way of precept for infants baptism he runs back to Moses Testament and fetches what help he can from thence and undertakes to prove the command for the circumcising of infants to be a consequential and vertual command and commission for the baptizing of them now p 35.36.37 of his sermon In prosecution and proof of which position he spends himself in above 40 pages of his reply to Mr. Tombs in which great compasse who ever lists to follow him and tumble ore all that talk of his to Mr. Tombes may soon be lost in a laborinth of legal customs and institutions into which he leads men back from the plain simplicity of the Gospel then find on inch of Evangelicall institution of infant baptism of all which I may safely say seriously before such as know the law of Moses from the Gospel as Mr. Tombes is taken if not mistaken by him to speak Ieeringly p. 197. that though in bulk and shew it look like the travell of the mountains yet the birth and result of all is but a meer silly mouse for this is the conclusion of that whole matter viz That that very command for circumcision of infants that was expressely given before Gen. 17. and expressely bound Abraham to sign his infants with it in infancy so teacheth and reacheth us now by Analogy and good consequence that even that alone that old testament institution without respect to any reviving thereof in any part of the new testament may serve our turnes as a sufficient command that doth vertually bind us to baptize our infants now to which absurdity though many a wise man would afford no other answer then a laugh in his sleeve yet as very a fool as I am I shall onely soberly reply to it as follweth First is it so that the command to circumcise infants is vertually a command to us to baptize them then Sirs why do you not keep close to your command and by Analogy baptize precisely on the eighth day but on any other as you see good Babist The variation of the time is but a circumstance but an accidentall thing neither here nor there nor much material when ordinances are administred whether at this time or at that as Mr Marshal well observes p. 202.203 saying the eight day onely was an accidental thing and therefore binds us not as neither the time for the passeover binds us to the same time for the supper you must not make every thing a substantiall part of the sacrament which God hath made a part of the outward administration onely that circumstance of time had some peculiar relation to that manner of administration and had nothing common to the nature of a sacrament in generall or to the end and use of that Sacrament as the seal of admission Baptist. Say you so that the time is but a crcumstance and such an accidental thing in circumcision peculiar to that administration onely not binding us to the same time in the administration of baptism but left to us to do it ad libitum according to our own discretion then pray tell me sith to do it on the eight day is not needful wheâ—her to do it on the 10th 12th or 20th day be any more needful then that and whether to do it on the 8000th day be any more then a meer difference though at a greater distance in that circumstance of time and so whether I may not consequently let it alone till the 20th or 30th year of their age unlesse they professe faith and desire it before before I baptize my children by your own opinion and assertion for it appears by you there is no time prescribed more then other wherein baptism is enjoyned to be dispensed unlesse you say that time wherein they appear to believe and therein we will join with you with all our hearts let it fall out when it will early or late Babist No such matter neither at any hand for by that means the subject will come to be altered to which by such a degree of delay must necessarily be men and women onely and no infants at all for as we must so far keep analogy with circumcision in our administration of baptism as to dispense baptism to the same subiect at least though we differ in that meer circumstance of time so we must differ no further in the time then is consistent with the Identity of the subject which is one and the same in circumcision and baptism this is not an accidental but a substantial businesse in the Covenant and so altogether in â—â—terable that there may be no variation of it without violation of the Covenant Gen. 17. for though we need not stand particularly upon the precise time of the eighth day yet at least we must keep within the general time of infancy so as that we must baptize infants under the Gospel consequentially and by vertue of that command to circumcise infants of old Baptist. That 's the great matter pleaded by you indeed as wherein of necessity there must be such an Analogy between baptism and circumcision viz. an Idendity in the subject of both you flee to the institution of circumcision as your supreme warrant for baptizing infants but is there not as much deviation from the manner of circumcision as touching the subject it self among you as there is in any thing else if you must keep so strictly to one and the same subject in circumcision and baptism why do you alter the subject your selves why baptize you any females when God commanded males onely to be circumcised and why not male servants though unbelieving Moores Turks or Pagans if of believing masters or have you a certain dispensation or liberty lent you to dispense baptism as much besides your rule as you please and yet to be accounted as conformable to your Rule still Babist We find the New Testament injoining baptism and dispensing it to females as well as males for it s said Act. 8. that when they believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdome of God they were baptized both men and women and therefore there is warrant enough for us to vary so far from circumcision though it be vertually a command to us concerning baptism as to admit of Females to the one when Males onely were admitted to the other Baptist. You say right for howbeit indeed under the Covenant of Circumcision all the Males whether children or Servants born in the house or brought with money and they only not any females were admitted to that administration yet it is most evident that as to baptism it matters not whether persons be male or female for they are all one in Christs account according as they believe in him one sex having no more right thereto then the other Gal. 3.26.27.28 But if you betake your selves to the New Testament only as your rule for baptism though you find warrant there for men and women yet you find none at all there for infants to be baptized
upon denial of any sufficience in all your former proofs to make it appear is at last undertaken by you to be made sufficiently appear in this last Syllogism which if it do not make it as sufficiently appear concerning unbelievers infants considering your own matter used to prove the Minor as concerning the other then my candle is quite gone out but if it do then surely the very light that is in you is utter darkness In the next place you dispute upon us by way of Question and Interogation thus Disputation 1. How do those men and women that are baptized at years make it appear to those that baptize them that they have faith and the holy spirit If it be answered by their profession 3. Whether their profession since it is possible they may lie can make it appear infallibly If it be answered no. 3. What judgement then can they that baptize them passe upon them to be the subjects of baptism as they call them whether any other than that of charity If it be answered that of charity T is replyed then let them passe the same judgement upon those little infants of whom in general the Scripture hath given so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and the controversie between us is at an end Disproof First whereas you quere how those we baptize make it appear that they have the holy spirit before we baptize them I answer I know no necessity of making ir appear that persons have the holy spirit before their admission to baptism for though we find once that God Anticipated his promise and gave the holy spirit before baptism Act. 10. yet I know not nor yet do you any promise there is whereupon in an ordinary way we can expect it of receiving the holy spirit of promise till after faith repentance obedience turning to God baptism and asking of it Prov. 1.23 Iohn 7.38.39 Act. 2.38 chap. 5.32 chap. 8.16.19 Luke 11.13 Ephes. 1.13 Secondly as for the holy spirits appearing infallibly I answer first it may possibly appear infallibly to be in some in whom it is as Act. 10.44.45.46.47 by sundry fruits and manifestations of it which may warrant us to say God is in them of a truth Mat. 7.16.17.18.19.20 1 Cor. 12.7 1 Cor. 14.25 It may I say undoubtedly appear to be in men and women but cannot and way at all so appear to be in infants if we may believe your selves who tell us p 8. that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith and p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered and that no judgement of science can be past upon infants till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made and that unlesse it could be certainly presumd what children have it what have not there can be no conclusion made And howbeit I am not of the seekers mind that an appearance of the holy spirit in any person before baptism in water doth exempt him from it but am well assured that it strictly rather ingages him to it or else Peter could not have commanded them in name of the Lord to be baptiz'd in water upon whom the holy spirit fell Act. 10. but must rather have forbid it as frustraneous and altogether superfluous yet that the spirit should appear at all to be in men in order to their baptism much more that it should appear infallibly to be in them is a matter of no necessity that I know of sith in the word it s not required that persons be baptized with the holy spirit first in order to their baptism with water but that they be first baptized in water in order to their receiving the holy spirit Act. 2.38 for the baptism of the spirit as t is promised onely to believers so we believing obeying the Gospel and asking the holy spirit t is signified to us as one thing that shall be given among the rest in that very way of water baptism so that its enough for us as to the baptism of persons to take cognizance of it that they believe and repent which things though they cannot do without the spirit performing its common office of striving drawing moving inlightning convicting of good and evil sin and righteousness c. in all which it acts to the whole world Gen. 6. Rom. 1.20 Iohn 16.8 Act. 7.51 yet they not only may do them without but must do them before they can by promise expect the spirit in those special respects wherein he is promised to believers and calld that holy spirit of promise And now because you ask how we know they have faith whom we baptize I answer by their profession which gives though not infallibility yet by your leave for all your preferring the Eulogies given in general to all infants above any mans personal profession for himself in this case a far clearer and better grounded judgement of charity concerning them that they have faith then that you have concerning infants which at best is but charity mistaken for cruelty whilst it takes that to be in infants and that on pain of their damnation too they dying without it viz. believing see p. 8. which infants are utterly uncapable of and whilst it takes even that too without which it holds no infants are saved to be in but very few infants viz. believers infants onely and so damns all other dying infants which are far more innumerable and as capable of faith and as little barring themby actual sin from salvation and as little deserving damnation as the other so that whether we or you plead the cause of innocent infants let the world judge And whereas you suppose that because in charity onely we judge men and women to believe therefore we passe no other judgement then that of charity onely on them to be the subjects of baptism herein you grossely mistake our grounds of baptizing for thought that of charity onely is the judgement whereby we judge them to be believers yet that is not the onely judgement whereby we judge them to be the subjects of baptism but as to that we go upon a judgement of certainty and infallibility also for though it be not infallible to us that every one that professes to believe doth as truly believe as he professes yet this is infallible to us concerning him that professes viz. both that he professes and also that professing to believe with all his heart so that we in charity may judge him so to do whether he lie or no he is by the rule of the word quoad nos a warrantable undoubted and as no infant is infallible subject of baptism for the word requires us to baptize such as after our preaching the faith to them do truly professe to believe whether they believe as truly as they profest or no for that indeed is not so infallible to
or burdens mercies or judgements unless they be excepted Much after the same sort also doth Mr. Blake express himself p. 20. of his birth priviledge concerning Mat. 28.19 viz. The words there comprize infants they are no more excluded then men at years serving to make up a Nation as well as parents the infants of any nation make a part of the nation But who would think such goodly geer as this should manifest it self to the whole world as a fruit of the most serious meditations of men so eminently polemical as they by the Clergy are esteemed to be in their several Tracts in this point and that it should pass without the least item of correction for it from any one of their brethren who rather seem all to consent to then contradict them However I shall make as serious Examen of it as I can First then is it so Sirs that what ever administration extends to all nations belongs to infants therein as well as men so that they are no more excluded from it then men at years how is it then that preaching the Gospel and prayer with laying on of hands for confirmation for the spirit which Dâ— Holmes dotes was dispensed to these infants that were brought to Christ and therfore much more baptism in infancy and as a proof thereoâ— brings testimony that it was never used in the primitive times to be dispensed till past infancy how is it I say that these and also fellowship in the supper are by your very selves denyed to belong to infants in infancy what is the reason that you exclude infants here are not these priviledges belonging to men why then if yours and Mr Marshalls assertion be true not to infants as well as men are they not mercies administrations merciful administrations of God extended to all nations yea is not preaching an administration to every creature that extends not to infants and yet saving Mr Marshals cunning insertion of this clause unlesse they be excepted whereby to salve his proposition from default of falsity though thereby he renders it plainly uslesse to his purpose are infants any where by name excepted from any one of these administrations any more then they are from baptism it self yea is it not an administration of God extending to all nations that persons should work or else not eat in which infants are not included for then must they starve and yet no where at all excepted yea he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned Christ is the Author of eternall salvation to all them that obey him Christ shall come in flaming fire taking vengeance on all them that know not God and obey not the Gospell he that confesseth me before men him will I confesse before my father which is in heaven he that denieth me shall be denied whosoever is ashamed of me and of my words of him will I be ashamed he that denieth not himself and taketh not up his crosse dayly and followeth me and hateth not his father and mother and his own life and all that he hath cannot be my disciple him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he saith unto you and whosoever heareth not his voice shall be cut off from among his people if any man love not the Lord Iesus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha repent and be baptized and an hundred such like are not these Gods Gospel-administrations of duties promises threatnings priviledges burdens mercies judgements extended to all nations from which infants are not excepted and yet do these include and comprize infants as much as men at years or are infants excluded by expresse exception from any of these any more then from that one amongst the rest viz. the duty and ordinance of baptism how then dare you aver so peremptorily so universally that every administration that extendeth to all nations belongeth to infants as well as men yea that I may shame and silence you in this out of your own sayings some of you namely Mr. Marshal perceiving that if you grant that Infants did eat the passeover it will follow from that to their eating the supper as well as from their circumcision of old to the baptism of them now do assert that infants did not eat the passeover yet was not the passeover an administration to the nation of Israel from which infants were never excepted and if so how then can your other sayings be true that every administration that extendeth to the nations belongs to infants as well as to persons at years unlesse they be somewhere excepted Babist We mean not of a formall exception but a vertuall exception an exception in effect at least infants must have or else be supposed as included under every administration that is given to the nations and thus infants are excepted from all those last mentioned precepts promises threats c. forasmuch as it is most notoriously known they are not capable to do the things upon the performance or non-performance of which those mercies and Iudgements are promised and threatned for they cannot hear Christs voice nor know nor love nor obey him nor deny themselves nor hate their lives nor confesse him nor deny him and whereas t is said that if any will not work let him not eat infants must necessarily be understood to be excepted there though not by name because they cannot work and so unlesse excepted must perish by Gods appointment for want of food so concerning eating at the supper Infants are excepted not expressely yet implicitly and in effect in those words let a man examine himself and so let him eat because there 's that required in order to eating there viz. self examination discerning the Lords body and blood which infants cannot do Baptist. T is very true they are excepted from all these as you say implicitly and in effect though not expressely but then let it be considered is there not as fair and as clear an exception of them from baptism as from any of these or in particular as from that service of the supper in as much as theres that required in order to baptisme which infants can no more do then they can do what 's required to the supper viz. to believe with all the heart Act. 8.37 and to be discipled i e to be taught and to learn the Gospel Mat. 28.19 If any should ask this question what hinders why I may not eat the supper you would answer thus if thou examinest thy self thou maiest eat of that bread and drink of that cup so when the Eunuch enquired of Philip what hinders why I may not be baptized he answers him in the very same viz. if thou believest with all thy heart thou maiest for whoever shall say these answers viz. let a man examine himself and so he may eat let a man believe with all his heart so he may be baptized or if thou examinest thy self thou mayest eat or if thou believest with all thy heart thou maiest
be baptized are not the self same in sense and signifification shall never go for a wise man more with me and whoever shall say that the phrase of Philip to the Eunuchs question what hinders why I may not viz. if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest be baitized is as not exceptive of infants from baptism as that phrase of Paul let a man examine himself and so let him eat is exceptive of infants from the supper can seem no other to me then one whose reason is basely captivated to some carnal interest or other yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8.37 doth ful as much if not more imply an unlawfulnesse of their admission to baptism that believe not with all the heart as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.28 doth imply an unlawfulnesse of their admission to the supper who do not first examine themselves what ever exception therefore ye can find in the word of infants from the supper the self same will I find of infants from baptism and what ever ground of admission to baptism you shall find there for them the same will I bring for their admission to the supper Babist Those places where it s said if thou believest thou mayest he that believeth and is baptized repent and be baptized go teach and baptize imply onely an unlawfulness of baptizing persons at years without instruction belief and repentance and are phrases that relate to such onely and not to infants who may notwithstanding any thing to the contrary there exhibited be baptized without any of these Baptist. So you use to say still indeed of these Scriptures that they speak of persons at age and not in non-age and so say I too but I wonder then where are the Scriptures that speak of infants baptism if all the places of Scripture that speak of baptism at all speak onely of the baptism of adult ones and so you are fain to confesse they do when we come to examine them one after another yea I remember that at two publique disputes when we have put you to assign what Scripture infant baptism is commanded in Mat. 28.19 hath bin nominated as your warrant out of which when it hath been plainly proved that Christ commands no more in that place to be baptized then such whom he commands also first to be instructed reply hath been made to this purpose viz. that Christ there requires that such as are capable of instruction should be instructed first but that hinders not why infants may not be baptized before instruction but if so I say I wonder still where that place is that warrants it that infants may be baptized at all â—ith you are fain to confesse that that phrase go teach and baptize yea even you your selves sometimes who just before assigned it as the warrant for infant baptism that it speaks onely of persons capable to be taught and not of infants As you say therefore that these places speak of the baptism of men and women onely that are capable â—o learn believe and repent and not exclusivly of infants because they are not capable to do those things who yet may be bapâ—ized for all that so I say of these words let a man examine himself and so let him eat they imply an unlawfulnesse in men and women only to eat the supper without self-examination but not in infants who being not capable to examine themselves may any thing to the contrary there notwithstanding be admitted to the supper without it t is men and women onely and not children who upon non-examination of themselves are excepted As you argue therefore that every administration to an Nation includes infants as well as men unlesse the be excepted and therefore they must be baptized I conclude the same from those premises concerning their right to other ordinances viz. therefore they must be preacht to therefore they must eat the supper two administrations given to all nations from which infants are no more excepted then from baptism As therefore you take it for an implicit exception of infants from the supper in that they cannot perform what is required in that place to the receiving of it i. e. not examine themselves nor discern the Lords body though by name they are not excepted so if you be not partial your own consciences will compel you to take it for at least as implicit an exception of infants from baptism in that they are no way capable to perform those things which are required of persons in order to their admission to baptism in other places viz. nor to believe with all the heart nor to confesse sin nor amend their lives nor repent nor call on the name of the Lord all which were required of adult ones that come to baptism as we see Mat. 3. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 22. and also in the Rubrick where it being askt what is required of persons to be baptized answer is made thus viz. repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament though by name they be not excepted in any of these places Your cui signatum ei signum nisi obstet c. your thredbare Argument viz. to whom the thing signified belongs to them the sign unlesse there be some impediment or in capacity to perform what is required in order to the receiving of the sign if it had one farthing worth of force in it to give infants accesse to baptism would equally avail to give them accesse to the supper if we were minded in good earnest to plead their right to both in evidence of which I shall argue upon you with your own Argument thus To whom the thing signified belongs to them the sign also belongs unlesse there be some exception or incapacity to perform what is required to the receiving of the sign But the thing signified in the supper which is the same that 's signified in baptism viz. Christ and his benefits belongs to infants and there 's no more exception of them from it then from baptism nor more incapacity in them to perform that which is required to the supper then there is in them to perform what 's required to baptism Ergo if they may receive the outward sign of baptism they may receive the outward sign of the supper also But in truth as they are no more capable of one of these signs then the other so are they in very dead both uncapable of and plainly enough alike excepted from both Secondly is it so Sirs that infants being a great part if not the Major part of all nations must therefore be baptized because it s said baptize all Nations unless they bad been excepted then I answer again if you mean thus viz. unless they had been some way or other at least vertually or implicitly excepted then infants are most manifestly and clearly excepted in this very text it self Mat. 28.19 if there were no other in
that formed them will shew them no mercy and the lord Iesus shall come with flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not his Gospel and that because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved for this cause God shall send them strong delusions to believe lies that they all might be damned who had pleasure in unrighteousnesse c. who ere transgresseth and abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ hath not God every soul that heareth not the voice of that Prophet shall be destroyed with the mouth confession is made unto salvation and an hundred such like as speak of an necessity of good works as well as of faith viz. self-denyall taking up the cross and following Christ c. speak of and to infants in non age while they know not their right hand from their left But Sirs oh that you would once understand for then all your intricacies sottish and absurd assertions and disputes about infants would be ended and save you a world of perplexity that now you are in by the ignorance of it that the word was not written as the way and will of God concerning infants in infancy but concerning men and women in order to their salvation by Christ Iohn 6.39.40 And this Sirs is no other answer then you use to give us when we argue against infants believing thus viz. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word preached But infants cannot hear so as to know Christ by the word preached Ergo infants cannot believe You tell us true faith in Adultis can come no other way but by preaching but in Infantibus faith is begotten otherwise so you fancy but you have no Scripture for it as we have that faith comes no way but by hearing Babist But that Scripture Rom. 10. speaks only of the way of faiths comming to adult ones Baptist So say I of welnigh the whole body of Scripture it speaks of the way wherein men at years must expect to be justifyed and saved and not of infants for they may be saved without faith so when we plead with you against the baptizing of infants I mean such of you and such there be amongst you as are ashamed as well as some that are not to say that infants have faith we tell you the Scripture speaks only of baptism of persons confessing sin professing faith that faith and baptism use still to go together as he that believeth and is baptized the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized if thou believest with all thy heart c. therefore those that believe not may not be baptized you tell us again of these places and of all that ever we bring out of Scripture where baptism is mentioned that they speak of adult persons of whom t is confessed by you that faith and confession and profession is required in order to baptism but not of infants that cannot perform them So Pareus in Vrsin Cate. p. 384. 385. and also many others and your answer is very true and grants all that we desire for indeed all the places where ever baptism is mentioned throughout the Scripture do speak of it as in relation to grown persons and not to infants therefore because the Scripture is wholly silent in such a thing we dare not meddle to baptize infants but as we grant your answer to be true so I hope you will grant it to be as true in our present case for if some of you when we call for faith to a persons baptism or else deny that person to be baptized say thus viz. true no baptism without faith of such of whom faith is required and who are capable to act it i. e. of men at years but infanâ—s being uncapable to act faith and it being not required of them therfore they may be baptized without it which conclusion you make without book to for the word warrants you not to make it why may not we when you call so universally for faith to every ones salvation or else saying assuredly they are damned return the like viz true no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it and of whom it s required but infants being uncapable to act it and it being not required of them therefore they may be saved without it Babist This conclusion is spoken without book and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours â—s sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith as of baptism upon faith and as little of salvation without faith as it doth of baptism without it therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptized without faith as you have to assert they may be saved without it Baptist. No I shall leave you behind here for sith the Scripture speaks of the impossibility of infants believing and yet with all of their saluation as your selves confesse in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdome of heaven but no where at all of their baptism it shews that they may be saved without believing but shews not that they may be baptized without it besides to hold any of them to be damned before they have by actual sin debard themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty and breach of Christian charity with you who yet confesse that all of them have not faith p. 19. but to hold they need not to be baptized cannot bear the like construction sith t is acknowledged by them that deny their bapâ—ism and by them also who absurdly assert to the contradiction of themselves that the denyal of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless though they die unbaptized so that whether we who hold that to them all belongs the kindome of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptized before they die or you that hold no salvation to them without faith and yet hold that all of them have not nay that very few of them for how few are believers infants to others have faith whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all or at least innumerable infants dying contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture and sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdome of heaven and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by your selves which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate till he appear to be in a bad and by actual sin to bar himself and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is this that they have right to the kingdome let the most simple but honest Reader judge between us As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5.18 Rom. 11.7 who urges the last of them I know not for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or
to believe the Scriptures which by necessary consequence confirm the thing we would leave the manner of doing it to him whose work it is the spirit of God who is able to do it we do it in other articles of faith and the resurrection of the body and ask not how it can be done because the Scriptures have delivered it and this of the renovation of soul is no lesse Miracle Re-Review And well may it be difficult to understand how faith should be bred in infants and doubted that they have it not since if we have learned to believe the Scriptures they are so far from confirming such a thing so much as by any possible or probable consequence that by necessary consequence they contradict it while they tell us that there is but one way whereby faith cometh and that such a one as it can never possibly come to infants in viz. hearing the word of God preached not inwardly by the spirit only as you prate below for he speaks not of such a thing there Rom. 10. but outwardly by some visible or audible creaturely ministration as is plain by the words foregoing viz. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard how hear without a preacher how preach except they be sent And whereas you tell us the spirit is able to work faith in them therefore we must leave the manner of doing it to him not offering as it were to pry into it Good Sirs spare your labor talk not about the unknown manner of a matter as unknown as the other for the thing it self is not yet clear in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither doth the spirits ability to do it prove that it is done any more then it proves there is a 1000 worlds or that all men have faith because these things are possible to be effected by him but the evidence that he doth such a thing which if it be wanting as it is in this case it is but egregious folly to argue it from the other so as to say God can do it therefore though the manner how he doth it is not known to us yet we must not meddle further then to believe it is leaving the manner of doing it to him Moreover Sirs assure your selves of this that in some sort the manner is usually manifested to us in the word as well as the matter of such things as we are there called upon to believe even that miraculous work of the resurrection of the body which is your present instance wherein 1 Cor. 15.35 to the end the Lord condescendeth at large to explain the manner oâ— it as well as to prove the matter of it before and whereas you say you leave the manner of the doing things when it is nor clear to you to the spirit himself whose the work is in other articles of faith I wonder you are so forgetful as to bear such false witnesse as this against your selves when as in the point of dying infants salvation which for the matter of it is so clear that you cannot deny it though not clear to you in the manner you leave not the manner of it to God himself whose work it is to save them but limit him to the way of Church-membership faith baptism and holinesse c. whereas the word that was not at all for infants instruction declares to men and women what way he will save them in asking in many places of your book how can infants be justified without faith how can Turks and Pagans infants be saved what hopes of our infant salvation without baptism and all this too though there is no fear of their damnation by actual sin though it also ask you plainly enough how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard and consequently how can they be saved by faith though it tell you also plainly enough Act. 8. where that question is expressely askt what hinders c. even because they yet believe not with all their heart you had said true therefore had your words bin thus viz. we do it not in other articles of faith And whereas you say the renovation of a soul is no lesse miracle then the matter of infants having faith it seems you confesse it to be a miracle that faith should be in infants and for my part I fully confâ—sse it with you for surely t is such a thing as was seldome or never yet seen since the world began to this day but the renovation i. e. conversion of soules of men and women depraved and corrupted as infants never were by any actual sin p. 5. is no lesse miracle indeed then the other for the one is not at all and the other where it is is yet no miracle at all but a matter that happens ever and anon in the ordinary course of things as a miracle doth not and besides you are of those I am sure who are in the mind that miracles are ceased And lastly for you to sprinkle all the new born infants in all the Christian nations at this hour as taking it for granted that these all have faith for so you suppose though you see not any individual or particular infant hath it that is brought to you and yet hold infants faith to be a miracle and yet to hold miracles to be ceased also it is if not miraculum yet mirandum monstrum et horrendum at least to me i. e. a marvelous work and a wonder that ever the wisdome of wise men should so perish and the understanding of prudent men so come to nought Thus having done with your forlorn hope I le march on now to give checkmate to that wretched crew of cavillers that are so impudent as to be responsive against reason and its Regiment and to undertake to make it good against them that infants have faith and must have baptism Review The objection that reason makes against it will easily be answered it is done for satisfaction to the Reader Re-Review Yea Sirs is Reason in so little request with you as that you not onely dare so audaciously ingage against but also set so light by it as to say its objections are easily answered let it be put to the voâ—e if you please throughout the whole earth whether you deserve the title of good Logicians i. e. Reasonable men who here professedly wrestle against reason it self and whether your faith can possibly be found any other then faction and meer fiction against which Reason it self is by your selves confest to be opponent I confesse I have heard men called divines speak of many points of Religion and faith as above reason but I yet never met with men under the name of ministers so far devoid of Reason as to say that Religion and faith are against Reason till I met with you whose faith and practise of baptism to believers infants upon account of their appearing to believe more plainly then the profession of persons at years can make it appear
lapsus Calami when t was penned yet t was lapsus animi and Error mentis too to let it passe uncorrected when t was printed but most of all when t was corrected after the presse for verily among all the printers mistakes which you hint to me in that corrected copy you sent me when you summoned me to answer your Pamphlet there 's no mention of this mistake of the penman who cannot impute this as an oversight of the printer but of the overseers themselves which weakness to conclude with you in your own kind may serve to conclude against the exercise and eminency of your Reason though not against the being of Reason in you at all Review 3 Why are they not after admitted to the supper Because the Apostle expressely requires of every one that comes to examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 If any such thing were required of all that are to be baptized they might lawfully be barred from that Re-Review Here reason demands of you why after baptism you admit not infants to the supper and good reason too for cui signum et signatum is a pigg of your own sow and I add cui admissio et accessio per et post baptismum cui incorporatio ei continuatio progressio corporis communio fractione panis et precibus Acts 2.42 cui nativitas ei facultas auctrix nutrix et quare non nutrimentum He that hath the thing signified as infants of believers appear it seems to have to you but not to us more then other infants i. e. indeed not at all must have the sign he that hath membership must have fellowship in things pertaining to the body he that is once born growes and is nourished yea to speak in Mr. Blakes phrase being of the houshold they must have of the food of the houshold the stewards of the mysteries of God must be accountable in case they do deny it why therefore should not infants have the supper Babist In answer to which I tell you that baptism is an initial sacrament of our spiritual birth and entrance onely into the Church of both which infants being capable in token thereof must be baptized so soon as they are born specially of spiritual parents though that be but a fleshly birth neither that hath no more appearance of the spirit or spiritualnesse in it then is in the birth of the children of the most carnall in the world but the supper is a sacrament of our spiritual growth nourishment continuance further establishment c. of which infants being not so capable are consequently not capable of the supper till they come to age and become men of some growth Baptist. As if there is not a growth ensuing every birth even the spiritual as well as the naturall and as if every babe as well spiritually as naturally born doth not continue and desire the sincere milk i. e. to suck and receive nourishment and relief as if Mr. Blake were out and so I suppose he is but not that he supposes himself so to be in saying to the confutation of his fellow helpers as he doth p. 32. that children of believers have such timly knowledge of God as to be sucking in somewhat of him whilst they suck milk from the breast which if it be true then if one sign belong to them the other doth also because the things signified severally in both do belong and they are as capable to eat and to drink as to be dipt and to know the meaning of one as of the other and in order to the one i. e. the supper as capable to examine themselves as to believe with all their hearts in order to the other i. e. baptism why therefore not have that sacrament of their spiritual nourishment as well as that sacrament of their spiritual birth but if it be false then besides the untruth of Mr. Blakes testimony there is sure no such thing in infants as spirituall growth and nourishment and so consequently in infancy no spiritual birth neither and so no right in token of either to be admitted either to one sacrament or the other but your reply to Reason in this place is this viz. self-examination is to praecede in the subjects of the supper no such matter in the subjects of baptism No Sirs are not repentance from dead works and belief towards God with all the heart and confession of sins and calling on God such kind of matters is not self-examination ever praevious to repentance Lam. 3.40 Let us search and try and turn was there ever any confession of sin without it yet these things are all required in order unto baptism Doth not Philip to one that askt him this question why may I not be baptized return this answer if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest and doth not that imply that else he might not as much as let a man examine himself and so let him eat is as much as to say or else he may not Babist That was spoken by Philip first to a man and not to an infant secondly to one man onely and not to all Baptist. Was not that of Paul spoken of man onely at years yet is it reckoned by you exclusive of infants and why not Philips also Secondly if Philip spake but to one single man and Ananias to another when the one said if thou believest thou mayest be baptized and the other arise and be baptized calling on the Lord c. yet Iohn baptist spake to more then one even to all the people that came forth to his baptism or to be baptized of him when he said repent and amend your lives and they did so and were baptized of him in Iordan accordingly confessing their sins i. e. they that were at all baptized by him and Peter said repent as well as be baptized to all that he preacht to yea repent every one of you exempting no one from repentance to whom he enjoined baptism and they did so and were baptized accordingly i. e. as many no more for else it s a fallacious relation as gladly received his word that did not infants therefore all this is also as exclusive of them from baptism surely as let a man examine himself and so let him eat is exclusive of them from the supper or else I le never trust reason more but fâ—rgo it and become as reasonlesse as your selves To conclude then in granting positively that without self-examination there is no right of accesse to the supper and also in granting it suppositively that if there be any thing equivalent to that required of all that are to be baptized then infants may lawfully be barred from baptism you answer as answerably to reason as men can do or even reason it self but in supposing that no such thing as self-examination is required in order to baptism as it is to the receiving of the supper you wretchedly bewray your self-non-examination of the Scripture Review 4. When they come to ripe
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
us but it warrants us not to baptize any infants who can neither believe not professe Moreover sith you say let us pass the same judgement upon little infants as you do of whom in generall say you the Scripture gives so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and so the controversie shall be at an end I tell you we do passe not the same but a far surer judgement then that of charity upon infants dying in infancy and have an hundred fold more clear and more tender opinion of them then yourselves whilst we have from the word well grounded hopes and assurance that no dying infant is damned but you with over pleading the bare outward priviledges of some most ignorantly damn 20 dying infants to one But as to your judgement of charity concerning infants believing and being thereby inrighted to baptism or that same judgement of charity which we act toward professors of faith you may dream as long as you will on such erroneous Enthusiasm but those that are awake to righteousnesse and resolved to sin no more by popish superstition know well enough that infants though nere the worse for want on t yet cannot believe in Christ of whom they are not capable to hear much less can they professe so to do and thereby give that good ground which right charity must have whereupon to build her faith of this i. e to believe that they do believe and believing are certainly to be baptized so that we have charity well grounded concerning infants and such as comparatively to which your tender mercy to millions of them is meer cruelty and yet the controversie is not ended nor is likely to come to an end in such a way Give me leave therefore a little to play upon you here with your own weapons and to call for an answer from you to your own queres and so it may be in a fair way towards an end in time whereas then you plead the baptism of believers infants and no others upon such a sufficient appearance that they have faith and the holy spirit I ask First how do these make it appear that they have faith and the holy spirit since they cannot do it by profession Secondly how far forth do they make it appear to you infallibly or but probably your selves say not infallibly for the spirit is not bound to all the children of Christian parents nor barrd from any of the children of infidels Thirdly what judgement do you passe upon believers infants to be the subjects of baptism rather then other infants that of charity or that of certainty that of certainty you disclaim p. 18. in these words no judgement of science can be passed till the Acts of faith themselves be seen and examined and in these also viz. unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound nor barrd there can be no conclusion made That of charity then is the onely judgement you passe on these and whereby you judge believers infants and no other to have faith the spirit and right to baptism which charity teacheth us praesumere c. to believe and hope all things hope the best concerning all till ye see the worst especially since littâ—e children of believers have not by any actuall sin barrd themselves or deserved to be exempted from the generall state of little children declared in Scriptures Well then to close up all let me but desire you to passe the same judgement of charity on all little infants as you do on some even upon the little ones of unbelievers Infidels Turks and Pagans whilst infants of whom in general and indiscrimmatim the Scripture gives a good report not commending believers infants above them and against whom in particular no exception can be raised more then against the other saving that one fault of theirs onely that they were not born of believings parents which I hope you have so much charity as to pardon Hope I say as well of the infants of unbelieving parents that they have faith and the holy spirit specially since it cannot appear that these have by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved any more then the other to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture and then the controversie between you and me which is whether little children born of believing parents only may be lawfully baptized is like to be at an end for then certainly you will either agree to it that all infants in the world even of infidels Turks and Pagans these being in the judgement of Charity as undeserving damnation as others may be and are dying in infancy though this with you is as heinous a thing as to â—ay the Divels may be saved p. 7. in as much possibility to be saved and so at least in as much right as the others to be baptized or else that no infants at all it being not possible to be presumed certainly which have the spirit and which not and charity judging a like of all till it see a difference are at all to be baptized both which being the very truth I am content for my part to agree with you therein with all my heart To which Dilemma I am well enough assured you can answer nothing in the least measure satisfactory as the most judicious readers if you Ministers inquire of them will undoubtedly affirm also and so I proceed to your other Arguments Disputation That opinion which makes the Covenant of the Gospell worser then that under the Law contrary to the Apostle in Heb. 8.6 is a wicked and false opinion But the opinion of the Anabaptists which denieth baptism to little children whereby a moâ—ty of the Christian world is cut off at once from being members of the Church maketh the covenant of the Gospel worser then that under the Law Ergo that opinion is a wicked and false opinion Disproof The Major here is most undeniably true for what opinion soever doth make the Gospel covenant worse then that under the Law contrary to Heb. 8.6 is indeed both false and wicked But the Minor wherein you say that the denial of baptism to little infants makes the Gospel covenant worse then that under the Law contrary to Heb. 8.6 where the Gospel is said to be a better covenant then that of the Law in this respect as it is established upon better promises this is most palpably false yea I appeal to every man who doth not wilfully shut his eies against the truth to judge between us whether our opinion or your own rather doth most clearly contradict that Scripture of your own alledging Heb. 8.6 in order to the true discerning of which First Mark well what it is that is there asserted concerning the meliority of the Gospel covenant above that of law and you shall find it to be this viz. That the Gospel
the liberty and the bondage of your late directory that baptism must be dispens'd by a Minister onely not in any case by a private person much lesse by a mother or any woman Secondly in the places of publique worship onely not in private places or privately Thirdly on any day not specifying â—he eighth so it be not unnecessarily delayed Fourthly to any child whether male or female for ought you expresse to the contrary if so be the parent be a believer Fifthly to no man servant so far as I find on the masters belief though a Christian may chance to hire into his house an Indian or infidel when as its most notoriously known that thus it was then viz. that not the publique Priests onely in the publique places but masters might and must circumcise all their male servants fathers or mothers their male infants on the eighth day onely and that either at home as Abraham in his house Gen. 17. or any where else as Zipporah at an Inn Exod. 4.24.25.26 O the prodigious proling that you Priests make from your own pattern how crookedly close do you keep to your own coppy there are about some seven several modifications of actions in respect of which one may be said to differ from or be like another which for memories sake are coucht altogether in this verse of interrogatories Quis quid ubi qualis quando quibus auxiliis cuâ— In all which if inquisition be made how far forth your baptism and circumcision do agree or differ though you contend or rather pretend them to be like one another in each yet we shall find a deep disparity between them in no lesse then all First if we ask as de subjecto this question quis who is the true subject of circumcision who of your baptism yea even your own so circumcision-like baptism much more that baptism which is rightly dispensed how far is the one divers from the other though this is one of the main things wherein you profess they must be alike for that as I shew'd before did belong to males onely this you dispense to females also that to the natural infants of the Jews though the parents were known to be unbelievers for Ioshua circumcised the seed of all those murmurers that were cut off for unbelief this as to no natural infants at all by right no not to the Jews infants so by your own confession not to any infants whose parents are unbelievers whereby you may see that as the law is changed so there is a plain change also in the subjects of these two ordinances circumcision and baptism not onely as we but as you your selves contend to have baptism dispensed for as onely so all the male children of the Jews both might and must be circumcised though their parents were never such wicked unbelievers but even your selves say the Jews seed are all cut off from baptism and the Gospel Church because their parents are unbelievers both all the Jews and their males might be circumcised though none of them believed while that Covenant of circumcision stood meerly as they were of the stock of believing Abraham but might not be baptized when the Gospel Covenant began in Iohns Baptism upon that account unlesse they now believed in their own persons though they were of the stock of Abraham still as much as ever nor may to this day in your own opinions Secondly if as to the nature matter and essential form or being of the Rites themselves we ask the question quid what circumcision was and what your baptism how far do they differ the one being a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh the other a wetting of the foreskin of the face onely with a few drops of water no more iike it then chalke's like cheese Thirdly if as to the place where we ask the question ubi where circumcision was dispensed and where your selves say baptism ought to be how greatly doth your manner of baptism differ from it and how much more then ours for circumcision might be dispensed any where but in the Temple where I find not they were to be brought at all till circumcised as Christ himself Luke 2.21 22. but your Rantism no where else by appointment but in your Temples herein I say our baptism squares more with it than yours who pretend so much to baptize after the manner of it for all places are to us alike where there is conveniency of water enough to baptize in and therefore we must except the Font and Bason Fourthly if as to the quality special properties uses ends and offices of these two dispensations the question be asked in quale quid what were the special properties purposes uses ends and offices of these two several administrations what things persons were specially obliged to by them what was specially signified to persons in them and such like how little do these look each like the other for circumcision tied men to the observation of a certain carnal cumbersome costly service Law Priest-hood in order to their inheriting the Earthly Canaan which all are now clean changed and confiscate but baptism as dispensed by us according to the word binds to the observation of another Law and the voice of another Lawgiver High Priest and Prophet Christ Iesus whom Moses spake of and God hath now raised up accordingly and this in order to a future enjoiment of a heavenly inheritance typed out by the other and as for your rantism it ties to neither this nor that but to a certain service and law of Ordinances and Gospel and Church posture and priesthood of mans own making which one knows not well what to make of nor what part of speech to call it but a participle for it takes part of the Law and part of the Gospel and is neither perfectly but patcht up out of both by the politick power of the Priesthood so as it may make most for the peoples painted pâ—etie and their own pay together in order to their labor for their pains Mat. 15.9 Again Circumcision pointed as a type indeed at the circumcision of the heart but as a sign so it signified a promise of outward felicity in Canaan and that Christ should come of Abraham after the flesh c. true baptism signifies the death burial and resurrection of Christ and remission of sins by his being crucified and such things as were no wayes resembled by the other your rantism just nothing Fiftly if as to the time of those two services the question be askt Quando when circumcision and when your baptism are by right to be dispensed how miserably do you your selves misse of hitting right with it here too though it be a main matter you intimate to us your imitation of circumcision in circumcision being punctually to be performed on the eighth day true baptism not till the day wherein persons appear to believe withall their heart and so not in any infancy at all but the infancy of our faith and even
yea that is as much warrant to us in our varying from the manner of circumcision in the point of infants by omission of it unto them as 't is for you to vary from circumcision in the point of females by admission of them unto baptism for as you are fain to plead for all your strong hold of circumcisions being instituted and of old dispensed to infants no less then New Testament institution and instance for the admission of females so if we insist upon onely the New Testament institution and example we can as truly say there is neither precept nor president for baptizing infants as you can say there is both for baptizing females and with as much confidence as you can say t is evident there that both men and women were baptized may I say it is evident that infants were not at least it is not evident that they were and that is enough to serve our turn in this case wherein it lies upon you who practise infants baptism to produce some proof or other that t was practised in the primitive times and some precept direct or consequential from the law of Christ and not to content your selves and cousin the world with such a poor pretence as to say that the command for the circumcision of infants is a consequential and virtual command to us to baptize them which as bindings as you say it is to us in this case when it comes to be examined you see it binds us as little to the same subject as to the same circumstance of time You ly groaping for a warrant for your way in the Old Testament and Law of Moses and being not a little aware that you have not warrant enough in the new you look after that Law-Giver that is long since out of Date to the church for the doing of which you need no other to accuse you then he even Moses in whom you trust who instead of inviting you to learn of himself under the times and promulgation of the Gospel how Gospel ordinances should be administred rather conjures the very Iews themselves that were as we never were his own disciples whilest his Testament stood Iohn 9.28 and that with a curse from any longer attendance unto his voice to attendance unto the voice of another Prophet Christ Iesus when God should raise him up unto them you forget Sirs that we are now under the new Testament and the teachings and Law of another Law-giver another Apostle and High Priest of our profession who was faithfull to him that appointed him as a son over his own house i. e. the Gospel Church as Moses though a Servant was faithful to him that appointed him in all his house the fleshly Israel so faithful was Moses as to make all things plain in his Testament so that his Disciples during the time of that Covenant whereof he was mediator might easily see if they were careful to look into his Law the mind of God concerning them in every administration of that Testament so that they need not look any where else but to his Law yea in Heb. 9.19 Moses spake every precept to all the people according to the Law and shall we think that this man who is worthy of more glory then Moses and who is now as a son over his own house hath not been so faithfull as to make sufficient provision of plain precepts Lawes and ordinances so as to speak distinctly and to give out his will and Testament clearly so that his disciples may know it without running back to learn of his servant Moses doth not God himself say of this Prophet by the mouth of Moses himself Deut. 18.18 I will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him him shall they hear in all things whatsoever he shall say and it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hearken to my words which he shall speak in my name I will require it of him and he shall be destroyed from among the people Act. 3.22 23. Is it likely then that he hath left his will so darkly delivered concerning his own institutions that his Ministers should be fain to fetch it so far as you fetch infants baptism who say there is a consequentiall and virtual command and institution for it in the old Testament of Moses for as much as infants are there commanded to be circumcised I am ashamed to see such Masters in Israel as you go for so dishonor and disparage the great Master of the Gospell house and Mediator of the Gospel Testament as to straggle and wander and run from him to Moses to learn how to administer his ordinances from the son to the Servant from the living to the dead from the Gospel to a law long since ended from the truth to the type from the substance to the shadow as if there were not light enough shining forth from God in the face of Iesus Christ for the use of his houshold without beholding the vailed face of Moses for that he gave circumcision as a part of his law though it was of the Fathers and was in being before him as sacrifices also were and other parcels of that old Testament whereof he was Mediator is shewed abundantly above out of Iohn 7.22 23. certainly Sirs that cause is none of Christs whose defendants are so hardly bestead when they are put to clear it that they are driven from Christ himself to call out to Moses Master help us or else we perish Babist Though there is no such Syllabicall or expresse precept for infants baptism in the New Testament as there was for circumcision under the old yet there is precept enough to us so long as we find no prohibition Baptist This was M Kents way of arguing the lawfulness of infants baptism in publike one day at Crambroke and at Staplehurst also the same evening following with my self in the presence of some others it is not forbidden saies he therefore it is commanded to which it was answered to this effect viz. that it is not commanded therefore it is forbidden for we being forbidden to add to the words of Christ and to preach any other than what was delivered to the Churches by the Apostles Gal. 1.8.9 Revel 22.18 what ordinance dispensation and peece of worship and service soever is not appointed by him must consequently and clearly be prohibited and be but meer Will Worship if performed in fuller proof of which viz. that it is sufficiently forbidden that of Philip to the Eunuch was made use of whose words if thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 licet thou maiest being made in answer to the question quid ni what hinders why I may not be baptized as they express it to be lawfull for such as believe with all their hearts so they must plainly imply to any understanding that is not resolved to be impudent in withstanding truth that non licet it is not lawful for
thereby members of the Iewish Church could not be the visible church according to the Gospell unless they did manifest faith and so be in covenant with Abraham according to the spirit and baptized into the same faith Whereas if the Covenant now under Christ were the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh then by the same right they possessed circumcision and the Iewish Church state they must possesse this since Christ which they could not do therefore it is not the same It is true therefore that the Covenant of God makes the Church both in time of the Law and Gospel too for the Church is nothing else but a people in covenant with God now look how the covenant differs so the Church and people differs which is made by it and which enter into it Now the Covenant whereby God took a people outwardly to be his people then was that whereby they did being circumcised participate of all those outward meanes which led to Christ which was to come Psal. 149.19.20 But the Covenant whereby he takes a people outwardly to be his people now whereby they are admitted to be baptized is that profession they make of faith in Christ Acts 8.12.37 Mat 3.6 Whereby they have true and spirituall conjunction with God and are his people Heb. 3.6 Indeed it is true that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and Means of salvation and also that all those that were saved were saved through faith in him both before and since his comming But yet because the outward means of making Christ known doth differently depend upon his being yet to come and upon his being come in the flesh the one being more dark the other more plain the one more carnall the other more spirituall therefore the participation of these meanes doth make the state of the participants to differ Thus far are his words and then noting certain differences to the number of seven or eight between the Old Testament and the New which is 1. Established upon better promises 2. After the power of an endless life 3. In Christ. 4. And liberty of the spirit 5. A Celestial Jerusalem 6. A State of faith He very truly concludes that such onely as are in the New Covenant in Christ in faith of the promises born from above and partakers of the spirit and the power of that endless life or of the world to come are suitable to be admitted to Gospel Church priviledges In the time therefore before Christ saith he such as would circumcise themselves and their males and observe the Law in the rites and ceremonies therof together with their children by generation were the seed and in covenant with that Church but now since Christ only such as believe in Christ and are thereby children by regeneration are the seed and in covenant with this Church and this he proves further yet First Because None of the Natural seed of Abraham are in the Covenant by vertue of any natural relation though they did remain in the Iewish Church till the death of Christ and as that Church then ceased so their being in the Church by an natural relation ceased also Act. 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 5.28.31 3.7 8 9 14.16.19.26.28 29. Secondly The Gentiles have no natural relation to become Abrahams seed by therefore a believers child cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a believer unless such children do believe themselves and cannot otherwise in no respect be participants in the covenant made with Abraham p. 14 15. And again p. 18. No Gentile saith he is Abrahams seed at all but by believing the righteousnesse of faith allthough he be the child of believing parents Now therefore because you tell us not only First that believers children in infancy are Abrahams children though they yet do not the works of Abraham i. e. believe not on him that justifyes them as some of you dote they do but also Secondly that the promise of the Gospel is to believers and their seed These both are abundantly confuted by that quotation of mine which quotes more Scripture then you will ever answer so that I wonder you blush not to shoot out so boldly two such blind and unsound assertions together the second of which I shall say no more to it being virtually answered by what is more formally spoken to the first also because I have shewed so undeniably above that I know your consciences must yield to it and that from this Act. 2.39 whence you would wreâ—t a proof to the contrary that the promise if you take it for the profer of the Gospel Grace is to all men in the world every creature and so not to believers and their seed only but to all unbelievers and their seed also in case they shall believe for he conditionats the promise on calling for such these were whom Peter spake to whilst he was yet speaking that very word to them viz. the promise is to you and your children but if you take it for the thing promised which is not Church-membership and participation of baptism as some say whose absurdity therein I have declared but the spirit remission of sins and salvation this is made good also to the believer himself and it is mercie enough to him that it is so I think but not at all to his seed for his sake nor his faiths sake for if it be I testify his children need no faith of their own nay more God never made promise to save any of believing Abrahams natural seed without faith in themselves for Abrahams sake as neerly as he took Abraham to be his friend for even he had sin enough of his own to have sunck him if the same Mediator that saves any of his seed in that way of faith had not mercifully saved him the same way nor yet for Abrahams faiths sake for that merited not salvation for them nor was it instrumental but faith only in themselves to any one of his sonnes salvation for every one must bear his own burden if Christ bear it not and the just must live by his faith and not his fathers neither did he ever promise for his faiths sake to give faith to his natural seed as his for then they must all have had it qua sic including de omni and being universale summum or God should ly which he cannot neither could God blame them as he doth for unbelief but himself without whom say you they could not believe who had promised to make them believe and did not though yet he promised to circumcise i. e. by his spirit to sanctify the hearts of his spiritual seed as well as his own i. e. all such as believe and are in the faith with him for the promise being still sure to all the seed which it is made to they all must be blessed with faithful Abraham Now if God who made the old Covenant promise of the earthly Canaan to Abraham and his
Evangelist whence Philip was called Evangelista that being the very thing made him an Evangelist and not his Deaconship besides which he had no other office because he did Evangelizare no man can give a reason why the scattered disciples that did Evangelizare or preach the Gospel with him should not be denominated Evangelists as well as he and indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differ no more then a Preacher and he that preaches and though every Pastor be both an Evangelist and a Prophet yet he that saies every Evangelist and Prophet is a Pastor or an ordained officer qua sic or that either of these are nomen officii or sounding forth more then a person thus or thus gifted viz. the Evangelist to preach the Gospel for the conversion of such as are yet without the Prophet to speak to the exhortation edification and comfort of the Church and people already converted and both these occasionally only and not as by vertue of an ordination to an office may say it ten times over before the Scripture rightly understood will furnish him to make proof of it once And as these ordinary disciples for the Apostles abode still at Ierusalem Act. 8.1 went every where as well as Philip pro suo modulo Evangelizantes preaching Christ according to their abilities so the hand of the Lord was with those occasional preachers that a great number believed and turned to the Lord by their means and were baptized also undoubtedly by their hands yea the famous Church of Antioch had its foundation from this and grew into a Church which they could not do without baptism before any actual officer came neer them for though Paul and Barnabas walked with them for a year and improved their gifts for their edification yet neither of these were yet actually any more then Evangelists and Prophets though before by God intended and not long after by the Church visibly ordained to their Apostleship i. e. men of excellent gifts and this will appear Act. 11. from verse 19. to the end with Act. 13. v. 4. and backward to the beginning you do therefore greatly err not knowing the Scriptures which tell you also plainly that though Paul converted all the Corinthians yet his own hands baptized but a few committing that dispensation as an inferiour work to his preaching to the hands of inferiour disciples as Mr. Baxter himself also confesses to your confutation asserting it from 1 Cor. 1 17. so though Peter converted the company in Cornelius house yet surely he baptized them not all if any at all with his own hands but left the administration to the hands of others some one or more of the brethren that came with him And the manner of speech implies plainly no lesse for he commanded that they should all be baptized in the name of the Lord yea so far is the word from tying up the dispensation of baptism to an office that we have much more president and proof after Christs ascension of comon disciples then you have of officers baptizing You therefore make much more a do in this then needs you strain indeed at a goat and swallow a camel and busy your self so about the truth of administrators that you have lost the truth and substance of the administration it self were your baptism true baptism indeed there is no necessity that ordained Ministers must administer it but unlesse it were truer then it is no matter if it were never administred at all Know therefore Sirs I beseech you that the verity worth weight and efficacy of baptism depends not upon the quality of the person administring but upon the truth of the subject to whom and the true form wherein t is administred the Scripture prescribes plainly who they are that shall and in what manner these shall but not at all by whom they shall be baptized t is the duty of them that believe to be baptized and his duty that baptizes to baptize indeed not rantize only and to baptize such as being taught the Gospel do believe it but who they must be that are to baptize those is neither here nor there to the baptism for ought I find in the word so they be but Masculine disciples nay though the person baptizing be not only no officer but in the case above named as yet unbaptized himself yet if the person baptized be not only a believing disciple but also baptized really and indeed his baptism is never the worse for the other Experience tells me and I believe many more that have been baptized according to truth that t was drawing neer to Christ with true hearts in his true ordinance that made us accepted in his sight not the qualifications of the baptizers whose baptism and ministerial functions were they invested with both could add never the more validity nor verity to our baptism as neither could the non-entity of either of those in them have possibly made the baptism so sincerely submitted to be in any measure void and of no effect the placing so much in persons administring as to think our selves ere the better for that was that fantastical fopery of the Corinthians for a while one saying I am of Paul another I of Apollo another I of Caephas i. e. I was baptized by such or such which made the Apostle Paul who with his own hands baptized but some of them well nigh wish he had baptized none of them at all when he saw their carnall glories in the persons administring and blesse God that he baptized no more least they should have thougt the better of themselves and of their baptism for its dispensation of it by his hands The administrators therefore being baptized or not baptizd minister or no minister maketh the baptism if elsewise warrantable neither better nor worse of it self all this I speak all this while not as granting that our baptism is by unbaptized persons and that my self am no minister of the Gospel for neither of these shall be yielded by any meanes unlesse you were more able then you are to prove them I speak it suppositively that if these were both so yet both my baptizing and being baptized may be warrantable enough notwithstanding or else if we deemed it worth while to seek out what succession our baptism hath had from the Apostles in a series without interruption t is possible there were some disciples in all ages that owned the truth though so few and despised that their generation can scarcely be declared for who can declare his generation whose life in himself and his was still cut off from the earth but we go by the word that is above all Church and Ministry in our account of our baptism and ministry and not by succession in either and as for your selves that hold so much on succession and boast of a lineal descent of your ministry and Rantism from the Apostles t will pussle you no lesse to prove that if we put you to
are men that make so much of every little for Christs sake that Crosses and diseases your flesh that you will hardly ever commend your selves as the ministers of Christ did of old 2 Cor. 6.5.6 c. 2 Cor. 11.26.27 in much patience in afflictions yea in necessities in stripes and imprisonments in tumults in crossings in labours in perils of waters in wearinesse in painfulnesse in watchings often in hunger and in thirst in fastings often in cold and nakednesse in indurance of hardship as good souldiers of Christ 2 Tim. 2. which sith you decline with all the might you can rather then expose your selves freely to for truths sake therefore the Lord have mercy upon your persons your ministeriall capacity will be cashiered Rantist Well what if it was so in the primitive times that total dipping was the custome must it therefore needs be so now will it follow that we must follow their fashion in that particular there may be sundry reasons whereupon they might baptize in such a manner then and yet no reason at all why we should tie our selves to the same Baptist. If it was so what do you speak suppositively of it still nay verily I hope you will not be so obstinate as to deny for all your gainsaying it hitherto but that it was so then for sure enough it was otherwise then in that way of sprinkling or powring nose dripping or face dipping either which are in use amongst you and keep it out at swords point as long as you can yet you will be forct to yield to it in the end when you consider that your own parâ—y are fain to flag so far in this case as to confesse it for not onely Tilenus reacheth us that heretofore submersion was the way of baptizing rather then aspersion but Dr. Featley also furnishes us as I have shewed above with as much as we desire and if it be once granted as it is in a manner already by not a few if not all but Mr. Blake why else do they trouble themselves and the world to render reasons why it might be by submersion in the primitive ages and places of baptizing but not so now I know no reason worth a rush on which we can be held excused from baptizing by submersion as they did Rantist T is true it is confest by some and if it were granted by all that baptism was then by dipping it were not so material to your cause nor would you get so much ground by it sith both such as flatly agree to it and such as see not cause to agree to it so fully as some do are all agreed in the grand reason why it was so then and why it may not be so now at any hand viz. the different temper of those climates wherein baptism first began and of ours wherein it now is practised theirs being so hot that there could be no danger by dipping in the coldest times ours so cold that it cannot but be very dangerous if not destructive to life and health I grant saith Dr. Featly that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptism of men especially in the Hotter Climates hath been is and may lawfully be used but the question is whether no other baptizing is lawfull or whether dipping in Rivers be so necessary to baptism that none are accounted baptized but those that are dipped after such a manner usitatior olim fuit c. submersion was more usual in Judea and other warmer Countreys saith Tilenus then aspersion notwithstanding sith submersion may prove prejudicious to the health specially of such tender infants as for the most part are baptized now a dayes we suppose the Church may use which she pleases and saies Mr. Baxter if it were otherwise in the primitive times it would be proved but occasionall from a reason proper to those Hot Countreys and saith Mr. Cook though it were granted that in those Hot Countreys they commonly washed by going down into the water and being dipped there whether in ordinary or ceremonial or sacramental washing that will no more inforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptism now then the example of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the sacrament of the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying which was their usual table gesture then now the ordinary table gesture which is usual among us is most fit so the usual manner of washing among us is most fit to be observed in baptism and that is by powring as well as by dipping so you see these men are all of a mind that is was or at least might be so possibly in the primitive times but if it were yet not so in ours in regard of the coldnesse of our climate Baptist. Then it seems we shall have it amongst you pro confesso that in the Apostles dayes the way was dipping for though Mr. Cook keeps a loof off in his hypotheticals saying though it were granted and Mr. Baxter who borrowes well nigh all he saies against dipping from Mr. Cook Cookes it out but conditionally saying if it were otherwise yet Tilenus takes our part plainly and the Dr. drawes neerer to us then so giving it for gone that in those Hot Countryes baptism in rivers was then used onely whether such manner of dipping in rivers be so necessary to baptism in all countreyes this we say saies he is false and so for ought I see you say all But Sirs first I pray tell me from the very bottom of your consciences whether you can conceive that Christ hath appointed two sorts of baptism viz. one kind of baptism for Iudea and those regions round about Iordan and another for England Scotland France Spain Italy and all the regions round about of the Romish Christendom whether he hath ordained two baptisms or rather two different dispensations whereof one is not baptism to be used in different places viz. baptism for the Hot Countryes and Rantism for the Cold or whether he hath not rather wild one onely baptism and that a true one to be used throughout the world Dr Featley Mr. Cook Mr. Baxter suppose the first but where 's Mr. Blake all this while their wonted Coadiutor in the cause verily he leaves them a little here and lends us his hand who hold that Christ gave order and commission for no more then one way of baptism in all Nations for howbeit he finds in his heart to let Rantism passe for currant baptism among them that take the liberty to maintain and use it for fear of cold p. 4 yet whatever way of baptism the commission was given out for in those Hotter Countryes whether submersion or infusion for aspersion he ownes not to be it however the very same way and no other he holds the commission to be for in the coldest Nations under heaven and this will appear if what he saies in his 9. p. be considered where after he had used this argument to prove
the trade of preaching you cannot set up possibly to any good purpose thus Featley p. 101. prophecy quoth he is an extraordinary gift of the holy spirit preaching a special faculty acquired by many years study and Mr. Evans in his Sermon to the Lords my Lords quoth he we know you would have a learned Ministry but it is impossible for learning ever to flourish without maintenance you may as well set carpenters to build without tooles as send forth Ministers without their parchments we plead not my Lords for our backs and for our bellies but for good books and furnisht brains there are some that will seduce upon cheaper tearms but there must be honest provision made that every Minister may have a good library or elâ—e the Land is like to have but an ignorant Ministry and a perishing people again my Lords we know you would have a gracious people to fear God honour the King and obey your honours but it is sufficiently known that a base Ministry can never do good upon the people the generall pride of man is such that poverty is enough to bring a man into contempt c. As if because the pride of man specially of great men is so great that the poor mean Ministers of Christ are subject to be despised by them therefore they must have a kind of pompous Priesthood that may delight their daintines and fit their vain fancies and haughty humors what the Lords of the earth would have I know not so well as themselves I believe they would have a learned Ministry to lean to and live at ease on and a people to fear God as far as themselves do among whom the fear of God hath been taught still after the precepts of the men called CCClergy and to honour the King and obey their Honours but this I know and therefore t is but flattery not to say foolery to tickle them up with talk of their great zeal of the Gospel as their fawning Chaplains do that few or none of their Honours are effectually called to Christ or have ever yet honoured him so far as to honour own and acknowledge his truth in that primitive purity wherein t was at first given out partly because the CCClergy claws them too much into odd conceits and with untempred morter dawbs them into a belief of an Omnia bene in that easie gaudy gospel they sow as a pillow under their elbowes and partly because not many of these mighty and nobles ones will stoop when t is discovered to them to that plainness and simplicity that is in Christ 2 Cor. 11.3 to that foolishness of mechanick preaching that basenesse of baptizing that streightway of self-denying that needlesse work of Scripture searching with their own eyes that weak nothing of Christs choosing by which to confound and bring to nought in the end the prudence of the Scribes and wisemen of this world whom they wonder after so the great King of Kings and Lord of Lords Christ Jesus was not over-seen and yet he chose such base things and sent forth such a poor base Ministry of illiterate mechanicks to preach his Gospel at the first beginning of it too which surely he would not have done if it were his own mind that the contempt of his ministry which by their poverty illiteracy and outward basenesse is apt to arise in the hearts of the proud should be prevented by putting the outward pomp of much earthly riches and that low literature of this foolishly wise world upon them Mean while I am not against a Ministers having learning let a man have as much as he will on 't so he use it as a telent to serve the truth with when once he he hath found and owned it but against that necessity of outward learning to the Ministry of Christ so as to say as the Priesthood doth that ordinarily a man cannot be a Minister of Christ without it for verily the spirit which onely makes a Minister blows where it lists and doth for ought I see bestow it self now as of old it did more frequently upon poor Mechanicks and illiterate Artizans then learned Scribes and Schoolmen Nor am I against a Ministers having a library and looking into other books if he have a mind to it and have money enough of his own to buy them so be he do not lose himself therein as the CCClergy in all ages have done from his serious study and sincere search of the plain Scripture it self but I am far from desiring that poor people should be charged to fill and furnish Ministers studies with books and their brains with notions out of other Authors that are no more to be heeded then themselves further then they speak according to the word nor shall I ever acknowledge such a necessity as you plead that men must needs busie their braines about abundance of other mens writings or else cannot but be ignorant Ministers of the Gospel sith the Scriptures themselves are of themselves if the CCClergy could once consider it or one could possibly beat it into their braines profitable for all things and able to make Ministers and people wise enough to salvation and to make a man of God perfect and throughly furnisht unto all good works but that they do not store their hearts as they should do with study of them onely or at least mainly as the primitive Ministers of the Gospel did and the purest Ministers of it now do 2 Tim. 3.14.15.16 I wonder what our Clergy men would do to preach the Gospel if there were no other books extant but the very bible they would surely either cease from being Ministers any more at all or else make better Ministers then they are I do not speak this to excite men to make such a bone fire of all books but the bible as Dr. Featley saies Iohn Matthias made p. 165. and yet by the Clergies leave I dare not say as Dr. Featly there saies that t were better all those who in his sense are obstinate Sectaries for many such are pretious Saints were burnt at a stake then that such a bone fire were made for I know no absolute necessity to the salvation of men of the being of any book in the world but the bible which as it was once alsufficient to make men wise to salvation without looking into any other and before there were many other besides it so I know not sith we have them in such plainness as now we have maugre all the malice of the Pope and Clergy who would once have made a bone fire of the Scriptures why it is not as alsufficient as heretofore whilst yet there was no more Gospel Scripture then in self but I speak it to excite the CCClergy for whom I have great sorrow of heart to see their miserable neglect of wretched ignorance in the Scriptures to give more attendance to the reading of them as which are alsufficient and onely necessary to a Minister if there were
c. Last of all to mourn for the calamities of the true Church which hath for this 1600 yeares been spoiled and under clouds and partly by the Roman Empire Heathen partly by the Roman Empire Christian been trod under the feet of tyrranical truth trâ—aders the losse of souls the Scandal of true Religion which is and hath been every where spoken against houses and lands wives and children goods and liberties when lost consumed destroyed are lamented by us should not Châ—ists losses be more dear and how much more the losse of Christ himself who as he told of that ecclipse of that primitive entercourse which he had with his people then by the interposition and comming of the prince of this world between him and them so hath now of a long time been a great stranger in all Christendome On What comfort had it been to have had the Son of God walkisg with us may the Chrâ—stian world say in the midst of the flames that have devoured and wasted in all corners of it but specially the third part of Christian men which hath been killed by the fire and by the smoak and by the brimstone which issued out of the mouths of the four Angels that were bound before in the great River Euphrates i. e. the four cruel Territories of the Turkish Empire united all under one head viz. Ottoman the Great some 390 years ago and from thenceforth getting ground on this side Euphrates to no lesse then a third part of Christendome as being indeed prepared for an hour a day a month a year i. e. 391. years to slay the third part of nominall Christians with most inhumane mercilessenesse and cruelty Rev. 9 12. ad sinem I say what comfort would it have been to have â—ad not onely the name but the spiritual presence of Christ preserving for those that were consumed in that divellish devastation but alas the Heresies Blasphemyes and abominable idolatries of the Christian nations have made him depart and leave the men that meerly by name are Christians to utter distress and darknesse without either succour or support under such bloudy sufferings those sins where not so much suffered in civil States for that may be as set up and stablished as the onely Christianity to be allowed of as they have been by the national Antichristian Christian Churches so that true Christianity is suppressed and suffers for the sake out and for nonconformity thereunto are ever and ever will be the forerunners of the removal of his Candlestick and of the destruction of the very denomination of Church at last among that people that have a name to live and are dead However let us O ye that are the true Christian Churches Mourn for our own sins those sins which have provoked God so much to wrath against his true Churches in former times are beginning to be too rife among us therefore why may he not justly if we lay it not to heart in time deal so with us as of old with them so as to dischurch us so as to lay open our fence â—read down our hedge break down our Tower and expose his vine to every beast of the Forrest let us be zealous and repent and in secret let our souls weep for the abominations done in the midst of Sion let horror take hold on us and rivers of tears run down our eyes because men keep not Christs law le ts mend what we can and mourn for what we cannot mend and whilest as the Ranter and his Rout laughs our weak works to scorn on the one hand so the CCClergy and their Clients on the other puff at our Mechanick buildings as Sanballaâ— scoffed at the Iewes Neb. 4.1 2 3 saying in malice and mockage What do these feeble folk will they fortify themselves against our Orthodox Divines will they sacrifice without a Priest among them will they make an end in a day to reform which is many a years work for a learned Synod will they revive the stones even the dead bones of old Hereticks out of the heaps of rubbish that are burnt that which they build if a fox go up he shall even break down their stone wall le ts not be discouraged nor afraid to proceed in the way and work of the Lord let them laugh but let us weep for them as well as not spare to reprove them so far as we have any hope to reform them let them curse but let us blesse yea let us fast and pray not with Wednesday and good Fryday fasts and Lent'n Letanies nor with the Pharisees twice a week fasts who paid tith and refused to submit to Christs baptism nor yet with Jezebells fasts who set honest Naboath on high and accused him of blasphemy on that day with so much the greater advantage and finer pretence as if the Clergy did not when they obtained fasts against hereticks t will not repent them so much another time as some think it may yet of those repentances nor yet with the Jews fasts that fasted for strife and debate and to smite with the fist of wickednesse that hung down their heads for a day like a bulrush and thought God was half beholding to them for it because they spread sackcloath and ashes under them though they neither loosed the bands of wickednesse nor let the oppressed go free nor undid heavy burdens nor broak every yoak nor dealt their bread to the hungrie nor brought the poor that were cast to their houses nor coveted the naked when they saw them but rather hid themselves from their own flesh and hardned their hearts against the poor and heaped up riches for themselves and oppressed full as much and it may be much more then before shall we call these fasts and acceptable daies to the Lord Isa. 58 they are all abominable rather then acceptable Therefore let us fast as well from as for iniquity and what ever others do let us serve the Lord let us call for justice and plead for truth let us not defile our hands with blood nor our fingers wiith iniquity let our lips speak no lies nor our tongue mutter perversenesse let us not hatch cockatrice egges nor weave such spiders webs as have been woven in the Nations to entangle tender consciences in and make the poor harmlesse flies a very prey to their malevolent intentions so shall we cause our voice to be heard on high let us thus fast and pray and with fasting and prayer endeavour the casting out of every blind and deaf and dumb devil and beseech the Lord that the eyes of the Priesthood and their People may be opened to see their eares unstopped that they may hear the truth their tongues unloosed that they may be preachers of it indeed as now they are in pretence and in word onely and no more Christian Reader that ownest the truth if thou beest profited so as to discern between Christs way and the CCClergies more clearly then ever give God the glory for
Church and Schismaticks in the Church c. wherewith you astonish the vulgar but I protest this day before God and men not onely against him against whom you are Protestants also but against your selves also his Schismatical sons who own his ordinations and still walk in some of his ordinances viz. Rantism Parochial posture c. as those that are little lesse ignorant then he and his good sons of both the true Church and true peace thereof whilst the truth to which she should submit is not regarded by you and the very things that make a true visible Church and are de esse and constitutive of it so that abstract them and you null it viz. true matter i. e. believers baptized and true form i. e. free and not forced fellowship both which are so in the Churches of England Scotland Italy France and Spain are not onely wanting but also trodden under your feet Fourthly the peaceable way wherein we propagate these opinions were you as sure they are erroneous as I am that you 'l once find them to be truth will yet excuse and acquit us from all guilt of disturbing the peace of either the world or your Church which is the world in reference to the true one and unlesse you can say the Gospel of peace which where ere it comes occasions dissentions is the cause of them as in no wise it is but mens lusts rather that rage and take on against it you cannot say our Gospel is for it propounds them to the world in no other way then that and that way was no other then bare propounding them and as Christ and his disciples did not judge them here though they will judge them most severely hereafter who reject their words by the power of the Magistrate by the civil sword by nailing to pillories cutting off ears slitting noses whippings â—ines confiscations prisons bonds banishments fightings fire and fagot the bloody wayes whereby BBBabilon hath edified it self to that height of abomination the Arguments whereby the CCClergy were wont to convert Hereticks quickly from all error to dust and ashes so if any man hear our words and reject them well may we rebuke him sharply as they also did but we judge him not in that way whereby the Tribe of Levi that hath levied war for his lusts sake against the whole earth hath bereft all men of peace neverthelesse the words that we speak to him being those that Christ and his disciples have spoken in the world the same will judge him at the last day Secondly why sith it must needs be supposed there be many Godly men among the Ministers of the Nations though the most of them be wicked yet I do not except and exempt them when I inveigh so heavily against the CCClergy or why I do not rather forbear and spare to speak so broad at all and so generally as I do against that generation as an evill one for the sake of those good ones that are among them To which I say First that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 godly men properly are those onely that worship God aright i. e. according to his own will and institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which well weighed might possibly put the best men among you to your trumps to make good your title to that title and denomination of godly by Scripture record sith while you stand among the rest even you as well as the worst do preach and practise for doctrines of Christ some traditions of man if you had no more enjoined you by them on whom you wait for your instructions then barely the sprinkling of infants by which you make void what in you is the true baptism of Christ. Yet not denying but that there is a sprinkling of honest hearts quorum meliori luto finxit praecordia Titan whom the sun of righteousnesse as he lightens every man that cometh into the world hath hatcht up into a higher predicament of Godlinesse then their fellowees who are drawn up into some higher streins of devotion then the rest I adde further Secondly what are these littles to the lump what is the gleaning to the vintage here and there one good man to the whole corrupt crue of them that like Locusts and Caterpillars have spread themselves together with the smoak of errors over the earth in three several swarms or armies can some scores of well meaning Priests give the denomination of an holy PPriesthood godly Ministry to those legions of them that lie in wickednesse you may as well say there 's a million of Saints among the men of the world therefore reprove not the world for their sakes such as these who out of meer simple honestly rather then sinful sophistry and mystical iniquity do stand and act and argue against the true way as they do are Rarae aves very few to the multitude of humanists and sensual ones and subtle subverters of the Gospel which yet they would seem to be Ministers of for their own ends by whom they are commonly so hated too so far as they have any more strictnesse and sincerity then ordinary that they are among the other of their brethren as I was for querying after truth while I stood among them as owles and bats baited by other birds which few good grapes were they better then they are cannot denominate the whole vintage as una hirundo non facit ver BBBabilon is BBBabilon still and SSSodom is SSSodom and must be called so though Lot live in it and he called out of it too unlesse he mean mean to perish with it Thirdly those good men that are there the mores the pitty that they are so ought not to be suffered nor spared but spoke to the rather themselves and that very roundly too for being and abiding in a bad way and not the way it self and those many bad men that are in it scape declaring against as bad because of them there must be down-right dealing with upright men when they are in a wrong way and that indeed is the most upright dealing with them of all yea Sirs you that are upon the Account of these times for godly Ministers let me say this to you for verily I have sorrow of heart for some of you of my old acquaintance my own flesh and blood for whose sakes fâ—esh in me would fain be silent as knowing flesh in you would fain be let a lone but I must urge you to be serious in seeing how unsafely you satisfie your selves in your present fellowship with a carnal Clergy what make you among the prophane Ministry of the Nations that hath in all ages sate with such weight upon them as to sink them into a gulf of error so that all truth almost is heresie with them now and under hazard of being smoothered as soon as it peepes out from under that veil of traditions that hath covered it what make you keeping a Court of guard among the Babilonians to help to hold them in