Christianismus redivivus Christndom both un-christ'ned and new-christ'ned, or, that good old way of dipping and in-churching of men and women after faith and repentance professed, commonly (but not properly) called Anabaptism, vindicated ... : in five or six several systems containing a general answer ... : not onely a publick disputation for infant baptism managed by many ministers before thousands of people against this author ... : but also Mr. Baxters Scripture proofs are proved Scriptureless ... / by Samuel Fisher ...

Baptist.

I have received as much as all this comes to long since in a loving letter from a worthy friend of mine, whose words shall sway me, where I see them suit with the word of truth (where not I must be excused) to the full, as much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxters sway you be they right or wrong;

Grant that dipping was alwaies used in those Hot Countreys, yet you know saith he, that necessity and charity dispense with Ceremonies even of Gods own institution, nor is the Nature of the Sacrament altered by this change, viz. from dipping to sprinkling, for seeing the whole vertue of the Sacrament is in signification perablutionem, it no more matters Quantum quisque abluatur then it doth in the Supper Quantum quisque comedat.

But verily I am not able to discern either in this, or in that you say above, or in that you cite out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter the least warrant in the world for the way of sprinkling, or for waving the old wonted way of dipping, with all the wisdome I have to weigh it by at this instant: as for what you take notice of that I said my self above, viz. that there is difference between matters circum∣stantial, and substantial, so that we need not be so strict in the observation of the one, I will not eat any thing I then uttered, but me thinks you might as well, had you not been partial, have taken notice of what followed, as of that, which had you done, you would have seen how little accrues to your purpose out of that gran•• of mine, for I told you there and now tell you again, sith I see you so quick to catch at things by the halves, and slow to mind what in them makes against you, that howbeit it is not so material which way you baptize, so you baptize, yet if you Rantize onely, you vary not onely in a circum••tance, but in the very sub∣stance of the Ordinance, doing quite another matter then that you should do, and not the matter, i. e. Baptism, in another manner onely; for we will bear with that, as a thing neither here nor there, whether you baptize, i. e. wash a per∣son by overwhelming or burying him in water in this gesture, or that, this form, or that, with his face up or down, yea be it by infusion of water on him, or im∣mersion, or putting him under it, which of the two is most proper, and easy, we weigh it not, so you see to it that you bury, and overwhelm him: for all this while you retain both the true outward sign, which is baptism, or burial under water in baptism, in its nature, and essentiall form, in its true Analogy and pro∣portion to the spiritual things signified, which are primarily the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and secondly our being washed from sin by his blood; but if once you fall from baptizing to rantizing, from submersion to aspersion, from dipping to dripping, from a totall covering to almost a totall keeping him from the water, you vary from the very thing that is required, not from one manner of

baptizing to another, but from baptizing to another matter: There fore Si••s when you talk of our being hot for a ceremony, if by the word Ceremony you mean some petty, trivial, immaterial meer circumstance in baptism, which may indifferen∣ter aut adesse aut abesse sine baptismi interitu, be or not be, and yet baptism be bap∣tism still, as dipping backwards or forwards in ponds or Rivers, you are much de∣ceived in us, we regard not such ceremonies; But a ceremony is a thing, which though it stand but for a time, yet stands by positive command for that time, wher∣in it is to stand, by no lesse then divine institution, nor know I any man, Church or Angell that can institute a Ceremony to be observed and imposed; and if by a Ceremony you mean thus, not the meer manner of baptizing, but the matter, even baptism it self, which of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may altogether with the ordinances of the Gospel or new Covenant very properly be stiled Ceremonies, as well as all the Ordinances of Divine service under the Law, forasmuch as these last but for their time, viz. till the second appearing of Christ, as those of the old covenant Heb. 9.1. lasted only till his first appearing, then I confesse we are somewhat stiff for the ceremony, nor can you blame us if you consider what we do, for in so doing we contend for no lesse then substance, as far as you can call any ordi∣nance of Christ so that hath a tendency, as a sign or otherwise, unto something yet more substantial; the rite of Circumcision, the Passeover, and all the other Sacrifices of the Law, though shadowes in comparison of what they pointed at, yet were ordinances so substantial, as instituted of God, and so strictly to be ob∣served, that who so should have taken upon him to alter, and shape them more to the model of his own mind, would have heard as ill from God for it as, without his leave, for omitting them altogether, & how ill that is he cannot be ignorant, that hears how sharply he speaks to them, that were too short but in tiths and offerings when in force, saying that a curse had therfore devoured their blessings Mal. 2. and also that neglected circumcision, saying every soul that is not circumcis'd, meaning of whom circumcision is required (but it was not of females then any more then bap∣tism is of infants now) shall be cut off from among his people, and I appeal to your own consciencies if any should have said, circumcision is a painful, a tedious, and dangerous piece of service, and dispensation to little infants (and so it was in∣deed much more then dipping in cold water) and thereupon in charity circumci∣sion being nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, but a new creature, we will on∣ly pare there nailes, and make that serve instead of the other, would the Lord have took it better at their hands? would either God or good men have held them guiltlesse, yet whether they had circumcised thus or thus viz. with a knife, a sharp stone, or a pair of shears, I suppose that circumcision had been dispenst with, and even thus may we say of baptism as nothing as it is, it being an ordinance of Gods institution, both they that omit it to whom it is commanded, and they that in charity take upon them to alter it, so as to make Rantism serve instead of it, preaching or practising no baptism at all, or another thing that is no baptism un∣der the name of it, were it the Apostles themselves, or an angel from heaven, that should thus alter the Gospell, shall equally be accepted, or rather equally accursed before God Gal. 1. can you blame us therefore if we contend for the right bap∣tism? for it is not another manner of the thing then you use, but the very thing it self we plead against you, who cannot be said to alter the right way of baptizing, but the rite of baptism it self; it is not a bare circumstance in the ceremony we differ in, but we differ in the substance i. e. in the ceremony, or rite it self, which you have changed, having no parts at all of the rite in your wrong practise, which your own party divide the rite of baptism into.

Ritus in baptismo est triplex saies Tilenus the rite or ceremony in baptism is threefold, immersion, or plunging into the water, continuance for a time un∣der the water, resurrection out of the water, in resemblance of Christs death, bu∣rial and resurrection and ours in him.

Which of all these three are to be found in your aspersion? unlesse you will all own Featleys fetch for good resemblance viz. the dipping, burial, and resurre∣ction of the ministers hand, when he sprinkles the infants face: sith therefore you have broken the law of Christ the Son, that Law-giver and Prophet, whose voice we are to hear in all that he saith, and changed the ordinances so far as to turn his baptism into rantism, you will as they that despised the Law of Moses the ser∣vant, be cut off from his people Acts 3. Heb. 2. Heb. 10. sith you make void his plain word under pittiful pretences viz. the coldnesse, the tediousnesse, the danger of dipping in these climates, as if the reason for dipping were proper onely to Hot Countries, no marvel if such as see from under the vail of priestly pretence, that hath darkned the whole earth, are hot to have a recovery to the truth, speci∣ally since it is a truth not unknown to us, nor yet so trivial tru••h as these that inck is made of gum, and paper made of rags, nor yet such a Scripture truth as is not material to be known, as that about Pauls cloak and parchments, and that Abiam was the Son of Sacar as Mr. Baxter bables p. 218.219. (a sign that paper is made of rags by his wasting it in such toies) for these we are not so strictly held to re∣veal, but a truth of such worth, that it is to be preferred before that truthles peace he pleads for, the disturbance of which he calls hell p. 2••0. saying,

We are little beholding to those men that would have turned the Church into hell i. e. privation of peace, rather then silence their supposed truthes.

To whom I say,

If that be hell which priests so call, Then truths true friends are hell-hounds all.

But a word to Mr. Baxter out of Mr. Baxter p. 218. in vindication of our loathnesse to betray this truth by our silence viz.

The Law commandeth us to do our duty, to preserve truth from being lost, so that if truth be lost, while I do my duty, tis no sinne of mine, if it be not lost while I neglect my duty, it is yet my sin, God disposeth of events, not we, ther∣fore what consequences may be occasioned, sith they are not caused by preaching the Gospel, I may not, for fear of them, nor shall shun to declare the whole coun∣sel of God.

I know necessity and charity do dispense with circumstances in ceremonies, and with ceremonies or ordinances themselves of Gods own institution some∣times,

But first, it is with the omission onely, but not with the alteration of them in∣to other, if a man converted on his death bed, or on the ladder, when ready to be executed, as the thief was upon the crosse, be willing to be baptized, if it may be, but cannot, in charity he may, and of necessity he must be dispenst with dying unbaptized in such a case, but no man may dispense another thing to him i. e. Rantism in its room and stead, no more then he may give other things then bread and wine in the supper, to a stomach too weak to bear either of those, for that is to take upon him to make another institution, and Gods leave man never had so to do.

Secondly it must be by leave from the Lord implicit, or expresse, upon which onely we can ground the lawfulnesse of omission, and necessity, and charity, but not charity mistaken, are leave enough no doubt to let a lone, though in no wise to alter what ever he ordaines, as when it neither can be at all, nor can be done conveniently, nor possibly without killing men indeed; whereupon we find no fault found with Israel in the wildernesse for forbearing to circumcise 40 years to∣gether, it is like least it should hinder them in their warfare, but sure I am they should have heard of it from the Lord if to forgo the sorenesse of that circumcisi∣on they had circumcised i. e. cut off onely the hair of their heads.

Let the Ranter therefore shew us Gods word for his omission; and the Rantizer for his mutation of Baptism, and we will fall in with either, as we see it evidenced therein.