us the manner of baptisme. I demand then, why contrary thereunto, he useth to sprinkle his infants faces, when he christeneth them? And why he doth not rather in a bason of water wash their feet? I suppose therefore, that he knoweth well enough, that Christ by washing of Peters feet, would teach all his Disciples humility, Iohn 13.15. and not to wash [Page] a part in baptisme contrary to his owne institution, Matth. 28.19. and example Marke 1.9. Mat. 3.16. But his great objection against the dipping of the whole man, is this (he saith) That it's hard to determine how it can stand with modesty and shamefastnesse, and yet in the countries where baptisme first began, hee urgeth against us, that they dipped often, and also rubbed, thereby to cleanse, page 14. Now, if he cannot determine how dipping once may be performed with modesty, &c. how will he determine how dipping often, and rubbing to cleanse (as he instanceth) could be performed with modesty and shamefastnesse? Surely he will conclude that they put on a linnen garment. But there it will follow, that they baptise the garments, &c. Haply he will say not the garments but the persons in the garment, because that when he sprinkleth his infants he doth not strip them naked out of their clothes; neither yet will he say, that therefore he baptiseth their garments into the death and resurrection of Christ, but the infant that are therein. But if it must needs follow that they baptise the garments, &c. (in their behalfe, I know though not in ours) he will determine, that it was but an error in respect of the subject, like to the baptisme of an infant in the stead of a believer (as he pleadeth, page 12.) and therefore not worthy to be blamed or taken notice of.

Having thus spoken his minde against the ordinance of Christ (to wit) the baptising or dipping of believers▪ which in derision he calleth the new baptisme, page 3. hee returnes againe to the former argument the baptisme of Infants, page 10. which, hee saith began many yeeres before Christ died, or at least, before the Apostles left the world, which indeed, must needs be true, if it be the baptisme which was instituted by Iesus Christ, as hee pretends to prove by these reasons that follow.

His first ground is from the Covenant of God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. which covenant, he saith was neither part of the new, nor yet of the old, chap. 17.18. because it was neither confirmed with the blood of Bulls, nor with the blood of Christ▪ which thing he saith, may seeme new, but yet he desires to see the error that attends its. I answer, marvelling that he should urge Infants, being in a covenant not confirmed with the blood of Christ, to prove their interest in baptisme, and so by consequent in the blood of Christ; the blood of Christ is the blood of the new Testament, Mat. 26.28. Now, if that infants be not in this covenant confirmed with the blood of Christ, then can they have no interest in baptisme which serveth (as he saith page 14.) to set forth our washing and sprinkling with the blood of Christ; there needs not therefore any more words [Page] be used to shew the errour that attends this new conceit urged to prove Infants right to baptisme, when it not onely excludes them from baptisme, but also from salvation by Christ.

But Infants being a part of the Church and members thereof before Christ, what doth let them from being so still? seeing (as hee saith) the Lord hath never spoken one word thereof, but the contrary. I answer, that although Infants were of the Church before Christ yet the Lord hath manifestly declared, that they should not be so now, Christ the true promised seed being once come, as is seene, Gal. 4.22. &c. where the Apostle thus speaketh. It is written (saith hee) that Abraham had two sonnes, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman, 23. but he that was borne of the bond-woman was borne [...]fter the flesh, but hee of the free woman was borne by promise, 24. which things he saith, was an allegorie, verse 25.26. the bond maid Hagar shadowing out the old covenant or testament and her sonne Ishmael which she bore to Abraham after the flesh, or by carnall generation, shadowing out all the fleshly and carnall Israelites which should proceed from Abraham in after generations. The free woman, Sara, pointing out the new covenant or Ierusalem, which is from above and teaches her son appointing out Christ, the promised seed as Gal. 3.16. and believers borne from above▪ or by promise, as Isack was the spirituall seed of Abraham, as Gal. 3.29. and therefore he saith verse 28. We brethren, as Isacke was, are the children of promise; after this, to close up the full intent of the spirit of God in this thing, in the 29. & 30. verses, he sheweth that by the carnall and fleshly seed Ishmael ▪ his persecuting of him which was borne by the promise (to wit Isaack) whereupon hee and his mother, was by the command of God, both of them together, cast out of Abrahams house, the Church, Gen. 21.10. thereby was foreshowne, that when Christ the true Isaack should be borne, Gal. 3.16. and the barren woman the new Covenant or Gospell, should bring forth and beare sons unto God (as verse 27.) then should the bond woman, the old and carnall covenant, with all the carnall ordinances thereof. Heb. 9.10. together all her sonnes, the carnall and the fleshly seed be cast out of the house (so saith the Text, verse 30.) Cast out the bond woman and her sonne; for the sonne of the bond woman shall not be heire with the sonne of the free woman, Ioh. 7.35.26. and therefore, although children carnally begotten were admitted members of the Church before Christ, yet are they not so now, but are with their mother the old and carnall covenant, with all the appurtenances thereof▪ are to be rejected (as was said before) and so also is P. B. his exposition of this Script▪ page 22. which by the sonnes of the bond woman onely [Page] noteth such who have actually refused and rejected grace, as Ioh. 7.35.36. and thereby became bound (as though by nature, before they had rejected grace, they had been free) which is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle, who by the children of the bond woman understandeth all that are borne, as Ishmael was by fleshly generation, or all those who are not as Isaake, who was by promise (as before) Col. 4.27.28. with 3 29.

His next ground to prove the baptisme of Infants is this, because the Apostle exhorteth parents to bring up their children in admonition of the Lord, therefore they were of the Church, and so by consequent were baptised; but how doth hee prove that they were of the Church? thus▪ because the Apostle, who had nothing to doe with those who are without, 1 Cor. 5. exhorts their parents to bring them up in the admonition of the Lord. To this I answer, that the Apostle did not write this exhortation to the children who were without, but to their parents who were within; besides where the Apostle saith, that hee hath nothing to doe with those that are without, 1 Cor. 5.12. it's manifest, that hee doth not meane that he hath nothing to doe to exhort those that are without, to know and feare the Lord; for hee was sent to preach the Gospell to those that were without, that thereby they might be brought within, Act. 26.17.18. and hee acknowledgeth himselfe a debtor to all men to the unwise as well as to the wise Rom. 1.14, when he saith, therefore that hee hath nothing to doe with those that are without, his meaning is, that he hath nothing to doe to censure and deale with them that are without, for their evills of incest, whoredomes, thefts, &c. he was not by Christ made a Judge over men in those matters, 1 Cor. 5.12.13. no more then Christ himselfe was, Luke 12.14. From this reason of his to prove Infants to be of the Church, and therefore baptised, (viz.) because the Apostle exhorts their parents to bring them up in the nurture of the Lord▪ &c. It will follow, that because the Apostle Peter exhorts believing wives to be in subjection to their husbands, that so (although by the word they could not, yet) by their good conversation they might be won▪ 1 Pet. 3.1.2. that therefore their unbelieving husbands were of the Church, and baptised, or else the Apostle medled with those with whom he had nothing to doe.

But he saith, it's an uncomfortable doctrine to hold that children are not of the Church; for if they are not borne members of the Church, then they are brought forth children to the divell, pag. 25. I answer, that by nature we are all alike the children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. our being of the Church depending upon our new birth and generation, Iohn 3.3. and if all that were not borne members of the Church shall [Page] be damned, then by P. B. his judgement, seeing hee cannot prove any true visible church to be in the world, page 3. (and therefore no children to be borne in church) there shall none at all be saved. Is not this doctrine of his a very comfortable doctrine, for else what end doth he conceive was the preaching of the Gospell ordained? Matth. 28.19. Acts 26.18.

He hath yet another argument which must needs be answered, for in it there is great confidence placed, and it's this, the children of believers are holy and therefore may be baptised, 1 Cor. 7.14. To which I answer▪ that the Apostle doth not say, that the children of believers are holy, but he saith, That the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the believing husband, (that is) lawfull for his use so that he may lawfully abide with her, and needs not for her unbeliefe sake put her away, (as was scrupled, verse 10.11, 12.) or else, if that shee were not, then the children which he should beget of her were uncleane or unholy, whereas being sanctified, or lawfull to his use, they are cleane, or holy (that is, legitimate) for the holinesse of the children here spoken of, is not concluded from the faith of parent, but from the lawfull use which the believing husband hath of his unbelieving wife; for so are the words, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by, or to the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by, or to the believing husband, or else were your children uncleane, but now are they holy. This Scripture therfore proves no more holinesse in the children of believers then in the children lawfully he gotten in the honourable estate of marriage by unbelievers, Hebr. 13.4. and so by consequence yeeldeth no better warrant for the baptising of the one, then it doth for the baptising of the other; but I intend brevity, and therefore for further answer in this point, I referre him to A. R. his booke lately printed, wherein the same is handled at large.

These are the best reasons that P. B. can shew to prove the baptisme of Infants to be according to the word of God, which in regard they cannot give satisfaction to some, but they still notwithstanding doe sticke at the mater, (as they well may) and desire a precept, or an example to warrant the same, and therefore he promiseth to shew both, page 29. but first hee desireth that wee would give him an example of an unbaptised persons his baptising of others, and of the refusing of Infants from being of the Church both which being before sufficiently declared, we will now take notice how he performeth his promise: First he saith, There are examples of baptising of housholds, as the Iaylers and Lydias, Acts 16. and the house of Stephanus, and questionlesse divers others, pag. 29. But I demand an example for the baptising of Infants, and not of baptising [Page] housholds of believers, such as the Iaylors, Act. 16.34. and Stephanus. 1 Cor. 16.16. and Crispus, Acts 18.8. and questionlesse divers others. This is a bad example, (for an example he will have it called though it be none at all) to prove that the baptisme of Infants which must be thus declared: housholds were baptised, but in some housholds there are Infants, therefore Infan [...]s have been baptised. This is as plaine an example to prove the baptisme of Infants, as this that followeth is to prove the baptising of notorious drunkards swearers, thieves, murtherers, &c. whole housholds have beene baptised, but in some houses there are notorious drunkards, swearers, thieves, murtherers, &c. therfore the Apostles baptised such, and such may be baptised. Who seeth not your folly? Another example as plaine as this followeth, The whole Church of Colosse were buried with Christ in baptisme, but children were a part of the Church, therefore Infants were baptised, Col. 3.20.21. I answer, that the whole Church of Colosse were buried with Christ in baptisme, and that there were children in that Church to whom the Apostle wrote and exhorted to obey their parents in all things, Col. 3.20. But our question is about Infants, and not children in generall, some wherof are grown to yeers of understanding, as these were to whom the Apostle wrote: for sure P. B. will not say he wrote to Infants, which could not understand what he saith. In Gen. 43.14. when Iacob sent his sonne Benjamine into Egypt, he useth these words concerning him and Ioseph: If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved. Now, by his reason, Benjamine, who was about seventeene yeeres old, and Ioseph, who was about thirty yeeres of age, should both of them be Infants because their father called them children; These examples will yeeld as little satisfaction to any that question the baptising of Infants, as his Reasons before answered.

But although these examples faile, yet page 31. he saith, there is a plaine command of Iesus Christ for the baptising of Infants; and it appeareth thus, Many nations appeare to be Abrahams, and to have him for their father; now, all these nations in which there must needs be some children, by the expresse command of Iesus Christ, Mat. 28.19. are to be baptised. I answer, Abraham was to be a father of many nations, some whereof were his naturall and carnall seed, borne after the flesh, as Ishmael and the Iewes, who for unbeliefe, were rejected, and cast off, with the old and carnall Covenant or Testament, as was shewed before; Others were so to be reputed in respect of their faith, and walking in his steps, as it is written, Rom. 4.11.12. where it is said, That he received the signe of circumcision, the seale of righteousnesse of faith, which he had before he was circumcised, that hee [Page]might be the father, marke of whom (viz,) of all them that believe and walke in the steps of that faith, which he had before he was circumcised, according to which therefore it is said, Gal. 3.29. If yee be Christs, then are yee Abrahams seed and heires, according to promise. These later, his spirituall seed by the expresse command of Iesus Christ, Mat. 28.19. are to be baptised, Goe yee (saith he) and make Disciples, or believers all Nations, and baptise them, and he that believeth (as Abraham the father of all that believe did, Rom. 4.11. Gal. 3.29. and is baptised, shall be saved Marke 16.15. But what is all this to prove the baptisme of Infants which believe not, and therefore are none of Abrahams seed, who onely are to be baptised? no more then that which followeth which is nothing at all; being the same in effect with this. The Nations that are made Abrahams seed, the nations that are saved, the kingdomes which shall become the kingdomes of our Lord must needs receive Christs badge. This is granted, but proveth nothing lesse then the baptising of Infants, seeing none are made Abrahams seed but those which are first made Christs, Gal. 3.29. that wake in his steps, Rom. 4.12. and doe his workes, Iohn 8.36. Neither doe any kingdomes become the Kingdomes of the Lord, but those that feare and serve him, that kisse the sonne, Psal. 1.10.11.12. heare his voyce, Acts 3.22.23. and have him to raigne over him, Luke 19 27. Nor doth the Scripture declare the salvation of any more then those onely which believe, he that believeth on the sonne, hath everlasting life, but hee that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, Iohn 3.36. therefore in refusing to baptise Infants who believe not, we curtaile not the nation that are made Abrahams seed, &c. I should have thought (but that he denyeth a nationall Church, page 39.) that he would have all nations of people to be baptised, but seeing hee denyeth the former, I cannot charge him with the later but by this that is said, it appeareth how hee hath proved the baptisme of Infants from Matth. 28.19. and other his instances then which nothing could possibly be alledged more opposite thereunto, but herein hee doth not seeme strange to mee, finding his whole discourse not onely (weake, emptie and impertinent) but so repugnant and contradictions to it selfe; so that a man in the reading thereof▪ may very well judge, that he wrote the same intending to desert and render the cause evil and naught which he pretendeth to maintaine, or else desiring to obtaine to himselfe a name amongst those vaine janglers, mentioned 1 Tim. 6 who desire to be teachers, when they neither know what they say, nor whereof they affirme, verse 7. And so I leave him and the consideration [Page] of that which is said to those for whose sakes it was first intended, desiring that it may accomplish it's proposed end.

Col. 2.8. Beware lest any man spoyle you through Philosophy and vaine deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Jerem. 10.3. The customes of the people are vaine.

2 Thes. 2.15.Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which yee have beene taught, whether by word, or our Epistle.

FINIS.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A Briefe ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE Lately Written by one P. B. TO PROVE BAPTISME under the defection of Antichrist, to be the Ordinance of IESUS CHRIST, AND The Baptizing of Infants to be agreeable to the Word of GOD. Wherein is Declared (from his owne grounds) that true Baptisme, and a false Church are inconsistent, and cannot stand together: And also maintained, That the Baptizing of Infants hath no authority from the Scriptures.

The simple beleeveth every Word: but the prudent man looketh well to his goings. PROV. 14.15.

By R. BARROW.

LONDON, Printed in the Yeere, 1642.

To the READER.

[Page]

[Page]

ALthough divers of the learned have declared the Baptisme of Infants to be but a humane tradition; as P. B. confesseth in his Epistle, page 3. yet notwithstanding, there be many that have, and doe take upon them, to countenance the same by the Word of God, wherein they commit a double offence; one in seducing the people, and leading them to disobedience against Christ, Mat. 28.19. Mar 16.15, 16. whom they are to heare in all things, Acts 3. The other in taking the Word of Christ, and putting it as a sword into the hands of men to defend and maintaine themselves in such their disobedience against him; amongst whom, one P. B. hath lately taken part in publishing a booke to proove the Baptisme of Infants to be agreeable to the word of God, but (as many times it falleth out when [Page] men undertake to defend an evill cause) he hath so bewrayed the error of that doctrine, that in the judgement of any, who are but indifferently acquainted with the Scriptures, there needs no more be said to discover the falsity thereof, and sinfulnesse of his owne practice in the same things wherein unadvisedly hee accuseth others. One instance J shall give thereby to cause the Reader in pursuing his discourse, to take notice therin hee fighteth against himselfe, and in that thing most of all whereupon his whole building standeth, which is the perpetuity of the visible Church under the new Testament, page 1. and so by consequent of Baptisme, whereby the matter of the Church is differenced, page 3.4. wherein hee maketh Baptisme to depend upon the Church; whence then it must needs follow, that unlesse hee can finde such a Church which hath successively continued from the first planting, untill these dayes, hee cannot assure himsefe that his baptisme received, is the ordinance of Christ. But pag. 2.3. he confesseth that he knoweth not where any such Church hath continued, nor doth hee believe that any can be found that can make such a continuance of the Church to appeare: therefore hee received not his Baptisme [Page] from any such Church, nor is it then by his owne argument, the baptisme of Christ, but a counterfeit, or Idoll come out of the bottomelesse pit, as hee himselfe speaketh, page 6. Having thus destroyed his foundation, and impeached his owne baptisme, and the baptisme of the Church of England, derived from the Church of Rome, a false state the mother of fornications, &c. as he affirmeth in the 3. page of his Epistle to the Reader, his whole building must needs fall to the ground, which thing being considered, I know it may be thought, that an Answer to such a Discourse should be altogether unnecessary; for hee that impeacheth himselfe, needs no other to accuse him; yet neverthelesse, hearing that some not well acquainted with the state of this controversie have by his mis-applying the Scriptures in the handling of the same, been prejudiced against the truth, by him evill spoken of; for their sakes therefore is this briefe Answer made, wherein not regarding to follow him to and fro, in all his vaine wandering and tautologies (wherewith his booke is stored) I have reduced his whole Discourse into such particular heads, as doe either concern the perpetuity of the visible Church, the baptisme of the Church of Rome, or the baptisme [Page] of Infants, &c. which hee undertaketh to prove; for Answer, I have made use of little, save onely what I have found in his owne writing, wherein indeed, is sufficient to discover the vanity of his opinion in these particulars, and to satisfie any that thereby have taken offence againg the truth; but all that is said, will appeare to thee (courteous Reader) in the following Answer, and therefore I shall referre thee thereunto, and also unto the grace and guidance of Christ our Redeemer, in whose service I am alwayes thine,

R. BARROVV.

§

§

Page. | Line. | Scapes. | Correction.
2 | 15 | for firme, | affirme.
2 | 18 | for had not continued, | had continued.
5 | 9 | for there also it will, | then also it will.
5 | 10 | for by way, | by the way.
5 | 14 | for whether conceives, | whether he conceives.
6 | 18 | for be a question without Question, | may very well be a question.
6 | 32 | for and commanded, | and they commanded.
7 | 22 | for ought cannot, | it cannot.
7 | 41 | for souldiers, | for his souldiers.
8 | 5 | for that that there is a | that there is a.
8 | 33 | for his baptising, | his baptisme.
9 | 21 | for further demand, | further I demand.
10 | 3 | for with it hath, | which it hath.

In the Preface. page. 2. line 9. for pursuing, reade perusing, in the same line, for notice therein, reade notice how therein.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A briefe answer to A discourse, lately written by one P.B., to prove baptisme under the defection of Antichrist, to be the ordinance of Iesus Christ, and the baptizing of infants to be agreeable to the word of God wherein is declared ... that true baptisme and a false church are inconsistent, and cannot stand together : and also maintained, that the baptizing of infants hath no authority from the Scriptures / by R. Barrow.

Barrow, Robert, d. 1697.

Edition statement

1642

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A31094

ID [STC]

Wing B967

ID [STC]

ESTC R12474

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11692397

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11692397

ID [VID]

48218

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A31094)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 48218)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 10:24)

Source

— A briefe answer to A discourse, lately written by one P.B., to prove baptisme under the defection of Antichrist, to be the ordinance of Iesus Christ, and the baptizing of infants to be agreeable to the word of God wherein is declared ... that true baptisme and a false church are inconsistent, and cannot stand together : and also maintained, that the baptizing of infants hath no authority from the Scriptures / by R. Barrow., Barrow, Robert, d. 1697..

Extent

[6], 18 p.

[s.n.],. London :: 1642.. ("P.B." is Praisegod Barbon.) (Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.