as failing in that point if you do it no otherwise then it was done then and there viz. the dayes and places wherein the primitive Churches dispenst it for they were all so wholly strangers to your infant baptism that not so much as the sound of such a thing was ever heard among them and howbeit Dr. Feaâ—le tells us a tale p. 16. out of Origen on the Romans whose originall is lost and into which work of his on the Romans t is shrewdly suspected by the learned that Ruffinus and the Romans have Sophisticated such a sentence that the Church had infant-baptism from the Apostles and thence very goodly grounds A positive argument of very great moment saith he that may convince the conscience of any ingenuous Christian viz. that the Apostles in their dayes began to baptize infants and the whole Catholique Christian Church in all places and ages even from the Apostles dayes hath admitted the children of Christian parents to holy baptism therefore t is no error Yet I must tell you that Origens bare word and single say so if it were his own is no warrant whereupon all men may safely muchlesse must necessarily believe it was so but the word of the New Testament of which the Apostles mostly were the Pen-men is warrant enough to us to believe that it was not so were the word onely silent about it how much more whilest it hath so much against it that we may say t is exclusive of it Howbeit therefore you say that infant baptism hath been universall it is sufficient proof of its non universallity in that you can never prove that it hath been universall and we have proved that in the Apostles dayes it was not so that in the first Century t was not so nor in the second for ought any man living can possibly shew how ere it began to creep in about the third and howbeit it hath been never so universally and erroneously practised from the fourth or fifth Centuries till now yet neither will it follow that the universall Church hath practised it nor that the universal Church hath erred in it nor that Christs promise Mat. 28.20 Ioh. 16.13.14.16.17.29 concerning the spirits abode and guidance is not true for that 's not more made then made good to those that perform the condition and terms on which it was made viz. the observation of what he commanded in which case the spirit is ever present and ever was and shall be with those few that keep the truth as for the most when they began to dote on mens teachings and traditions and to fashion themselves more at a venture after the words of the wise and prudent then after the word of God it self and to Idolize the dictates of Synods and Ghostly fathers so as blindly to subject themselves to their sentences as their onely Oracles then Terras Astraea reliquit Christ who did ingage to lead them by his spirit who would be led by it was dis-ingaged and true enough in his promises though he left the world to lie in darknesse and to be filled with their own wayes and with the fruits of their own inventions Moreover t was not the Church in the capacity of a Church in respect of outward form and order but his disciples to whom that promise was made to whom also it was performed and made good in all ages according and in such measure as they kept close to him for in the time of the treading down of the Temple and holy City and the true worship and worshippers and of all that visible fabrick and Church posture which stood in the primitive times and even in the grossest darknesse God gave power to his two witnesses i. e. by his word and spirit in the hearts and mouths of his Saints impowered them to prophesie and testifie to the truth against the traditions of Rome and against infant baptism as well as other of her superstitions and heresies how else could Bernard have said as he doth Serm. 65. super cant of some that opposed the corruptions of his time They laugh at us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead and require the prayers of Saints yet even to those Martyrs that did witnesse to some truth in times of Ignorance the light was though not so totally and terribly as to the rest of the world much ecclipsed ore now it is and that promised manifestative presence of Christ not a little interdicted and communion with him interrupted by the interposition of that smoak which comming out of the bottomless pit clouded the sun and thickned the aire and as Christ himself foretold also it should be Iohn 14.30 by the intervening of the Prince of the darkness of this world who was to have his time wherein to darken all things and had it too so that by his delusive wiles the whole world was won to be once an Arrian and after that an Antichristian worshipping the Dragon and the Beast wondering and erring all together into one Catholique Church-body called Christendome and by common consent bearing the whore or false Ministery called Clergy warring at her will against the Saints and though not finally for so the gates of hell cannot yet or along time prevailing against them that dwell in heaven Rev. 13.4 5 6 7. In all which time nevertheless as I said before some truths were revealed to some and so much to such as then sought to Christ and not to men as may well serve to verify Christs words and justify all the promises of his presence with his people as to the true purport of them as yea and Amen Babist But where was your Church then all this while till these latter times Baptist. Where it was to be according to the word of prophecy Rev. 11.1 viz. troden underfoot for 1260 years by the nominall Christians or Gentiles coming by the lump into the outer Court i. e. into a bare name and feigned form of Christianity after the time of Constantine at the compulsive call of the Clergy since when though there have been an number of Saints in sackcloth that have seen much light from Christ and suffered for it yet I am so far from undertaking to prove there was that I am rather of the mind there was not nor was to be if the word be true any truly collected truly constituted visible Churches at all in right outward form and order standing upon that true foundation i. e. the principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the primitive prophets and Apostles for many ages upwards even from the Clergies carrying the Church captive into Babylon unto these daies wherin the foundation Heb. 6.1.2 with Eph. 2.20.21.22 which hath been razed is laid again and the measuring line gone forth upon the Temple is in the hands of the true Zerubbabel Christ Iesus who shall also finish it not by Army nor by strength but by my spirit saith the Lord of Hosts If this answer be not satisfactory that our Churches
as if we feared to answer you so positively whether those things viz. Infants Iustification without faith and their freedome from that which not so much in Scripture language as by an Epithite of mens own coining is called originall sin be heresie or no I answer no as to the first though Iustification of Infants by works is the Heresie of a Romish Clergy whether by works we mean the work of faith Ioh. 6.29 or any other yet Iustification of Infants without that work of faith or any other work either of their parents or their own is the truth as it is in Iesus and such sound Doctrine as notwithstanding your outcries of gross popery and I know not what upon it you will never with right reason refute while you breath as for the other of those things viz. infants not having originall sin two questions may be askt concerning this viz. whether they have it secondly whether they ever had it if you ask whether they ever had any I answer that as to hold dying infants to be damned unless they believe which is your doctrine is as to the poor little ones at least that cannot believe somewhat too damnable a Heresie so to say that infants never had the sin of Adam so much as imputed to them how farr forth it may possibly be to a person in whom yet is no inherent corruption is seen in Christ who had the imputation of sin to him though none in him is for ought I have ever found yet to the contrarie nor a truth but if your quere be whether infants have any guilt as from Adams sin abiding on them after birth I reply that as in order of nature Infants must stand guilty by the first Adams sin before they can be said to be justified by the righteousness of the second so in order of time I believe them universally to be no sooner guilty as from Adam then clear'd by Christ which Tenet he that tryes it will find it I perswade my self so farre from meriting to be cried out on for Heresie as it is at random by the Clergy that it rather comes as nigh to truth as 4 pence to a groat but such a Bug-bear makes the Priest of what ere suits not with his wonted imagination that almost all is damnable that differs from him and what ere he meets out of the Kings high-way or sees Sectarizing from the common Rode of his own Cloudy conception and Clericall Cassicall Convocationall Canonicall constitution he draws at it presently as a thief that comes to Rob him commits it to prison and condemns it all to be hang'd for Heresie before he hears it Report You relate that after that none did propound any more questions Reply As if all men had been so astonished at your understanding and answers as they were at Christs that none durst open their mouthes before you any more that day yet some would with the help of Christ have ventured to have told the truth in your presence but to your praise be it spoken as you speak below of your selves you would not let them Report So say you the Congregation was again dismist Reply An argument of your itching after an end and being well nigh betwatled to be gone if the people had not been more forward to quere after truth then the Priest was willing to Answer for all his liberty granted in the seventh Article and his pretended forwardness to resolve page 27. where disswading men from going to seducers you advise them as from God to ask the Priest and if others had not been more free to both then the Preachers were either to Preach or hear As for what follows 't is not so much a model of mis-reports and mis-representations as thus farre of your Account is for the most part as of true reports and representations of some few more of the Ministers mis-apprehensions mis-affections and mis-actions under a colour of acting for the truth Report You say that your Respondent hindred their departure by making an unseasonable motion viz. that they would hear him preach Reply Emphatically even to a scoff that they would hear him preach alià s Sirs give Account in an intire discourse and this too after his offer to hear any of you first if you would but you would not of what he held and why which was the very business he profest to come thither for more then to dispute aliâs to shew upon what grounds he invaded the practise of the Church of England Scotland Rome c. in her infant sprinkling which say you in words in the fifth Article he ought to have done but here in your deeds and denial of it that he ought not Do you think that all save such as have eyes and see not discern not your dawbing your double-dealing and your Egypt-like requiring men to make brick allowing no straw delaâ—ing that 't is our Duty to shew our grounds yet prohibiting our discharge of it pressing people to prove all things yet not abiding they should hear all thâ—ngs tesâ—ing your Respondent that in reason he should have been opponent yet yielding him no opportunity on that day to urge so much as one argument though he offere'd it much less yielding to be responsible to him on the next magnifying preaching as much as any yet withstanding it more then all and making it an unseasonable motion almost at any time save when time comes by course to make mention of it as if any time were unseasonable for that which is strictly to be attended at all times by Christs Ministers both in season and out of season also 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Report This required some time to debate Reply As well it might being a matter of weighty concernment on both hands viz. of consequence too advantagious to truth as well as dangerous to your falshoods besides the more time was taken up in debating against it so much the less time if it fortuned to be cast that way that it must be done would be left to do it in Report The Ministers opposing it Reply And lying in the manger having no mind to hear themselves nor yet that those should who had a mind to it having the key of knowledge the keys and power of that place yet neither abiding there nor abiding that others should abide there to so precious a purpose which is so much to their commendation that men must needs see them to be not like Christs Ministers for if they had they would have rejoiced in Christs being preached whether in pretence or in truth of envy or good will well knowing all should have tended to the furtherance of the Gospel Phil. 1.15 16 17 18 Ob. And if they object that preaching of error will hinder it Ans. I say that publishing whether of error or truth gives that advantage of trying all things which as it is that duty men cannot do unless they hear all so that which they might not do by any means in ages above when the
viz. They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation of them so dying we can have no ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of hope that they shall be saved The Major of this second syllogism which he sets himself to prove I freely grant to be true The Minor I have many things to say to First I take notice how he changes the termes from what they were in this pro-syllogism which had he been minded to deal fairly and not to sophisticate and shuffle I know not why he should do and a sincere disputant whould not have done it In the Minor of the former syllogism the terms were thus viz. that doctrine that denieth infants to be members of the visible church but here he writes leaving out the word visible foisting in the word seemingly and visibly to fill up the room of it that it might not be mist they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church whereas he ought of right to have brought in the Minor and conclusion thus viz. but they that are not members of the visible Church are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation therefore of them viz. them that are not members of the visible Church we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they can be saved I say he should have exprest it visible Church in both places else the word Church being understood by Mr. Ba for the invisible Church sometimes i e. them that are not onely seemingly sincere and in state of salvation but as really and truly in state of salvation as they seem by this variation of his from visible Church to Church without the term visible the state of the question may be changed and howbeit he premises this and takes it for granted that to be a visible member of the church and to be a member of the visible Church is all one saying he that denies that will shew but his vanity yet he takes it before it is granted him from me who am one of those vain ones that by his favour deny these to be all one unlesse by the word Church in both places he means the visible Church which though I do not say he doth not yet I say if he do he should by right have exprest it or else there may be fallacy in it for I aver to Mr. Ba. and albeit I seem to him to speak paradoxes and parables thorow the distance of our principles yet I hope to make it clear to his conscience that the visible Church doth not so contain the invisible in it as he saies it doth p. 75. but that there are cases wherein persons may be both real and visible i. e. to us seeming members of the invisible Church or mistical body of sincere ones and in state of salvation and yet not be real members of the visible Church or else not to speak now of the state of believers infants whom you rantize before you rantize them let him tell me what visible state believers themselves whom onely and not their infants Acts 2.41.42 the first Gospel ministry bapâ—ized were in immediately before they baptized them they were not visibly members after profession of their faith of the visible Kingdom of the devil and therefore at least visible and seeming members of Christs mistical body and of the invisible Church and in state of salvation and yet were they not members visibly of the visible Church of Christ till though I hold not baptism it self neither to be the immediate formal entrance into the visible Church yet necessarily previous to it till I say they were to use Mr. Bas. own phrase by baptism admitted and stated in it for to be admitted to be a member of the visible Church and yet to be a member of that visible Church before that admittance are utterly inconsistent each with other yea to enter in by baptism and yet to be in before baptism beside the contradiction that is in one of these to the other it makes your baptism which you call the sacrament of visible entrance to be what you say the supper is i. e. a sacrament rather of continuance to be seemingly therefore and visibly a member or to be a visible member of the church unlesse we mean the visible Church and then it ought to be so exprest by them that hold there is an invisible and to be a member of the visible Church are not all one thus having first justly faulted the Minor for its fallacious faultring in the terms and form of it and varying from those of the first syllogisme and setting down the syllogisme in the plain termes in which Mr. Baxter should have done it viz. They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in the state of salvation of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not members of the visible Church are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation therefore of them that are not members of the visible Church so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved In the second place I fault the Minor of this argument as most false and unsound in the matter of it and therefore I lay down this for truth which is directly opposite to it viz. that they that are not members of the visible Church may be seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation and so consequently that of them that are not members of the visible Church so dying we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved These two positions with the consequence thereof are so contradictory each to other that if this latter be truth then the former universally understood i. e. of all that are not of the visible Church as it must be or else it serves not Mr. Ba s purpose must needs be false whereupon I need do no more toward the disproof of his then to prove my own in order to which I shall premise what the visible Church is and then examine whether it be not possible for some persons as Mr. Ba. it seems thinks it is not to be seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation and yet not be members of the visible Church The true visible Church now in the times of the Gospel and so onely it concerns our purpose to consider of it is all those severall particular visible assemblies and societies of persons in the world or visible disciples collectively taken which in all places and ages since Christ past present and to come being first separated or called out of the world to personall prosession of repentance from dead works and faith towards God of remission of sins
invisible Church and yet then when converted and baptizd neither one not the other as yet actual members of the visible stones though never so unhewn and ragged are remote matter hewn and polished stones immediate and fit matter for a building yet not a building till built together many sheep are fit matter to make a flock yet not formally a flock till they come neer together Christs visible church is Christs flock Gods house Temple building several sheep and single disciples that hear his voice believe in him and are baptized into his name for remission of sins are pecious materials and in potentiâ proximâ thereunto yet be they never so many of them not visibly actually nor formally a flock an house a Temple a Building his visible Church longer then imbodyed into fellowships nor till fitly framed together they are builded an habitation of God through the spirit Ephes. 2.20.21.22 any more then many sheep that never came neer each other are a flock and a multitude of fitted and squared stones lying a long way a sunder each from other make a building Mr. B. shall be no Champion of my choosing to mannage the matter against the non-churchers of these times for all he flourishes his sword so against them at the end of his book if he plead the cause of them so that sit down satisfyed in single fellowship between God and themselves onely living up with him in the spirit contenting themselves to believe onely and renouncing all ordinances forsaking the assembling of themselves together and all fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers if he grant the denomination of the true visible Church to such as these as well as to those that continue stedfast in the Apostles doctrine and in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers yet Mr. B. does not yet agree with me in this that the particular assemblies collectively taken are the only visible Church for indeed he is aware that it overturns all his visibilities from the bottom and layes this foundation of no salvation for infants without the visible Church on which he frames his present Argument flat on the ground to allow the bounds of the visible Church to be no broader then all the particular visible societies that are actually baptized and in formal fellowship in breaking bread and prayers so as to say he is no member of the visible Church that is not actually entred and solemnly stated in some particular congregation or other therefore being politick he premises this among the rest 3. You must understand saith he but a man may understand a little better if he will that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a Member of any particular or politick body or society Nay more to make his own matter good and that he may find out a way of his own whereby to hope well of all the infants of believers before baptism that they may be saved for let all other dying infants damn for him he cares not for harbouring any hope of them and finding no way but one whereby to help himself to any hope of those i. e. by feigning them to be of the visible church he fetches the visible church so far that he makes it larger then the number of visible baptized ones and holds all believers infants to be in the visible Church from the womb and though in the last page but two of his book he disputes against twice entring into the visible body he feigns them to enter first into the visible church when they first enter into the world besides and before their second first entrance into the visible Church by baptism I wonder whether he hold those believers infants to be of the visible Church or no that were once alive yet dy again in the womb But for all these flim-flames Mr. Ba. will once know I hope that the true visible church is no other then all those particular politicall assemblies in which baptized believers hold fellowship together and that to be a member of the visible church is to be a member of some political society or else how can such be ruld admonisht complained on to the church as Mat. 18. and excommunicated if need be in case of obstinacy if under no Ecclesiasticall Government and yet to hope well of the salvation of all infants that dy in infancy too without either baptism or visible membership in those visible societies And if he will not agree with me about it that the visible church is all the visible assemblies of Christians onely will he agree with Dr. Featley who defines the true visible church to be where the word is truly taught and the sacraments duly administred where therefore neither word is taught nor sacraments at all administred as to unbaptized infants I judge they are not nor baptized infants neither there 's no visible church Again the universal visible church that is saith he all the assemblies of Christians in the world the visible church and all the assemblies are adaequate with him at least therefore unbaptized infants cannot be of it for they were never entred into the assemblies but if Mr. Ba. will agree with neither of us we shall perswade him I hope to agree in this with Mr. Ba. for howbeit Mr. Ba. will needs reckon upon the very unbaptized infants of believers as not in right to the visible church onely but of it in it visible members of it as as soon as born for let him study his own book how oft does he beat upon that saying there is but two states for them to be in or members of the visible kingdome of the devil or the visible church of Christ but believers infants before baptism are not in the first therefore in the visible church of Christ though I say he speak of them as in the visible church before baptism as not knowing else how to hope their salvation if they dy without it yet if any man living do deny infants or any other to be of or in the visible church before or without baptism Mr. Ba. denies it with whom how often is it exprest that baptism is the first visible entrance into it Yea to say nothing of his own definition of the visible church p. 75. to be such as were baptized and continued together in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers which ought to conclude the whole church so defined unlesse he have defined it by the halves in his plea for the continuance of baptism against the seekers p. 342.343 he saies so and saies moreover that we must not admit any to be of the body without it that it is the appointed ordinary way of ingrafting all into the body that are ingrafted and p. 24.25 he saies baptism still is to be at and not after persons are stated in the Church at and not after our admission at and not after our igrafâ—ing and entrance into the visible Church making baptism and our first being in or of the visible church so
my Position which after debate of the unnecessariness of it the question being already stated and the terms known and understood by every one was yielded to so I exceeded not a quarter of an hour which was accepted by me Reply Though the question were stated and terms known never so well as I deny they are to every one in the question of Infants Baptism for such as are used only to sprinkling take that to be Baptism which is not yet the grounds were not known upon which I held the Negative and therefore 't was not unnecessary for me to make a Position Moreover I invading the practise of your Church in thaâ— point wherof you profess your selves to be Defendants I ought to have shewed upon what grounds I did it that you might have confuted them this would have tended more to the satisfaction of the Auditory than the omission of it could do if you will not believe me in this yet at least believe your selves for these are no other words then your own yet I confess you have no great reason to give heed to your selves neither considering how many offs and ons you are found in for one while you assert it needfull that I should lay down my grounds as above another while as here that I moved and had you said with importunity too you had spoken now no more than the truth to make a Position or which is all one to lay down my grounds onely you saw the unnecessariness of it O pure stuff at last through much importuning to have an hour or two wherein to do it and promising much more then you would accept of viz. That if that day were too short to dispute in I would give you the next day and the next and lastly pleading the equity of the thing from the order of the Schools where there 's no Disputation without Position to which order you had by Article oblig'd us such high condescension was acted by you Presidents of the place that I was allowed the large liberty of a quarter Report Next you go on to declare the sum of my Position and that being come into the body of the Church you the Ministers entred into the Desk and I standing a little distance off upon one of the seats leaning to a pillar and the multitude being silent I made my Position Reply For your relation of my leaning to a Pillar it being neither true nor material what doth it here I wonder in this your short and true relation as you call it of the most material things that passed yet sith 't is acknowledged by you to be a mistake in the margent of the coppy that you sent me I 'le not onlie excuse it for once though an error but lend you a little toward the making of it truth for I did lean indeed that day to a Pillar even the true Church of God which is the Pillar and ground of truth which would you all lean as much to as you do from it in these tottering times you would stand a little faster than you are like to do and secure your selves from that fall that is threatned in these words Babylon is fallen is fallen which though your Tower reach as high as heaven as that old Tower of Babell seem'd to do the Division of language that is in these daies wil e're long unavoidably bring upon you Report The heads of my Position you say are four to which sith you subject four Answers of your own I 'le reduce each of them to the severall head it relates to and so reply to both of them together First That I need not spend time about stating the question it being done before at the Communion Table to this first you saie answer was made that herein I confirmed the Ministers reasons against my making of a position Reply Though there was no need to spend time in acquainting them with the question over again because that was done before at the Table yet there was need and so I expressed my self often enough to spend time yea four or five times more than I could get of you in stating the question i. e. of making a Position for even with your selves these two are Synonima's for what you stile stating the question in the first head the very same you call making a Position in your answer yet such is your subtilty that you here represent it as if I who was so earnest before to have liberty to state the question in a Position and moved it as a matter most needfull were already so altered in my judgement as in the front of my Position to profess it needless to spend time about it Sirs what a sight of in s and outs are here do you not remember or if you will not yet some people will that my chief complaint of you to them in my Position was this That though I so much desired it though it was very requisite and the manner of the Schools to which you tied me and therefore I ought of right to have had an hours time yet you had crowded me into the corner of a quarter which shewes that though you deem'd it wast of time for me to say anie thing almost about the question yet I judg'd it very needfull to speak more to it than your patience was pleased to permit me and yet it 's not enough for you in your Account of the Position to leave well-nigh all that little out which in that little time was declared as to the falsness of your administration by the way of sprinkling and other matters of your Ministery but you also falter and feign and forge so fowlie in your sum of the Position as to set down more in 't than was ever thought on Report Secondly That I came thither to defend the unlawfullness of Childrens baptism which an evill and adulterous generation did maintain against me to which you saie it was answered that I transgressed the Propositions in giving reviling and opprobrious terms callng you a wicked and adulterous generation to which saie you I replyed that my intent was not to fasten those words upon any there present that I desired they might be so taken which by you was admitted of Reply I came not thither i. e. to Ashford so much to defend as to prove could I have been licensed thereunto by your spiritual Court the unlawfulness of Childrens Baptism yet not of Childrens Baptism so much which though it is easie yet is needless to be disproved because no where dispensed that I know of but rather of Childrens sprinkling which as it is doublie unlawful so is universallie practised of this end of my comming I gave evidence enough in debating the fourth Proposition professing that I came to give account of my dissent and denial of the truth of your waie but when you denied me to give my desired Account wherein I would have been a Plantiff and a prover I must then defend or do nothing neither did I
because they have need of his protection and all the help they then have comes from him also though in infancy they knew it not nor him so as actually to hope and trust in him for it or properly to believe in his name even more then inanimate creatures in the other case this is the first way whereby you profess to prove infants of believing parent onely if you speak to your proposed purpose to have faith which how weak it is the weakest eye may discern it that is not disposed to be blind and the second is like unto it which is as followeth by two arguments of inconsequence Disputation Children of the Iews had faith Ergo children of believing parents now The Antecedent is proved thus viz. God himself did witness that the children of the Jews had faith by setting to his seal which was circumcision called by the Apostle the seal of righteousness of faith Disproof There 's but two things to be own'd or disow'd at all in this piece of proof as also in the former viz. the Argument and the Antecedent and I 'le deny him to be a Seer that sees not good ground whereon to deny them both O fine O fine O fy these you call your Arguments of Consequence but saying that you say so I am verily perswaded the verieft implicit Simpleton that ever saluted the University or sware Allegeance to your Crown and dignity or was ever implicitly canonized into the obedience of your faith will never see them so to be when ceasing to see through your eyes he shall come once to behold things with his own for really they are the most false absurd and inconsequent that ever I saw with mine Sirs give me leave to make an answer by these ensuing Interrogatories and I 'le expect your Answer to them again had the children of the Iews faith and did God himself witness that they had it by setting Circumcision to them as his seal of it i. e. for that 's the sense in which you take the word seal to assure men that they had it and is it the consequent that the children of believing parents have it now let me then ask you First do you conclude that all the children of believing parents have it now that I think for shame you will not say sith every experience witnesses the contrary or that some believers children have it now therefore all believers children are to be baptized and if so that is as silly an inference as if you had argued thus viz. some people believe therefore all must be baptized Secondly had the Jews children faith first I wonder how they came by it sith the word saies faith comes by hearing and how can there be believing on him of whom they have not heard and how can they hear without a preacher and how can they preach except they be sent and how can they be sent to preach to infants that understand not what is said except you say as you are fain to do not for want of blindness p. 18. that infants have an hearing and the spirit works upon them miraculously and yet not extraordinarily neither but in that ordinary way as he doth on men in the conversion of whom you say the spirits working is but ordinary and yet miraculous too which Popish Bull deserves well to be baited but I le fotbear to fall upon it till I meet it in its proper place in the Review Secondly when had they it begotten in them in the womb or if after birth on what day on the 1st 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th or 8th for on some of these they received it if on the 8th day they were as you say they were circumcised in token that they had it but I muse and am yet to learn on which and so are your selves too I believe for all your confidence in asserting it Thirdly was Circumcision Gods witness yea Gods seal to assure men of thus much that those children to whom it was set had faith First Risum teneatis amici did you ever read or hear that circumcision was set to infants to this end viz. to testifie to the world that they had faith was it set to Ishmael as Gods witness that Ishmael had faith was it set to Esau as Gods witness that Esau had faith when God who would not witness a ly knew that neither the one of these had it nor yet the other unless they lost it again which sure you will not say for shame leave such sorry Shuffles are your Masters in Israel and know not this that Circumcision was set to the Iews children not to shew others that they did believe but as a permanent sign thereof to shew them when they should be at years to take notice of it by sight as of that transient unseen sign of sprinkling in infancy they cannot do what things they then should believe viz. Christ to come of Abraham after the flesh and circumcision of their hearts by him c. was it ever set under this notion as a seal of faith to any person in the world save to Abrahams proper person only to whom too t was a seal not so much to witness or assure men that he had faith as to honor that faith that more evidently and eminently then ordinary he had before with that famous title i. e. the Father of the faithful therefore circumcision as given to Abraham in Rom. 4.11 is not said to be the seal of the righteousness of faith as you corruptly rehearse the words leaving out the residue of the verse which makes them relate to Abraham only as if it had stood as a seal in such a sense to all Abrahams posterity but a seal of the righteousness of the faith i. e. that famous faith which he himself had and to this end that he might be as none of his meer fleshly seed ever were the Father of all them that believe Secondly if circumcision were Gods witness that these infants to whom it was dispensed had faith then certainly baptism which with you at least is of such Analogy and Identity with Circumcision that it hath the same subjects and significations must also with you be Gods witness to others that those infants to whom it is dispensed have faith also and if so then I must make bold to ask you two things First Is not this round about our coal fire to prove two things no otherwise then one by another for when you prove that children are to be circumcised or baptized which with you is all one who falsly call baptism as Paul doth not in Col. 2.12 for he means another thing by that phrase viz. that of the heart the circumcision without hands I say when you prove that children are to be circumcised either one way or other in answer to our why you say because they have faith and thereby right to the Covenant and the seals of it but when you come to prove that children have faith which we deny you say
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations t is not the nations in gross as Dr. Holmes also tells you p. 7. for then all must be baptized saith he and truly too if the word Nations universally taken doth there note the subjects of baptism but t is the Nations with restriction the nations discipled i. e. so many in all Nations as are first made disciples by teaching and not more that there are commanded to be baptized and this Mr. Cotton and Mr. Baxter and Dr. Featley and Dr. Holmes and wellnigh all your champions are well aware cannot be denyed and therefore rather then assert such a thing viz. that any more are here bid to be baptized then such as are first bid to be discipled they chuse to take so hard a province upon them as to proceed to the promotion of their cause by way of proof that infants are disciples Babist In Christs precept teaching doth not go before but follow baptizing Mat. 28.20 teaching them to observe all things c. Baptist. So Dr. Featley fiddles this ore indeed p. 39. for these are his very words to which I reply who denies that in Christs precept preaching follows baptizing but what of that doth it follow and is that the Drs. meaning trow that therfore it doth not go before it me thinks the man should not be so senslesse nor do I think he was so senslesse as to think so but the ground he stumbles at is the new found meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which I shall be occasioned to say more anon onely here it shall suffice to say thus much viz. as t is clear there 's a teaching to follow baptizing in Christs precept so t is as clear that there 's a teaching to go before of all persons to whomsoever baptism is dispensed a teaching a priori and a teaching a posteriori the first in order to discipleship and baptism the other after baptism in order to perfection baptism is by precept to be immediately after the first and the other is to be by precept so immediately after baptism that infants being uncapable of both the one and of the other viz. of being taught just before baptism and presently after baptism are thereby universally excepted from it yea these two teachings neither of which is to be used to infants are to come by precept so neer together that there 's no room for infants baptism to come in between them Babist They are not so much excepted by the words TEACH v. 19. and TEACHING ver 20. but they are as much concluded to be the subject of baptism under the word All nations because they are a great part if not the half of all nations as Dr. Featley and serve to make up a nation as well as their parents as Mr. Blake and in every nation make a great part of that nation as well as their parents as Mr. Marshal urgeth Baptist. As if the precept for baptizing did extend it self to all persons in every nation without any limitation or restriction or any praevious preparation to it save onely barely being of the nations Nec mediante doctrinà nec disciplinâ but is it so Sirs then let me ask you are not the infants of Turks Pagans Tartars Indians Jews unbelievers a part yea a far greater part and do they not serve much more to make up the number in nations then the Infants of believers why then if that be the ground you will needs go upon must not these be baptized as well as the other yea surely if this be a good argument to prove any ones right to baptism from this place because he is of the nations then stark natural fools as well as infants yea very profest profane ones open enemies against the name of Christ as Turks and Pagans being a great part of all Nations have as good right to baptism as any of those you rantize or we our selves baptize either for shame therefore forgo such rude kind of ratiocination This therefore that all Nations are bid to be baptized cannot make Mat. 28. 19. to be a precept for baptizing infants though they be of the Nations unlesse they were capable to be taught which because they are not that place commanding no more to be baptized then the same whom it commands also to be taught and that not onely before but immediatly after baptism is a plain prohibition of infant-baptism A second way wherein t is argued by you that there 's command in Mat. 28.19 for the baptizing of infants is from their being disciples which weak twig seeing your selves as it were sinking in your cause you all catch at yea I meet with none of you almost but in one place or other of your writings I find your fortifying your selves in that foolish practise by this childish consideration thus doth Dr. Featly Dr. Holmes Mr. Marshal Mr. Bayly Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter Mr. Cook Mr. Cotton among all which Mr. Cotton being the most formal and Syllogistical in his argument from this place beginning his book with it as Mr. Baxter also doth with whom I may chance to deal more then I will do in this place before I have done I le begin with him and in him and after him speak to you all sooner or later as occasion is about this particular Thus then he reasons from thence Such as be disciples they are to be baptized But the children of the faithful are disciples Ergo the children of the faithfull are to be baptized The former proposition is clearly exprest in the text saith he make disciples and baptize them therefore all disciples are to be baptized but had he concluded according to mood and figure or the tenor of this text or had he not been both blinded and minded to go besides the sense of the spirit in this place he would have said therefore all that are first made disciples by instruction are to be baptized and then he had mard all his proceedings concerning infants As for the second proposition which is the assertion of you all viz. That infants are disciples Mr. Cotton toward the proof of it so miserably misapplies 2. pieces of Isaiah that he rather proves himself thereby to be yet but an infant in discipleship and Gospel understanding then proves infants to be disciples from thence The first place is Isa. 54.13 whereby it s said by way of promise to the Church of the New Ierusaâ—em when once it shall be established a praise in all the Earth as it is not yet nor ever shall be till Christs second appearing when God shall wipe away all tears from her eies and secure her for ever from all future sufferings and oppressions That all her children shall be taught of God and great shall be the peace of her children from this place which is meant of all the Saints and that immediate teaching which they shall once have he argues thus to all the naturall infants of believing parents in the
Infants 1 Cor. 16.15 besides if housholds must needs be taken as comprising infants then that phrase salute the houshold of Onesiphorus 2 Tim. 4.19 must be taken so to and what absurdity were it to tell Cradle-bed-Infants that Paul the prisoner remembred his respects unto them as for that of Lydia as its likely enough she then had none so no man knowes whether ever she had any husband at all if she had she might have no children if she had children she might be an antient widow whose children were grown up to believe with her and besides that those of her houshold whether children or servants or both that were baptized with her were not infants but adult disciples is evident both by that compellation viz. the brethren a denomination never given to them and mostly because they were such as the Apostles did actually comfort as we never find they did any infants in their infancy Act. 16.14.40 By all which by that time you have laid it to heart so little ground will be left you from all these instances for the baptizing of infants that it may without crouding be well written within the inside of a cherry-stone And now whereas Mr. Marshal more downrightly then rightly denies that children did eat the passeover which most undoubtedly they did I demand of him why if housholds be a term so conclusive of infants when its said housholds were baptized the same word doth not as much conclude children when its said housholds did eat the passeover Babist Mr. Marshal himself gives you good reason for that p. 40. of his Sermon the Argument saith he from the term houshold is not so strong to prove that infants did eat the passeover as it is to prove they may be baptized because no other Scripture shews that the passeover doth belong to children but we have other plain Scripture proving that baptism belongs to infants as well as grown men Baptist. I remember indeed that Mr. Marshall speaks thus yea more and more absurdly then thus doth he speak p. 219. in his reply to Mr. Tombos viz. that we shall never find so good evidence out of the housholds eating the passeover Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eat the passeover as this proves that the infants of the house were baptized but I must tell him first that what influence other Sciptures give toward the proof of either one or the other makes these never the stronger simply and in themselves so but that their particular strength and weaknesse stands the same but Secondly how dares Mr. Marshall say there 's no other Scipture save that is not that one particular sentence wherein the word houshold is exprest as eating the paschal lamb enough specially when the next verse or the latter part of the same verse viz. Exod. 12.4 saies plainly that it was to be taken and eaten according to the number of souls in the house and by every one according to his eating and if the family were too little to eat iâ— they should join families together are not children exprest undeniably here are they not among the number of souls capable to eat every one pro suo modulo according to the measure of his eating and digestion and doth not this evince as much for women And whereas for the exemption of women not as holding these did not eat it but to secure himself the more from that deadly wound which he is aware will light upon him if he grant that children did eat the passeover viz. our arguing upon him from thence to their right to the supper acccording to his own arguing from infants circumcision to their baptism he brings this reason viz. because according to us they were not circumcised and no uncircumcised person might eat the passeover I have to or three things to say to it First that phrase no uncircumcised person shall eat it must either necessarily be understood concerning those uncircumcised ones onely who were both capable of circumcision and of whom circumcision was required or else Secondly â—t must be understood that the females were accounted as vertually circumcised in the males Thirdly that very phrase that excludes all and onely such uncircumcised ones from the passeover as were capable of circumcision and of whom it was required serves us against you thus far however as to include and enright all them to the passeover that were circumcised and so if women did not as none need doubt but that they did yet all circumcised males and consâ—quently male children as soon at least as they were capable to eat were under a right to eat the passeover and so as to prove you who deny them the supper to be ingaged in the guilt of diminishing Gods grace and robbing poor infants of their right as well as we if your own arguments be true viz. that to deny such dispensations to infants under the Gospel the answerable ones to which were dispensed to them under the law is to lessen the grace of God in the Gospel Covenant and make it straiter then it was under the Law and to bereave little children of what belongs to them Thus Mr. Marshal where by the word housholds he should understand children as well as others for his own ends he leaves them out but where by the word housholds such families are exprest as in which he knows not that there was one infant and may know if there were by the very places themselves that they were excluded yet there he winds things about to wind them in By all this you see how little consequence is in the Argument children were circumcised Ergo they must be baptized Yea say you Aâ—hford disputants in the tail of your argument or else the Covenant of the Gospel is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham then it was to the carnall seed under the law Bus Sirs to conclude this matter I say no for if by spirituall seed you mean Christians natural infants I must as before cry shame on you still for stiling them the spiritual seed of Abraham for if Abrahams own semen carnis be not qua sic his semen fidei are the semen carnis of believing Gentiles Abrahams semen fidei but if by his spiritual seed you mean such as are so indeed i. e. true believers are this spiritual seed ere the worse because a meer fleshly seed may not without faith be signed as heirs together with them how will you ever be able to make that good yet again to take your words so punctually as may be by meeâ— denial of baptism to your carnal seed is the Gospel made worse to Abrahams spiritual seed then the same Gospel was to Abrahams carnal seed of old no such matter surely Sirs for the Gospel was preacht but darkly to the Jews of old which were Abrahams carnal seed viz. onely in types and figures and shadows and prophecies pointing out onely Christum exhibendum a saviour to come but now it s preacht not only to believers that is
upon you above that are held out by any of you out of the armory of Scripture in defence of infant baptism and those are Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 10.1.2 both which not onely knock sprinkling oth'head but may also very easily be sheathed in the bowels of baby-baptism As for the first it speaks as well nigh all scripture doth not much medling with infants not onely to buâ— of adult disciples only of whom as well as to whom and not of infants in way of satisfaction to them and answer to those that would have brought in the old circumcision made with hands among them Paul saies ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands which circumcision without hands there spoken of is not baptism neither as some dream who thence also draw in circumcision and baptism to be of so neer kin that as they have both one name so they must both have one subject also for baptism is no more done withoutehands then the other but the sanctification or inward circumcision of the heart cutting off the foreskin i. e. the filth of the heart which things infants do not in token of which he tells them they are not sprinkled but buried i. e. overwhelmed in water with Christ in the outward baptism wherin also they are risen with him through faith c. All which things he that imagins they more include then exclude the sucking infants of such to whom he speaks is no man in discretion with me As for the other place its most evident the Apostle speaks not of baptism litterally but Metaphoically onely there they were baptized unto Moses i. e. by the visible tokens of Gods presence amongst them viz. the cloud and Sea assisting and siding with them and overthrowing their adversaries they were confirmed in the belief of God and his servant Moses as we by baptism are in the faith of Gods goodnesse to us and of his Son Jesus Christ in further confirmation of which meer figurative sence of the word baptized you may do well to consider that though they were said to be baptized in the cloud and in the sea which phrases however sound forth such a total immersion as is not in two or three drops of water fingered on the face yet they were not so much as wetted with either the cloud or the sea for its said Exod. 14.21.22 the sea was made dry land under them and they went through it dry shod or on dry ground which they could not be well said to do had it so much as rained upon them such a figurative sence of the word baptize there Mr. Baxter himself denies not p. 90. yet Dr. Channel urged that place in a publique dispute at Petworth Ian. 1651. as one of his arguments for infant baptism besides Secondly if you will needs have it properly taken that they were baptized really and not quasi baptized as Mr. Baxter yields they were and if you will needs make that baptism such an emblem of ours that ours must have an adequate subject to that which say you was infants as well as parents then t will put you to your trumps to excuse your selves handsomly in your now denying to infants the same spiritual meat and drink in the supper which they then eat and drank of in a figure also viz. the Manna and the Rock which both were no other Antitypically then the bread and wine are mistically in the supper i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ. For all your vain boasting therefore of what innumerable arguments you have from Scriptures I say the Scriptures are sure enough on our side nevertheless taking the word in a sutable sense you do well to call your Scripture armes or arguments innumerable for indeed they are not to be numbred for even unit as much more nonit as non est numerus being no more than just none at all Secondly whereas you boast of the innumerable Arguments which may be brought for your infant rantism from reason the full force of reason is utterly against you and so wholly assistant to our cause that the unreasonablest man amongst you will once see it when sound reason comes to reign and sway the scepter indeed Yea not to stand reasoning on it now how reasonless a thing it is to ask a company of men and women as the priests were wont to do at the font thus viz. do you believe in God the Father and Christ c. and will you be baptized in this faith and when they answered yes that is all our desire then instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized to take a small sucking babe out of their armes and dat him with a drop or two on the face and send away all the other unbaptized Babist The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child that could not speak for it self and expresse his good resolutions to forsake the divel c. and his desires to be baptized Baptist How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signifie things to sucklings while they understand them not and that too by such a vanishing visible sign that when they can understand they neither see nor never shall and such like Trumpioall transactions to which there are as few grains of reason concurring as there are inches in an Apes tail even your selves however it happens that you so contradict your selves yet that is no news with you as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism are even in this very cause found falling out with and fighting down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections which by your own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism but I le spare you till I come thither 3ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof which you complain and grumble much p. 1.11.12 that t was set aside and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation is so utterly against your infant baptism that even this alone were it of any esteem with you had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it and laid the itch and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty is most manifest if by the Church of God and the Fathers therof you mean what I do viz. the Church of God in the primitive which were the best and purest times of the Gospel whose practise in this particular is set out in the word but specially in the Acts of the Apostles the fathers of which Church and of the Church
whoregardlesse of what by mans wisdome was foisted in in after ages can aver with as much confidence as you can that now it is that from the beginning it was not so nor yet in end shall be I much marvel why Mr. Marshall contents himself to preach positively no otherwise then thus p. 3. viz. this priviledge of baptizing infants the Christian Church hath bin in possession of for the space of 1500 years and upwards he might as easily have said 1600 had his ground been as good for that as for the other and yet his ground for the other is so infirm and sinking under him that I believe he must fall down as low as the third century before he find sure footing for his proof of no more then the bare practise of infant baptism As for the Ius of it its nere the nearer if he could prove the matter of fact to be in the second though that still is the main question betwen us sith t is confest by Mr. Marshall that he uses not the Testimony and judgements of the Antients to witnesse to the truth of it but onely to prove a then practise of infant baptism and the question de jure whether infants ought to be baptized no one of the fathers nor yet the joint consent of many saith Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood is a competent Iudge therefore if any of you who stand so much upon that young antiquity of it and plead the authority of the Church and fathers shall argue thus t is 1500 years old therefore it is 1600 you live below that candor ingenuity and discretion that I find in Mr. Marshal and Mr. Blake who both deny your consequence and in this case close with us in the very truth Thirdly as for the third century t is somewhat more then probable that such a superstition as infant baptism was comming in at least or else t is like there would not have been such pro and con as was about it for true Orâ—gen if the Testimonies fathered on him be his own which he who well weighs what evidence is put in to the contrary by Mr. Blakwood p. 34 of his Rioynder to Mr. Blake where he saith that the original of Origen is â—ost that the Translator confesses he added many things of his own that Erasmus saies one cannot be sure whether one read Ruffinus or Origen that the learned put his commentary on the Romans among his counterfeit works as much sophisticated by Ruffinus and also what is said by Mr. Tombs too notwithstanding all that Mr. Marshall brings p. 15.16.17.18 of his to Mr. Tombes whereby to salve it will find small ground to believe Origen I say a man of many errors stiles it a tradition received from the Apostles which if you will believe implicitly you may but else you need not for t is no more then a bare scripturelesse assertion Cyprian also and a Councel of 66 bishops almost contemporary to Origen are supposed to be of some such mind but upon such silly grounds as you that now plead infants baptism are ashamed of witnesse Mr. Blake p. 40 who denies them not to be erroneous as Mr. Blakwood calls them and therefore you may as well be ashamed of their opinion and expression of it also it being for all their reasons as scriptureless as that of Origen who brings nothing to prove what he said Babist But Mr. Marshal p. 18. tells you that it was because none opposed the lawfulness of infant-baptism which if they had Origen would no doubt have maintained by Scripture as well as affirmed it to come from the Apostles Baptist. This is strange when it is most evident and Mr. Marshall himself denies it not that famous Tertullian the first of that Century that might in respect of his Seniority to Origen and Cyprian be stiled a father to them both perswades by many reasons to deferre the baptism of children as most profitable Saying Let them become Christians when they know Christ. And in another place It behooves them that are about to enter into baptism to pray with frequent prayers fastings kneelings watching and with the confession of all their sinnes past which things infants we know cannot do First then I appeal to your own consciences and Mr. Marshalls also whether this be not a plea against it as unlawful for to decline what 's most profitable is unlawful Secondly whether here be not pro and con among the Fathers about it and so though their testimony serves to prove what Mr. Marshal brings it for viz. that it was practised in their times yet it serves not to your purpose who upon the Fathers and their churches authority would gather and ground the right of that practise for who but children will go about to prove the veriâ—y of a practise by the Authority of those Fathers whose witnesse agrees not together and who are contradictory to one another in their testimonies of it and some of whose testimonies in that thing are quite and clean contradicted by the testimonies of such as concurre with them almost in every thing else for so I may truly say the testimonies of Father Austin are who in one place viz. ad Volusianum Ep. 3. according to Mr. Blakes quotation of him p. 51. writes thus viz. The Custome of the Church in the baptizing of infants is by no means to be despised nor to be accounted superfluous nor yet were it at all to be credited were it not a tradition of the Apestles Thus this Father who though inferior to the other in time yet is not inferiour to the chiefest of them in your Account but he brings no Scripture neither any more then Origen for the same yet it is like some sleighted it as superfluous in his daies but Ludovicus vives a man so observant of Austin that he wrote Annotations upon him in those very Annotations of his upon the 27th chapter of the first book De civit Dei according to Mr. Denns quotation of him p. 51. against Dr. Featley is so far from crediting that he corrects Austin rather as to that piece of faith saying That of old it was the custome to baptize none unless they were of full age and did desire baptism in their own persons and did undeestand what it was to be baptized Now who can safely build so much as you do unless he mean to be both blindly guided with you and a blind guide to the blind on the authority of such Fathers as saving their honesty in what they knew and eminency in some things were yet so silly in some others that they did the Church no such good office as they wot of who ere they were that canonized them into such fatherhood over the faith that their opinions must be as Oracles for all to act by witnesse good Saint Bernard the last in that Catalogue who saving that he knew some truth as other honest men did in those dismal daies wherein he lived was wâ—apt up
be converted and baptized which thing that it is at all to the infants of the faithful in their minority he saith not at all here nor any thing like it but elsewhere mentioning the same Scripture Iohn 3.5 as he puts the water and the spirit together so both before and behind it he puts teaching and dipping faith and baptism as things that by the law of dipping are imposed as of necessity to go together saying he hath bound fâ—ith to the necessity of baptism therefore all believers speaking of none else were baptized and then Paul when he believed was baptized in his book de baptismo advers Quintil. Editio de la cerda vol. 2. p. 153. ibid. c. 13. as Mr. Blackwood quotes him in his storm of Antichrist p. 28 29. so that in the quotation were are yet upon the Antithesis lies thus in my conscience as I read him viz. infants of the faithful in their infancy may be reputatively holy but not really holy none being really holy till such time as they be born of water and the spirit which was not in infancy in Tertullians apprehension as it seems to me in that very place which the Dr. and Mr. Marshall make so much of as the words designati sanctitatis non sancti do shew whereupon I perswade my self it was that in that other place of his that I must return to he uses disswasion from dispensing and perswasion to deferring baptism to all but specially to infants not of infidels onely but believers also as I shall shew clearly to Mr. Marshal now who scruples it and that by such reasons as shall take that rub and stumbling block of his out of the way I mean this last text of Tertullian of his own and Dr. Holmes his alleading by which they were both gravelled from believing Tertullian to be ours for indeed whereas that place he last alleadged did give him supposed ground to scruple whether Tertullians disswasion from baptizing of infants were from any but the infants of infidels I hope to shew him such a necessity of understanding his disswasion to be from the baptism of any infants whatsoever as shall give him contrarily sure ground of belief that howbeit Tertullian would have some infants higher accounted on then some yet he would not from thence have any baptized to which end I shall set down Tertullians disswasions of infant baptism in English as I find them quoted by Mr. Marshall in latin who I observe seldom Englishes what may make against him p. 34. of Mr. Marshall against Mr. Tombes and in p. 122. of Dr. Holmes in English and more largely then by either of them by Mr. Blackwood in his storm p. 29. together with the grounds why he would not have little ones baptized and leave it to be judged what little ones he means Tertullians words are these viz. According to every ones condition and disposition and age the delay of baptism is more profitable but especially concerning little children for what necessity is there if it be not so much a necessity as to have the sureties also brought into danger who may both by their own mortallity sail of fulfilling their promises and by the increase of an ill disposition be deceived The Lord saith indeed forbid them not to come unto me let them come therefore when they grow up to youth c. thus far Mr. Marshal and the Dr. Mr. Blackwood writes further thus Let them come whilst they are young whilst wherein they come they are taught let them become Christians when they know Christ a little further he saith shall it be done more warily insecular things that to whom earthly substance is not committed Divine should be committed they shall know to beg salvation that thou mayst seem to give it to him that asketh it also in the 20 chapter of the same book he saith it behoves them that are about to enter into baptism to pray with frequent prayers fastings kneeling and watchings and with the confession of their sins past in all these words is he recorded by the three authors above named disswading from baptizing infants now whereas Mr. Marshall professes he stands much inclined to believe that these little ones to whom Tertullian would have baptism delayed are to be interpreted of the infants of infidels onely and Dr. Holmes helps him what he can in this by quoting the words of learned Iuniâ—â— upon the place who is just of the same opinion with Mr. Marshall yet lends him as little reason towards it as one can likely look for from so rational a man I shall immind them first that Vossius on the place quoted by Dr. Holmes in one and the same page with Iunius found no good ground to evade the bang Tertullian gives to infant baptism in such a fashion as to say he denies onely the baptism of infidels infants how far you will heed him I know not but he thinks his think thus viz. not that infants of the faithful are here denied by Tertullian but that nothing is denied by him but onely the necessity of thâ—se infants baptism when there 's nâ— danger of death because t is said what necessity if there be no necessity defend you your selves if you will against that consent by silence of Vossius to us in this that t is all infants to whom Tertullian would have baptism delaied for that affâ—onâ—s your poor put off and I le look to Vossius his own put off as well as I can that he shall not go clear away with it for my own part then allowing Vossius his own thought I take the like liberty to think otherwise and the boldnesse to assert the contrary viz. That â—ertullian denies more then a necessity of infant baptism yea he denies any conveniency or lawfullnesse of the thing also especially in the testimony cited by Mr. Blackwood which the Dr. and Mr. Marshal durst not mention and clearly enough in those cited by themselvs for if it behoves them that are baptized to pray confesse sin c. which no infant can do then it behoves us not to baptize them and if it bring sureties into danger then t is not convenient nor expedient as well as not necessary and if it be more profitable to delay it to infants then we are so by duty bound to do what 's most profitable and edifying that to do otherwise is to do that which is unlawful moreover it being granted by Vossius that Tertullian denies but so much as the necessity of baptizing any infants I le prove thence a necessity not to baptize any for if there be not more or lesse a necessity of one kind or other viz. vel praecepti vel medii there 's a necessity at least of letting it alone for Christ commands no ordinance of his without need and with such indifferency as destroyes all necessity of obeying it and what way or point of worship was not ordained by himself is by command from him of such necessity to
Sirs you had need to Synodize one year more and to Catechise one another into a little more Concordance about your principles before you Catechetically impose that practise upon whole nations unless your grounds were more agreeable then they are with both the word and each other for some of you preach up that your practise and plead it with all your might from 1 Cor. 7.14 taking the word hoâ—y there as it stands in Deut. 7 6-14.2-26.19 and other places where it is most evident that it signifies a people consecrated to God in the same way as the Priests Temple Altar Sacrifices and all things then under the law were and now nothing at all is and yet I have known some of you again that have acknowledged the words sanctifyed and holy in 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be taken in any such sense but in that very sense wherein we take them yet supposing infants-baptism to follow from other places Some of you preach it up and plead it with all your might from Mark 10.13 c. as if you did believe and would make folks believe that the children that were then brought to Christ were baptized either by him or his disciples and truly if you believe it not what is that Scripture then to your purpose nay it makes more strongly against you for if these very infants that were brought to and blessed by Christ himself to whom you say he declared the Kingdome to belong were not baptized your presumption is very high who dare baptize other infants of whom you have no such testimony yea some of you say that their bringing to Christ for imposition of hands doth suppose them to have been baptized before they came I wonder by whom witnesse Dr. Holmes p. 61.63 yet some of you again confesse the contrary viz. Mr. Cotton p. 9 of his grounds and ends whom Dr. Holmes so justifies and magnifies who in confutation of him saies thus That it doth not appear that the Fathers that brought these infants were baptized themselves and therefore neither might their children be baptized according to rule And yet both Mr. Cotton and his neighbour Mr. Cobbet also and even every one else almost that writes or speaks as well as you Ashford Disputants make mighty ado but nihil ad rhombum from that place also Some of you plead the sprinkling of believers infants for none else must be sprinkled by the Popes confession only he takes believers not in so strict a sense as some do from Act. 2.39 supposing that those to whom Peter said the promise is to you and to your children were believers and already in the faith even then when he thus bespake them which if they were t were nothing to your matter witness Mr. Vahan of Smarden at the Dispute at Ashford whose Arguments being it seems none of the most material are excluded from your Account whose supposition was supported with a position as false and silly as it self yet is it a maxime with the Clergy that was then blerted out from among you viz. that the desire of grace is grace in refutation of which your doctrine appeal was made by your Respondent to the people whether the desire of Drink was Drink and whether because they all desired to go to heaven therefore they were at heaven others again acknowledge the truth in this viz. that the men were yet in unbelief while Peter spake that to them as Mr. Cotton p. 35. of his grounds who saith thus when he calleth men to believe or to repent he cometh to them not as having faith and repentance but as wanting both and Mr. Prigg also who hasting into the help of Mr. Vahan at the Ashford disputation happily more then heartily help the Respondent against Mr. Vahan and himâ—elf too by his plain contradiction of the other and conjunction with the Respondent in that viz. that the men to whom Peter then spake in presenti the promise is to you and your children c. were not yet in the faith but the promise was made to them as they who yet did not should believe i. e. in futuro for by your favour Gentlemen if it be thus then it should seem and so t was told you then but you would not hear it that the promise of remission of sins though it be made good to believers and none else no not to their fleshly seed quâ tales unless they also believe when they come to years for if they be taken away in infancy both they and all other infants of whom I find not where God requires faith so dying may be saved without it and are too though it cross your cruel conceit of heathen infancy this promise I say was made by Peter to unbelievers and their children yea and is in very deed to all men in the world and their children Jewes or Gentiles neer or far off whether in time or place yea to every Creature that then was hath been since now is or ever shall be to the worlds end is the promise made Mark 16.15 16. by Christ himself who is the purchaser of eternal salvation for all men though actually the eternal saviour of none of those to whom his Gospel is preached save only such as obey him Heb. 5.9 yet none of all this warrants your sprinkling believers infants onely in their infancy any more then it warrants your sprinkling of so many hundreds of unbelievers infants as you do still as striet as you lace up baptism to believers infants onely in the state of your question for to say no more then the truth that 's another of your Hocus pocus's which when your customers come to find out they will be ashamd of you you of your selves if you be not past it you I say yea specially you of the strict Presbytery who cry out upon your parish people as for the most part profane and ignorant impenitent and unbelieving in such a wretched condition that except they bâ— converted they will perish nor dare you admit them to the Supper least they eat and drink their own damnation and yet their children are the seed of believers with you still to whom belong the promises and right to the seals for their sakes Yea O ye several parishes where these men preach not in the city only but in the Countreys of Kent Sussex and other places let me Apostrophize a little to you least your Clergy should not heed it if I speak onely to them have you not heard your teachers thundring you as Malignants for the most part threatning you to come in and to be reconciled to God as those that are yet enemies to him and his people meaning those few that are better friends to them then the major part of you are calling to you as crucifiers of Christ and preaching Peters doctrine Act. 2. by the halves saying repent repent for howbeit they should say somewhat more to such sinners as you seem to be in their eyes viz. repent and be
peace of conscience which I was once constrained to deny my self of because it was once inconsistent in me with such peace but welcome that disgraced truth of dipping disciples sith t is that truth which I am certain howbeit they have trampled it for a time the gates of hell shall never prevail against nor the ablest man on earth so as to disprove it by all that is to be said to the contrary from the word of Christ. Rantist There 's more to be said yet to the contrary and more then ever was answered yet or ever will be to any purpose by you or any one else of your gang and that not onely in way of exception against much of that you have alleadged about the childishnesse vanity and insufficiency of infants sprinkling but also against that dipping fancy you are fallen into which is some new motion or renewed notion at the best having for all you have said neither good ground nor example from the word onely the old greek word may be so construed and that 's all the ground I could ever learn for that fluid practise and I am confident that you and that party are wholly in the wrong for I have seriously studied that controversie and besought the Lord to guide me and his good spirit by principles from his word of truth sealed upon my conscience doth assure me that way of dipping is groundlesse irrational and more uncivilly foolish then infant baptism can be called childish and I desire you to tell me what commission he had that baptized you who may possibly be an unbaptized person or if he was not yet if you look but some few removes backward and inquire who baptized him and who him and who him c. you must come at least to unbaptized persons I mean even in your own account who deny sprinkling to be baptism and such I hope you do not count fit administrators of baptism and yet such must begin it for your way was not in use very long agon also what commission hath Christ given you to baptize you being no minister of the Gospel and also what commission he hath given you or any else to baptize in that manner which is without Scripture against reason and common sence and discretion yea I may say against all principles of modesty and common honesty and charity to mens lives and so against both the sixth and seventh commandement that many judicious men have judged it to be little lesse then murther and adultery and I could easily prove it to be as bad as I say of it but that its superfluous so to do sith sundry of our worthy Mr. Baxter Divines viz. Dr. Featley Mr. Blake Mr. Cook and especially have some of them in one perticular and some of them in another done it so sufficiently already that I le rather refer you unto them Baptist. I have been so much innured to such hot-shots since I owned the truth that I can well walk in the middest of them now without amazement much of this sort of matter I have under my hands in private letters to my self and others and what of it is not there is legible I confesse as it were in text letters in the printed Polemicals of your Champions whose sharp censures and heavy charges of the way of truth which we walk in how judicious they are shall God willing be anon examined sith you send us to them at present you shall have a short word to your quaeries and such other passages which may occure and intervene either from your self or their writings in way of contradiction or obstruction to any thing that hath been said before Your first is grounded upon a simple supposition that an unbaptized person may in no case baptize or make a fit administrator of baptism whereas there is nothing in the world more clear then this that when it is to be done and cannot be well done otherwise it may be done as well as by one that was by one that never was baptized at all yea why not in case of innitiation after intermission as well as at the innitiation of the Gospel it self I wonder who baptized Iohn the Baptist that was the greatest administrator that ever was for either he was baptized surely or else he was not if he was ever baptized at all who baptized him but if he was never baptized the matter amounts still to be the same i. e. to evince no lesse then we assert that at the innitiation of the dispensation whether at first or after a long unlawful cessation an unbaptized person may baptize for if Iohn the Baptist himself was not baptized himself or if he was either by one that was unbaptized or else by one that was first baptized by himself he talks in his sleep that saies an unbaptized person may not in such a pressing case baptize Your second querie is as unsolidly grounded as the other and supposes your opinion to be this that no man though baptized himself unlesse he be a Minister i. e. an ordained officer may baptize for say you what commission have you to baptize you being no Minister of the Gospel whereas if by Minister you mean one officiating as a pastor over a people there is nothing more cleer in the world or in the word either then that others besides the Ministers may baptize viz. not any she for which there 's no president but rather precept to the contrary 1 Cor. 14. 2 Tim. 2. but any prophet i. e. any he gifted disciple especially when by the improvement of his gifts he proves as not seldome such do instrumentall of the parties convertion Ananias baptized Paul himself yet was he but a certain disciple Acts the 9. if you say that he was sent by God himself to that service it serves to shew this however which we affirm that God limited not that dispâ—nsation to the Ministry for if he had he would have sent Peter or at least some other officer to that work Did not Philip baptize the Samaritans and the Eunuch yet he did it in the capacity of a disciple and howbeit t is true he was ordained to be a Deacon and Deacons were by the Bishops babishly authorized to baptize yet that was no part of his office as a Deacon for his Deaconship designed him to no more then barely to have a care of the poor and if you say he was an Evangelist also so is every one that is gifted to preach the Gospel and doth it whether he be in any office or no for Evangelist is nothing but a preacher of the Gospel and such are they that occasionally preach it as well as such as preach it constantly by way of office therefore all the disciples that were scattered together with Philip it s said went every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 11.20 and Philip that was one of those disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8.40 preached or did the work of an
it then t will if we put you to it to disprove a lineal succession of our baptism for if we cannot name the particular persons that baptized one another in this way wherein we do it successively from the persons of the Apostles in answer to this question who baptized you and who him and who him and so upwards till we come thither are you able if we ask you who sprinkled you and who him and who him and who him c. to particularize more punctually then we are you able to assign who began our way of baptism first of all in the world unlesse you begin as high as Iohn the baptist nay verily though Dr. Featley would fain father it upon Stock yet it s most manifest unto you all that infants sprinkling was denied by some ever since it was known to have a being for it was controverted in the daies of the fathers and that it would not have been had there been none that had then denied it and denied it could not be by any but such as pleaded the baptism of believers in those times and were the right way baptized themselves You have not one president of one infant sprinkled nor proof that such a thing was so much as talked on for at least an hundred years after Christ but we are most certain and your selves cannot deny it that the baptiâ—m of believers began at Iohn the baptist and the Apostles and if we could prove a succession of it de facto no further downwards then so yet it is enough to us that we find it then was so whereby to prove that it ought to have been so in all ages since and is to be de jure at this day One word more and then we have done with this if none at all save such as are baptized themselves may in any case dispense baptism to others save such also as are by ordination true ministers of the Gospel then your selves who pretend solely to the title of baptizing are no right administrators as being in truth neither baptized nor ordained in such wise as the Scripture requires that your baptism is null I have cleared it enough already and that your ministry is no lesse is apparent sith whilst you indeavour to derive it from the Apostles you can derive it thence no other wise then the Pope doth his for if a line of succession be a proof of true ministry you may indeed derive it as well but not one jot better then he he can shew you his line of succession if not from Peter yet at least from Linus himself that lived in the daies of the Apostles and you can shew us the line wherein you came from the Pope and so through his loines from the other there is no other way for your ministry to prove its pedigree from the Primitive times but this no way for you to climb up to the Apostles as the fathers and founders of your function but by a chain of many linkes whereof if one happen to prove unsound and t is a chance but a flaw may be found in some of them that have been trailed for many hundreds of years together through the hands of that Apostaticall harlot the intaile is clear cut of your pedigree and descent from the Apostles as a ministry perishes is spilt upon the ground and can never be tact on again any more for ever you have hitherto owned your ordination as handed by an uninterrupted lineal succession from the Pope to the present Presbytery and if we put the question to the veriest novice or youngling among you who ordained you and who ordained those that ordained you and who them and who them and who them you can find your function flowing in a continual stream from the Primitive fountain no other way but through that stinking sink and corrupt channel of the holy chaire Pope Gregory the great gave power of ordination to Austin the Monk when he sent him over into England about a thousand years since he to the Popish Bishops they to the Protestant Bishops they to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to their present Preachers thus what Ministeriall power you have hangs upon the Protestant Bishops theirs upon Austin Austins upon the Pope the Popes upon Peter you came i. e. descended from the Pope the Pope came i. e. departed from the Apostles and thus from the Apostles you came all but thither you must go again letting go your sweet succession and from their words which are the same now as then begin your businesse again before you can be right or know any thing cleerly where you are for if he whom your selves call Antichrist made you a ministery of Christ you may be the Ministry of the Church of England if you will which if it be vere Ecclesia a true Church at all yâ—t is such a one as had its parochial posture from whence you had your power and therefore fit enough each for the other but of the Church in England which is vera Ecclesia the true Church indeed you shall never be the Ministry for me till you repent and be baptized As for my self whom you deem to be no Minister of the Gospel I must not lead you so far from the other work in hand as to stand upon the proof of that now having transgressed as some will think too far already though else it were no impossible thing to prove it and therefore I say this only in short that whether I am now a true Minister of the Gospel or no t is now my utmost aim to preach and promote the truth of it as t is in Jesus but as for the time in which I was owned a Minister of the Gospel I was at that time no true one at all yea though I have obtained mercy and such mercy as to be made a Minister thereof since because I did what I did ignorantly yet so far was I then from a Minister of the Gospell that I rather rejected the counsell of God against my self being not baptized of them that preached it and disputed much against it as well as you And now as unto your third quaery viz. what Commission have any to baptize in that manner that is by dipping which you stile such an irraâ—ional and undiscreet way t is that which I have resolved you in so satisfactorily before that unlesse you have more to say against it then to miscal it as you do before you have proved it to be so base as you are pleased to stile it I shall rejoice in Christ Jesus that hath chosen such foolish and base things as dipping in water is in the account of men however excellent in it self and in proof of its warrantableness unles it be occasionally add no more Rantist I have referred you already where you shall find exception against all you have said before as concerning the truth of the way of baptism and I desire that you would find your self work a little therewith I mean
will put us positivly to prove a third state denying that there 's any medium asserting that infants if they be not in the visible Church of Christ in their infancy are in the visible kingdome of the devil which to say is false doctrine I shall bring Mr. Baxter to stop the mouth of Mr. Baxter and to convince him that either there is a third state in which believers infants are in their infancy which is neither of these two or else to drive him to that Dilemma to preach this false doctrine himself that believers infants are in the visible kingdome of the Devil To this purpose I first demand of him which of these two viz. the visible church of Christ or the visible kingdome of the devil believers infants are visibly in before baptism First as for the visible kingdom of the devil he must say they are either visibly in it or out of it if he say they are in it then he himself preaches that false doctrine which he saies is ours and makes all infants even of believers members of the visible kingdom of the devil if he say they are out and not in the visible kingdom of the devil then that doctrine which teaches men to leave them unbaptized and denies them to be admitted members of the visible church of Christ till they come to age is not guilty as he saies it is of making them doctrinally members of the visible kingdome of the devil for it is but a delay indeed till they can do what is required to baptism As for the visible Church of Christ he must say they are either visibly in it before baptism or not in but out of it if he say they are in the visible church of Christ visibly before baptism then they cannot be said to be as oh how oft ore and ore again are they said to be by Mr. Bax. p. 24.25 admitted to be members entered listed added initiated into it as into Christs School and first stated into it by baptism for to be first entered into it by baptism and yet to be visibly in it before baptism these two are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utterly inconsistent each with other as to be let into a room when and while one is already in the room is impossible yet with Mr. B. persons are let into the visible church after they are in it yea they must be in it saith he before they may be admitted to be in it nor will his distinction of a member compleat and incompleat p. 24. which he used before to the tearm disciple which I know he will make help him at all here sith with himself an incompleat member is one that hath but jus adrem not in re ad Ecclesiam not in Ecclesia a right to onely not a standing in the Church a title to the relative change and not a being yet in that relative change that he saies passes upon him by baptism Besides to say the truth they are but incompleat members after baptism whom you baptize sith when baptized and in the church they have not present right to other ordinances of the church for you admit not your infant members to the Supper but if he say they are not visibly in the church of Christ before baptism but out of it as indeed they are then either he must say they are in the visible Kingdome of the devil which is false doctrine with himself to say of believers infants or else say they are in some third or middle state to the unsaying of what he said before by way of denial of such a third state which let him say and we will agree with him and such a third state there is which all infants are in as well as some whether he will deny himself so as to acknowledge it yea or no. His 22. plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and baptism is this viz. That doctrine which leaveth us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infant in the world is certainly false doctrine but that doctrine which denieth any infants to be members of the visible Church doth leave us no c. This argument I have spoken to sufficiently above and thereupon might well passe it by here and refer Mr. Ba. thither for an answer where in answer to the Ashford Disputants that urge the same argument enough to satisfie is returned But finding this to be that which of all things most gravels Mr. Baxter and makes him stick so stiffly to his plea for the baptism and Church-membership of infants because unlesse that be owned he can find no good ground in all the word whereupon to hope or believe that any dying infant in all the world can be saved which if he could find he would find the vanity of his venting so much concerning a necessity of baptizing and inchurching infants and save himself a deal of puzzling himself about that which the New Testament hath not one word of and fearing lest I should be judged cowardly to slide by it as if I saw Mr. Ba. handled it more unanswerably then any other and partly because Mr. Ts. suspension of his judgement concerning the future state of any infants is puft at by him and uneffectual to his satisfaction unlesse he could assure him of the salvation of some dying infants at least of believing parents which if he could assure him of out of the way of their church-membership and baptism it should satisfie him sufficiently I perceive to censure all other infants to hell and to say all those millions of poor innocents I mean the dying infants of other men in respect of which these he is so pittiful to are scarce one of a 100. are all damned for ever with which harsh cruel bloody and mercilesse censure of his I am much more and more groundedly dissatisfied then he is about the denial of meer outward membership and bare ordinance of baptism to those few on whose behalf he pleads them and lastly hoping the Lord may lend him some ligh◠whereby to see a consistency between the non membership and baptism of believers infants and the salvation of the dying infants of not believers onely but all dying innocent infants in the world I shall enter on an examination of what he saies to the contrary and an explication of what apprehension in this particular I am begotten to by the word of truth and though I shall decline sacerdotale delirium that common stock of divinity which the Clergy have treasured up in their Theological Systems out of which ocean of error and dead sea of tradition the younger Rabbies use to draw into their common place books and store themselves with arguments against Anabaptistical heresie i. e. this troublesome truth yet I trust I shall give a good account before all the world at the Tribunal of Christ Jesus In order hereunto therefore I first flatly deny the Minor of Mr. Bas. above cited syllogism which by another Syllogism he proves
been said all them but an indefinit expression signifying some onely not all whereby he bewrayed his too little acquaintance with one received rule among the Rationallists viz. that an indefinite proposition or expression in a necessary matter is equivalent ever to an universal howbeit my reply to him then was not so but on this wise viz. that if we must take them but indefinitely only for some and not all the persons or things before spoken of unlesse that particle all be added to it then we had consequently no clear command from Matth. 28.19 20. to baptize all that are discipled and converted to the faith for by the pronoun them that is there used also we must not mean all them but some of them onely in the nations that are discipled because it s not said all them but meerly them but I intreated him from his conscience to tell me whether he did think that when Christ saies Go teach all nations baptizing them teaching them he meant that they should baptize all them or but some of them only in the nations that were discipled his return was that if there were not other places that did more clearly prove it that Christ commanded that all should be baptized then Matth 28. he could not see it fully commanded there and being desired to assign any place wherein Christ did more universally command baptism then there he directs us to Luke 7.30 where it s said the Pharisees rejected the Counsel of God against themselves in not being baptized whence he gathered that baptism was the Councel and consequently the commandement of God to all men because they are here reproved for rejecting it which if it be a sound Argument to prove baptism to be the command of God to all men because the pharisees in particular for the Pharisees is but a particular expression indigitating one single sort of men among all the rest and not so much as an indefinit much lesse an universal because I say the Pharisees in particular are reproved for refusing to obey it how much better may we collect that both baptism and laying on of hands with prayer for the spirit are commanded by God to all men because we find all those save Simon witnesse his giving them his holy spirit recorded as most highly approved of God that at any time did reject neither but silently submit themselves both Those passages between that my beloved friend and my self I could not conscientiously neglect to set down least I should seem to love any man more then the truth for the sake of which principally and partly for his also and theirs he walks with whom I love in truth as far as they love the truth I write this that he reviewing here his own empty evasions may more evidently discern himself to be mistaken in many things then he may be capable to do in a discourse by word of mouth and that they remembring how they in proof of baptism it self to be Christs command to all believers are necessitated to use such cloudy inferences and deductions as those above may excuse us more then many if not most of that party do if in proof of laying on of hands to be the duty of all baptized believers we take the like liberty to our selves in order to their satisfaction to use more clear inferences and deductions then those out of Scripture and out of Heb. 6.2 it self as t will appear that we do to reason it self rightly acted in comparing of Scripture with Scripture which I for my part refer the enquirers unto as the surest rule to try the spirits by and to try all inferences or deductions by because the best of men are liable to mistakes and sure enough to fall into them if ceasing to exercise their reason in deducing inferring and gathering one thing out of another they will receive nothing for truth though otherwise never so plain even to common sense and reason unlesse they find it in so many words in Scripture as t is by us exprest in and this is all that I shall trouble my self to say in reference to the seventh and eighth questions of the late Enquirers with the grounds thereof which are laid down in these words And now further to prove the Minor of the forecited syllogism in some other particulars of it that remain unproved viz. that laying on of hands was not only taught and practised dispenst and submitted to ownd and observed among all baptized believers in the primitive times but all this as by command from God I argue thus viz. Either by command from God or without it But neither without nor against command from God Ergo by it the consequence of the first proposition is most clear for whatever Gospel administration was never commanded by God to be dispensed is practised if practised at all as a tradition of men and without nay against Gods command whose command it is that no man shall presume to teach for doctrines of his the traditions or commandments of men the Minor is as clear that the Apostles did not teach for doctrines of Christ any traditions of their own for as Paul who was one of them that practised laying on of hands saies of himself 1. Cor. 11.23 that he received from Christ that which he delivered unto the Church at Corinth so may we say on the behalf of all the rest as concerning what doctrines they delivered and dispensations they practised to the Churches for surely as Christ the great and immediate messenger from the father could do nothing of himself was not to do his own will but the will of his father which sent him nor to speak or do any thing but as the father gave him commandement confessing that even his doctrine was not his own but his that sent him so they that were the great and immediate messengers from Christ might speak and do nothing in things pertaining to him but as God by him gave commandements unto them neither were any doctrines they delivered among the Churches their own nor any other then the doctrines of Christ whereupon though as Christs doctrine and commandements are called his because he preacht and gave them from God and yet were not his own but the fathers so theirs are called the doctrine and commandements of the Apostles as they had them immediately from him yet are they not their own but the doctrine and comman-of Christ and had they done any thing more then they had order for from him who from him were to give order to the Churches either in the point of laying on of hands or any thing else they would surely have heard harshly from him for it been reproved by the spirit in the word but as to this service of prayer and laying on of hands on all baptized believers in many places he is recorded as approving of them in all they did Moreover that laying on of hands was taught and practised not of their own heads
it to â—hem from Christ to be his holy command mind and will concerning them and to be a certain outward administration of his own chusing which thoâ—gh as despicable a dispensation and as weak low foolish earthen and empty a thing to see to as wash in Iordan yet was to be done sith the Lord had bidden it to be done as well yea rather then if it had been some greater matter if to no other end then meerly to testify their love to him and themselves meerly to be his disciples servants and friends by observing whatever he commanded Iohn 14.15.21.23.15.14 1 Iohn 5.3 how much more when it was a way and order of his own appointment to be observed and to wait upon him in together with prayer and supplication in order to such a glorious and profitable end and purpose to themward as this viz. that they waiting on him in that his own way might as not onely they did but all others shall that wait on him in the same in sincerity according to their faith or else its possible that we may fail of it as they also might and did in his measure manner and time receive his holy spirit Now I say as these were the ends grounds and reasons why among baptized believers this of laying on of hands was observed then so there are the same ends grounds and reasons why the same service should be observed now For first we have it manifested as sufficiently to our Reason and understanding unlesse we will darken the councell of God to our selves by a number of needless queries superfluous scruples and words without knowledge either expressely or by infallible inferences and undeceivable deductions in the word to be an urepealed undisannulled dispensation and patt and principle of Christs doctrine will and Testament as they had and as baptism it self which the Enquirers walk still in the practice of is manifested so to be Secondly we are also as much required and have as much reason as they to manifest our selves to be lovers of Christ to be his disciples servants and friends by our readinesse to do whatsoever he hath commanded Thirdly we are in as much liablenesse as they to be the least in the kingdome of heaven if we break one of the least of Christ commandements and teach men so i e. that they may do so too and as much capablenesse of being greatest in the kingdom of heaven if we do the least of Christs commandements and teach men so i. e. that they must do so too Fourthly we have as much need of the holy spirit now as they had to perform the same good offices for us as he did for them viz. to comfort and support under sufferings to lust against our flesh to lead us into all truth to bring to our remembrance the things that were spoken by Christ which many men would fain have to be forgotten to help to mortifie the deeds of our bodies to seal us up to the day of redemption to reveal unto us that we may rejoice therein the things which are freely given us of God which are the same he gives to them and to gift us likewise with such gifts as he not as we shall please for beggers must not be chusers for fellowship in the body that we may be an habitation of God through the spirit and to gift some also even such as he pleases for the work of the ministry and the edifying of the body in the several offices he hath given to it for the ervice of it and the truth viz. messengers elders deacons c. for all this he did for them Fifthly we are as much under the promise of the same holy spirit of promise being baptized believers as they were for the promise of it was to them that were far off as well as to them that were nigh whether in respect of time or place and therefore to us yea and to all men on the same terms on which it was tendred to them all that repent and are baptized all that turn at Christs reproof all that believe all that ask the father for it all that obey him to the worlds end have on these terms a promise of the holy spirit as well as all the baptized believers of the primitive times and why the baptized believers of these times should have all these ends grounds and reasons why and in order to which laying on of hands with prayer was dispenst on all baptized believers then continuing till now and yet that dispensation cease and not continue in its use and that they should have the promise of the same spirit and yet not be bound to wait on God and seek it in the same way is a very riddle to me I confesse there may be through the unbelief of baptized believers who will not take Gods word in his word but say shew us a sign that we may see and believe shew us such visible gifts shew us miracles the gift of healing and in particular that gift of tongues which thou gavest to baptized believers in the primitive times in this way of prayer and laying on of hands and we will submit to it and believe it to be thy will and command to us now else not I say for their unbeliefs sake that obey not and their too too great defect in faith that do draw neer to God in prayer and laying on of hands there may be and that justly and I think is a cessation of Gods giving out such measures and full manifestations of his spirit as else he would yet some gifts he gives now and that there is warrant to expect by any promise thereof some particular gifts that God for signs of confirmation of the Gospel doctrine to be from heaven in the first giving of it out and removing the old testament gave in the primitive times as miracles tongues this I deny but that he gives not the gift of the spirit and the graces of it which was the thing mainly promised and not so much in plurali the gifts of it as men count gifts distinct from the fruits of it Gal. 5. temperance love joy peace c. as if these were not the spirits gifts much more that the promise of the self same spirit it self though it appear not in every individual gift that we out of curiosity desire to see doth not cease to us and that there is no cestation of that outward administration of laying on of hands with prayer on baptized believers which Christ then was sought to in for the fulfilling of his promise this I dare and do still affirm and testifie neither do I judge any man is capable by the word to give any sound reason why it should cease it being a principle of the doctrine of Christ till all the principles of the whole foundation spoken of Eph. 2.20 Heb. 6.1.2 on which the visible Church is to be built and all ordinances do cease also together with it at
mercifully meets them out of his way that does not exempt them from comming into it but much more oblige them if they had no further need of it as Christ had none of baptism save to fulfill all righteousness even meerly upon that account to meet him the more cheerfully in it for thus it becometh us me thinks as well as it did Christ himself to fulfil all the righteousnes of his law If any say I deny not the dispensation of laying on of hands in its due seasoâ— even in this age on baptized believers for the spirit but as they were bid to tarry at Ierusalem till they were indued with power from on high Luke 24.50 Act. 1.4 that they might have some men fit to go forth and by laying on of hands give the holy spirit being gifted and fitted by it and filled with it first themselves so we must wait in prayer only for a first giving out of it as Act. 2.1 till power come down on some to make them fit administrators of this dispensation to others and then act in it I say this only in short first their expectation that some men shall and thoughts that of old some men did baptize with the spirit is a grosse mistake for the most they could do was but to pray for it and barely lay on their hands Christ did the one and they the other Secondly if we must wait as they did till the day of Pentecost then we must till that time forbear all baptizing in water and suspend all preaching to the world aswel as laying on of hands but this though the Apostles did so in that juncture and intertime between Christs ascension and the descension of the holy spirit yet our Enquirers among whom some of eminency object as abovesaid do in this time I suppose baptize and increase their number by preaching the Gospel to the world Thus far as to the objections now as to what further obstructive interposal is made in way of question by the Enquirers some of whose queries viz. the second fourth seventh and eighth I have taken notice of above I shall now remove it by saying a little to the residue viz. the first third fifth and sixth The first which with the ground thereof is on this wise is rather a curious querk then a solid question so frivolous as is scarce fit to be answered with any thing but not a word yet a word neverthelesse even unto that First whereas they ground it upon our denial of communion with them we desire them to know that we may more justly put the businesse of our non-communion with them upon their score and lay the deniall of it at their own doors as their doing not ours I say not ours who earnestly desire to have communion even in one body with them and all men in a way of conformity to the word of Christ which gives neither example nor toleration so far as I know for any mixâ— communion in one Church of persons whereof some own all the principles of the doctrine of Christ and some not only own not but deny either all or any of them if it doth shew us where but theirs who deny a part of that very beginning of the word of Christ or first form of his doctrine all the several parts wherof collectively taken make that very foundation upon the whole of which and not part of it onely every right visible Church is built and constituted and besides which there can be no orderly either Church or communion Secondly whereas t is askt what persons are to say or do at the administration of laying hands that they may be found faithful in that point I say that according to Act. 8.15.17 the administrators are to pray for the baptized believers that they may according to the promise Act. 2.39 receive the holy spirit and after that to lay their hands upon them which is easâ—y enough I wot to be understood without expressing what part of the body hands are to be laid on whether the head the place of our imposition which if hands be laid on t is laying on of hands is it not or any other part and as at baptism the believer is without gain-saying it to yield his body to be baptized so at laying on of hands the baptizâ—d believer is to say nothing against it but to give way to have iâ— done accordingly The 3d. question with the ground thereof which runs thus is even as superfluous impertinent vain and frivolous as the former for howbeit neither am I one of those many that have ever yet formally and in terms desired baptized believers to require that hands should be laid on them yet laying on of hands on baptized believers either is Christs mind or it is not if it be not and the Enquirers ever prove it is not we will freely give them leave to require us to let it alone but if it be as t is proved to be above out of Act. 8.16 17.19.1.2.3.6 where t is so plain as to need no deduction then as I shall desire them to have us excused if henceforward we desire baptized believers to require it to be dispenst to them so I give them to understand that it being the mind of Christ though as baptism also is one of his too too dispised dispensations as stout and loath to stoop to it as some baptized believers seem to be t is no disparagement to the best of them that are yet as those Act. 8.16 onely baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus but a behaviour that may well enough beseem them to require it The fifth question is ushered in by an introduction consisting of nothing but division and subdivision of laying on of hands into different kinds according to the difference of the administrators of the persons to whom of the accounts or ends upon which and in order whereunto administred as it followes in their own words thus viz we do or may read of laying on of hands upon severall occasions differing one from the other First in the qualification of the administrator as Luke 21.12 compared with Mark 16 18. the one being wicked the other Godly Secondly differing qualifications in persons on whom hands were laid sometimes before baptized and sometimes after baptism Act. 9.17 and Acts 8.17 Thirdly hands were imposed upon several accounts or ends sometimes to be brought before Rulers as Luke 21.12 sometimes to heal the sick Acts 28. 8. sometimes to cure the blind Act. 9.17 sometimes to set men apart to administer temporall things Acts 6.6 sometimes to set men apart to administer spiritual things Act. 13.3 these were gifted before hands were laid on them Sometimes hands were imposed that men might be gifted 1 Tim 4.14 sometimes hands were laid on by men gifted to give the holy ghost to them that were not set a part to Office as many of themselves say from Acts 8. 17. After which their question with its ground comes