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 though 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 infaellibility 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 noâ—… 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 us but it warrants us not to baptize any infants who can neither believe nor 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 moreclear and more tender opinion of them then your selves 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 out 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 baptismâ—… which charity teacheth us praesumere c. to believe and hope all things hope the best concerning all till ye see the worst especially since little 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 there being in the judgement of Charlty as undeserving damnation as others may be and are dying in infancy though this with you is as heinous a thing as to say 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 Dispuration 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 moity of the Christian world is cut off at once
rhe end and intent of Luke the historian and Peter the spokesman in that place was not to relate how many they would have yoaked with circumcision but the drift of Peter was onely to reprove the false teachers and of Luke onely to declare how Peter did â—…eprove them for offering so to subjugate and subvert the brethren for so they are called ver 1. even the very same persons which are called disciples ver 10. which shews also that by the word disciples he means not infants for they were persons capable to be taught yet this is the strongest hold you have whereby you argue infants to be disciples and taking it by force from thence that infants are disciples you run headlong with it to Mat. 28. 19. where Christ saies go teach or by teaching disciple the Nations baptizing them and from thence rest an argument for their baptism but I am ashamed that I must take occasion unlesse I le betray the truth to reprove the rudenesse of such renowned men and conclude all their conceits to the contrary notwithstanding that Mat. 28. 19. is no commission nor command for infant baptism It follows not therefore from the wonted circumcising of infants from which you Aâ—…hford Disputants dispute it that therefore they are to be baptized for this reason viz. because there was a command for the circumcising of infants but as I have shewd above none at all no not from Mat. 28. 29. nor Mark 16. 15. mucâ—… lesse from any other piece of Christs will and Testamenâ—… that they are to be baptized now But Mr. Marshal fetches it about another way yet and because Christs own Testament is somewhat barren of provision by 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 â—…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 nei ther 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 administratton 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 wherher 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 subject 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 Idenâ—…ity 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—…terable that there may be no variation of it withâ—…ut 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 thâ—… 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
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 they 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 â—…hou 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 eâ—…er 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 siâ—…h 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 to 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 tbe heart nor to confesse â—…in 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
believers or unbelievers nor both nor if of believers onely whether all or onely some of them have the spirit and faith I shall be as bold to deny it ever till they give some better specimen of it then the best infant that ever you or I saw did in that nonage wherein you sprinkle them specially so long as to the stark spoiling utter unsaying and clear contradicting of whatever your own selves would prove it by you are fain to confesse page 16. That all have them not and p. 18. Which have and which have not the spirit being no more bound to believers infants then others and no more bar'd from working in unbelievers infants than believers cannot be certainly presumed and that whatever the spirit may work in children yet this is not known to us so that there can be no conclusion made And howbeit this Argument being by your own concession thus crushed in the head i. e. this Prosyllogism turns about with his tail and thrusts at us therewith I mean this ensuing Syllogism viz. No Iustification nor salvation to them that have not faith But justification and salvation is to infants Ergo infants have faith Yet I return thus to your Major viz. that though there is no justification nor salvation without faith of such as are capable to believe and of whom to believe it is required yet of such as neither are capable nor called on to believe in order thereunto there may be and is a justification and salvation without it and this is the case of all dying infants in the world the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith and without obedience also in any thing else both which are in ordine ad vitam injoined to adult ones doth save dying infants or else innumerable of those infants are damned neither is this any new way for the salvation of infants dying in minority nor a grounding their salvaâ—…ion upon a figment and invention of our own braines nor such as the Scripture is altogether silent in nor such as destroyes the Gospel Covenant which is the righteousness of faith for howbeit it is true that the Scripture runs on this wise saying The just shall live by faith he that believes shall be saved he that believes not shall be damned and to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly his faith shall be accounted unto him for righteousnesse and twenty more such like expressions of the Gospel Covenant Rom. 1. Rom. 3. Iohn 3. c. as that which gives righteousnesse and life by faith only without the works of the Law yet I beseech you set your wits on work and see whether these Scriptures were written of infants or to them either or whether only of and to mens at years only to shew unto them on what terms the Lord will accept and save them in the Covenant and promise of the Gospel Me thinks your own reason should dictate thus much that all those places speak no more of infants then they speak to them in minority and that you will assuredly yield that they do not yea you may as well say these places viz. T is a people that have no vnderstanding therefore he that made them will not save them and he 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 â—…on 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 Adult is 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 heâ—…ring 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 Ursin 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
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 confesse 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 in fants 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 vote 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 Reasoâ—… 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 of themselves is as seems by your selves a faith and practise against Reason why else doth reason object against it Indeed the Papists are so unreasonable in sundry articles of their faith that they hold some things not onely above but against Reason and that 's the worst that can be said of the most absurd and abominable tenets that are amongst them and that is so bad that even thereupon the Protestant priesthood finds occasion enough to abhor them witnesse their Tenet of transubstantiation or real presence of Christs very body in the supper of which when we say how can this be its not onely against other articles of faith viz. his bodily ascention session and local mansion in heaven but also against common sense and reason it being in reason impossible that one body should be at once in two places as well as in consubstantiation it is for two distinct bodies viz. the bread and Christs body to be at once in one place they say much what as you say here and in the lines above viz. that howbeit its difficult to understand how it should be so in Reason yet if we had learnt to believe the Scriptures which in plain terms assert the thing saying of the bread this is my body we would believe it and leave the manner of its being so to him who saies it with whom all things are possible as we do in the articles of faith e g. the resurrection of the body not asking how it can be because the Scriptures have declared it The Reformists tell them again that the resurrection of the dead is a thing not onely in respect of God who can do all things save such as imply imperfection as to lie and die c. and contradiction for its impossible utterly that pure contradictories should be both true but also in respect of the thing it self possible to be effected but the ubiquity and the actual universal eating of one and the same numerical body and so smal a body too as that of Christs and at one and the same time in so many several places are matters and fancies savouring of such contradiction and so adverse to the very nature of God that as Kekerman system log p. 42. saies Ne deus quidem producerâ—… potest et logica e as e suis excludit ordinibus such as God doth not and Reason knows not O but saith the Papists nothing but humane reason judges this impossible and repugnant to other articles of faith to whom among other things our Divines use to reply that in matters of religion and faith and things of God reason is not to be laid aside as if we were to bring bare bruit sence i. e. blind implicit faith onely to the word of God but to be used by us that we may thereby as without which we cannot distinguish truth from falshood yea to speak yet in the very words of your own author in this case I mean Ursins Catachise to which you send us whose these words mostly are which I have already spoken see page 414. 415. For even therefore was reason given us of God that we might by the light of the mind discover contradictory opinions and clearly understanding what is agreeable to the word of God and what repugnant to it may imbrace this and refuse that Hoc nisi firmum maneat nullum erit dogma tam absurdum c. Unlesse this stand for granted no opinion though never so absurd and impious yea nothing in the sincks of all hereticks though never so impure and monstrous can be confuted out of the holy Scripture for hereticks and deceivers will reply their opinions do not contradict
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. Blâ—…kes 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 â—…o 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 men 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 baptâ—…zed 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 years not one of millions gives testimony of his faith without further instruction Nor should he of his reasonable soul not so much as in speaking if he be not taught Re-Review First the faculty of not onely believing in general but also in special of believing the Gospel of believing in Christ to justification is belike as naturally and necessarily in infants of believers as the faculty of reason it self so it seems by your talk why else is that frequent analogy made by you between these two and such frequent allusion in proof of one of them to the other as if whosoever deniâ—…s one of them viz. the grace of saving faith to be in such infants must needs also deny the other and as if whatsoever concludes against such infants being believeâ—…s concludes as much against their being reasonable creatures I am much amazed at your ignorance in this specially since your selves agree that all infants even those of Indians Turks and Pagans are reasonable creatures and yet that few not one of many infants are habitually believers as namely the infants of believers onely Secondly I blush at your rudenesse and folly in this also in that you assert that not one infant of millions should give any testimony of his reasonable soul i. e. ever evidence it that he is a reasonable creature when he comes to ripe years if he be not taught What Sâ—…s will children never shew themselves to be risible and so consequently reasonable by laughing when tickt and toid with in such minority as they are not capable to learn in if they be not taught and instructed how to laugh will they not shew themselves intelligible if not so much as in speaking which with you it seems is the first and least expression of reason in them yet not so much as by understanding what is spoken to them yea how think you must they not be imagined and understood in some measure to be understanding and so consequently to have reasonable souls before they can be rationally instructed at all for verily he is a fool unreasonable and of no understanding himself that offers to teach children to act any act of reason that is to be produced by teaching or to know their letters or to read or write before they can discern them to be at least intelligible and teachable in these things they are to be taught in and consequently to have reasonable souls Yea verily the faculty of reason is habitus naturâ innatus and naturâ notus a habit that comes by generation and puts forth it self into several acts of it self even so many as clearly testifie it to be in us before we are at capacity to be taught and whether ever we be taught any thing or no for a specimen of reason in us must be before we begin to be endoctrinated or else as good endoctrinate a brute creature but justifying faith or belief of the Gospel is such a habit of which we may not onely say as you do truly in the next page p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in the object of it in some sort must â—…o before any act of it can be discovered as whereby onely say you discovery of the habit can be made but also that instruction of the understanding in some sort must go before the habit of it can be in us at all for whether you will suppose it to come by infusion onely or by aquisition onely or both it comes not by nature and generation as reason doth but by teaching and instruction if we will believe the word which saith faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the
the other case this is the first way whereby you profess to prove infants of believing parentt 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 Iews had faith by setting to his seal which was circumcision called by the Apostle the seal of righteousuess 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 saving that you say so I am verily perswaded the veriest 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 teneat is 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 you Masters in Israâ—…l and know not this that â—…ircumcision 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 faithfulâ—… 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 Circuâ—…cision that iâ—… hath the same subjects and significaâ—…ions 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 t is clear because they have circumcision and baptism which are Gods witnesses seals or evidences to us that they have it this is not Idem per Idem the same by the same that is too effeminate a probation but t is eadem inter se or
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 pietie 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 your rantism though in infancy as circumcision was yet on what day you please besides the 8th sometimes after a fourt'night or a moneth and sometimes at the half year or years end Sixthly if as to the administrator it be ask quibus auxiliis by whose hands these ordinances are to be administred how different are they circumcision being dispensed by the Master Father or mother but as for baptism as you dispense it at least none but men in holy orders are to administer it in which you go not only besides the Gospel which records Ananias and Philip dispensing baptism who were but gifted disciples and neither of them in any orders to the ministery save that Philip was in office as a Deacon to look to the poor by vertue of which Deaconship if you Presbyters judge as the Bishops did before you that Philip baptized and not rather by his Discipleship I deem you will dote at last as much as they but also besides the Law you live by Seventhly if as to the account and warrant it be demanded Cur why they circumcised infants and why you baptize them how far do you fall short of the Jewes in this also for they had express precept and institution to circumcise infants over and over again repeated in Moses Testament besides the president of Abrahams own family the self same day wherein the command was given to circumcise all the males at eight daies old whereas if that which we call the New Testament be indeed the Register of Christs will there is as is confess by the most ingenuous of your coat witness Mr. Hunton at a publike dispute at Warbleton in Sussex neither one plain precept nor so much as one president of such a matter as baptizing infants God never appointed such a thing neither to speak in that figure in which God speaks of himself Ier. 19. 5. came it at all into his mind So like are circumcision your rule for baptism and your baptism which yoâ—… profess to act in by that rule of circumcision that to say the truth your run ouâ—… from your rule in every line you write after it so that I much wonder that you above all men should argue baptism comes in the room of circumcision so that they are both as one and the one must be ordered after the example of the other who in your baptism come no nearer circumcision then so For verily they meet one another very little nearer then in that general denomination of a sign or token of a Covenant in which the Rainbow may be said to be like them both That two things should be one thing for so with you your Rantism and circumcision are and yet be adequate well-nigh in nothing is riddle me what 's this with a witness And by all this we may see how forcible your Argument is that is drawn from the Analogy of baptism with circumcision which Argument your Dr. Featly saies may be truly called in regard of the Anabaptists Pons Asinorum a bridge which these asses could never pass over for to this day they could never nor quoth he hereafter will be ever able to yield a reason why the children of the faithful under the Gospel are not as capable of baptism as they under the law of circumcision p. 40. but by your leave through whom that Doctor being dead yet speaketh the Dialogy and discrepation that is between not only your Rantism as is above mentioned but also the true-baptism and circumcision is such a reason to the contrary as all the Classes of Clergy men combind together in one Synodicall Convention will never be able clearly to refute as long as they breath As therefore to the Argument of yours which I am now in hand with I come now directly to denie the consequence thereof for it follows not in any wise that because circumcision was by Gods appointment dispensed to little infants therefore baptism must be so now and that not only for those manie reasons above specified but even for this also because God did appoint that circumcision should be dispensed to infants under the Law but did never appoint anie such thing as that baptism should be dispensed to infants under the Gospel nor is there the least tittle in all the Testament of Christ tending to the manifestation of one crumb of commission for that matter Babist What you jest is not Mat. 28. 19. commission plain enough to baptism infants where all nations are bid to be discipled and baptized Baptist. That verie Scripture which is commonly conceived by you and consequently urged as Christs commission to baptize infants so plainly commissionates the very contrarie that if some self interest or other had not besotted you besides the true sence of the spirit in that place you could not be so abominably absurd as to argue infants baptism from sâ—…as you do for to say nothing here as anon happily I shall of the contradictorie doings that is among your prime pen-men and patrons of infant-sprinkling in their verdicts about this place some ventring to draw it in to the vindicating of that foppery some seeing they cannot thus maintain it willing enough to let it ly dead supposing themselves pretty well apaied from this place if they can but barely evade the receiving of bangs from it and therefore will not be too busie with it themselves but are content to assert no more then this from it that it is no prohibition of infants baptism Of this sort is Dr. Holmes who p 7. of his Animadversions disclaimes it to be Christs commission to the Apostles and D â— Featley who howbeit he is so
above out of Iohn 7. 22. 23. certainly Sirs that cause is none of Christs whose defendants are so hardly besteâ—…d 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 preseâ—…ce of some others it is not forbidden saies he therefore it is commanded to which it was answeted 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 sufficâ—…ently forbidden that of Philip to the Eunuch was made use of whose words if thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liâ—…et 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 such to be baptized as do not even as your selves being judges there 's not more permission for self examinants to eat the supper in that expression of Paul let a man axamine himself and so let him eat then there is prohibition of all such to approach in that service that are neglective of self examination but all this would not then be accepted for an answer without an express Sillabicall formal forbidding it in such words viz. ye shall not baptize infants by the way I wonder where the express prohibition was for circumcising females if it lye not vertually in this viz. that there 's no command nor example for circumcising them whereupon in our after and occasionall discourse that night I calling for an express prohibition of that popish practise of baptizing bells it was returned in sense I am sure as I remember in words to this purpose viz. that if it were not forbidden then it might be done but it was forbidden in this respect forasmuch as bells were not capable of baptism to which I said nor infants neither and so we parted since when I never saw him nor now shall since he is departed this life till we meet before the Tribunall seat of Christ in that life which is to come And least all this should be of as little weight with others as it was with him I shall adde a little by way of proof that there 's prohibition enough of infants baptism in case it be not clearly commanded For First what is not commanded of God is but tradition of man for which men shall have no thank for their labour Mat. 15. 9. Secondly neither are we altogether without such positive prohibition as may be sufficient to satisfie you at least who hold the command for circumcision of infants to be a command for the baptizing of them in order to your understanding of which I shall refer you to Act. 21. 21. where its said of Paul that he taught all the Iews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk after the customes In which Scripture I beseech you in the fear of God to observe how t is rehearsed that three things were most expressely forbdiden as unlawful for the Iews themselves much more to any believing Gentiles under the dayes of the Gospel by Pauls preaching First they were forbidden in general to follow Moses i. e. to live after his law and testament any longer they are charg'd to forsake Moses Secondly in particular they were forbidden to circumcise their children that being indeed a business the Jews still so doted on that of all things they were unwilling to let it go which by the way shews us plainly that there was nothing injoyned to be done to infants in the room of it as some but simply conceive baptism was by Peter Act. 2. in order to their comfort under the losse of the other for if there had then surely it would have been specified and Paul would have preached thus to the Jews the more easily to weane them from that antient custome of circumcising their children specially considering how loath they were to part with it viz. you ought not to circumcise your children now but instead thereof to baptize them and this may well serve in liew of and satisfie you under losse of the other as being not so painful a service but an easier sign and that of better things then those promised in the Covenant of circumcision but he saies no such matter if he had there would have been doubtlesse less ado then it should seem there was to bring the Iews off from that practise of circumcising their infants of which even after they believed they were so zealous as not to hear of the abrogation of it without offence for this would surely easily have contented and satisfied them if they might have had their children baptized as of old they were circumcised but this doubtlesse made them so difficult to be perswaded to a forbearance of circumcising there infants because they saw the gospel had no answerable dispensation belonging to their infants in the place of it Thirdly in general again they were forbidden to walk so much as after the manner of Moses for the word here rendred customs is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same that is used in the singular number Act. 15. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is there rendred after the manner of Moses which word after the customes or after the manner of Moses prohibits not onely all observation of those ordinances of the law it self but also all walking after the same fashion way and manner as the ordinances of the law were administred in here 's not only an injunction of non-conformity to the law it self but prohibition of all conformity to the manner of it they are not onely taught not to do the same things that were done under Moses but also not to do under the Gospel in the same way and fashion as of old they are not onely bid not to circumcise children but also not to walk after the manner of circumcision or after the customes of the law and therefore consequently not to baptize children now which practise you of the
the works of Abraham i. e. believe not on him that justifyes them as some of you doâ—…e 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 unâ—…ound 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 wrest 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 â—…unck 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 〈◊〉 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 dâ—… omni and being universale summum or God shouldly 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 fleshly seed did not make the Gospel promise to him and his fleshly seed but onely that 〈◊〉 of his that believes with him can we think that he made that promise to the Gentile believer and his fleshly seed for his fathers sake unlesse he have faith of his own Babist No we do not say without respect to his own faith but as the believers seed shall believe so it s made to him as well as to his parents Baptist. So it s made to the unbeliever and his seed also viz. as they shall believe as well as to either of the other and by that account you may baptize all the world Again none of the Jews though the natural seed of Abraham and partakers of all the ordinances of the old testament as Abrahams children could be admittted to be baptized upon that same natural relation though they pleaded it never so stisfly Mat. 3 but only on manifestation of amendment besides that 3000 converts should not baptize their children when they were baptized themselves as Abraham by command took all his males and cirmumcised them the self same day with himself argues plainly that both the covenant and the promise as Mr. Marshal saies truly as to the manner of administration was now changed and not continued to parents and children both alike but as they both alike believed And that these were not baptized with their parents I take Mr. Cotton at his word who as I have shewed before confesses it and if he should not stand to his testimonie herein yet these words viz. as many as glady received the word were baptized which exclude infants and were an imperfect relation if he meant not onely them that received the word are so cogent that they cannot but compell him So I have escaped two of your bullets and as for the third viz. that the Gospel which is a better Covenant would be far worse if believers children be not counted in it and have not right to baptism and membership as well as the Iews children and be valued but as Turks and Pagans this is so sick of the same disease of absurdity with the rest that I fear not its doing much execution besides we have lamed it before having told you before and proved it too and now will again that the exclusion of the fleshly seed from this Covenant and administration which was taken into the first doth not lessen or straiten the grace of God under it at all not render this covenant worse then the first contrary to Heb. 8. 6. the place twice quoted by you where it s called a better for the meliority there spoken of of this covenant above that lies not so much in the extension of the grace of it to such subjects as in the meliority of its promises for this is a better covenant still then the other who ere it belongs or belongs not to forasmuch as it makes better promises then the other viz. of a heavenly Canaan and all spiritual blessings in and by Iesus through faith when that promised an earthly Canaan onely and certain temporal blessings therein on performance of those tedious services of the law T is true theirs in this sense and thus farre was a Covenant of great grace too as t was made freely to that people above other nations for he did not so to any people else concerning outward benefits and such statutes and judgements as should on their observation of them not onely continue them therein but as a shadow type and schoolmaster conduct them to this yet greater is the glory of the Gospel covenant which now is so that the other had no glory in respect of this glory that excelleth therefore the grace of God under the covenant to them that are under it is greater also Besides if you speak not onely of the intention but
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 gâ—…at 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 â—…ruer then 〈◊〉 it is no matter if it were neveâ—… 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 â—…at 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 wordâ—… 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 Caepâ—…as 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 â—…igh wish he had baptized none of them at all when he saw their carnall glories in the persons administring and blesse God that he baptizd 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 baptized 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 it then t will if we put you to it to disprove a lineal succession of our baptism for if we cannot name the particular persons that baptized one another in this way wherein we do it successively from the persons of the Apostles in answer to this question who baptized you and who him and who him and so upwards till we come thither are you able if we ask you who sprinkled you and who him and who him and who him c. to particularize more punctually then we are you able to assign who began our way of baptism first of all in the world unlesse you begin as high as Iohn the baptist nay verily though Dr. Featley would fain father it upon Stock yet it s most manifest unto you all that infants sprinkling was denied by some ever since it was known to have a being for it was controverted in the daies of the fathers and that it would not have been had there been none that had then denied it and denied it could not be by any but such as pleaded the baptism of believers in those times and were the right way baptized themselves You have not one president of one infant sprinkled nor proof that such a thing was so much as talked on for at least an hundred years after Christ but we are most certain and your selves cannoâ—… deny it that the baptiâ—…m of believers began at Iohn the baptist and the Apostles and if we could prove a succession of it de facto no further downwards then so yet it is enough to us that we find it then was so whereby to prove that it ought to have been so in all ages since and is to be de jure at this day One word more and then we have done with this if none at all save such as are baptized themselves may in any case dispense baptism to others save such also as are by ordination true ministers of the Gospel then your selves who pretend solely to the title of baptizing are no right administrators as being in truth neither baptized nor ordained in such wise as the Scripture requires that your baptism is null I have cleared it enough already and that your ministry is no lesse is apparent sith whilst you indeavour to derive it from the Apostles you can derive it thence no other wise then the Pope doth his for if a line of succession be a proof of true ministry you may indeed derive it as well but not one jot better then he he can shew you his line of succession if not from Peter yet at least from Linus himself that lived in the daies of the Apostles and you can shew us the line wherein you came from the Pope and so through his loines from the other there is no other way for your ministry to prove its pedigree from the Primitive times but this no way for you to climb up to the Apostles as the fathers and founders of your function but by a chain of many
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 moee 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 Coâ—…diutor 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 a spersion 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 that total dipping was not the way of the primitive baptism viz. because the conversion of disciples and so consequently their baptism hapned sometimes to be when there was no season for dipping the element of water being over cold for that service he speaks thus in way of answer to an objection viz. if any object that in those Hotter Countryes there was no danger in the coldest times I answer saith he The Commission being for all nations disciples were made in all Countries how soon came the word to this nation c. In which words he is void of common sense that doth not discern Mr. Blake siding with us saying that the way of baptism should be one in all ages and places and asserting quite contrary to his fellow disputers against dipping so far as to confute them to our hands for whereas they all uno ore with one consent cry out that the reason why they baptized by dipping in the primitive time was because Judea and the regions round about were Hot Countryes but England is a colder climate and therefore we need not baptize the same way as they dâ—…d he Tells them plainly that the heat of those Countries could be no reason why they should use totall dipping then more then other nations because the commission for baptizing was one and the same to all Nations and disciples were then made in all Countryes as well as in Iudea in cold Countries as well as in hot yea how soon saies he came the word to England it self baptism therefore in his account should be the same in England as in Iudea not by dipping in Iudea more then in England because that was a hot Country and this a colder but the commission is a like in all places cold and hot this is the sense those words of his sound forth but if Mr. Blake were silent in this case the Scripture speaks loud enough that there is but one baptism for all Nations and no Rantism ordained for any for then the commission must include Christs willingnesse to dispense with colder climates in this point and in our understandings at least run thus viz. go and teach all nations baptizing them that live in hotter countryes and rantizing them that live in colder climates he that believeth and is baptized if he live in Iudea or any Hotâ—…er Countrey or is but rantized if he live in England or any cold Countrey shall be saved in which silly unsound sense to understand those Scriptures is to be silly indeed and without either sense or understanding and yet thus it may be understood if this be the
strein'd and sold as poor folks kettles pots pans and platters are by the Priests and their publican tith-gatherers to pay them You tell us that the first Ministers were gifted from God to preach the Gospel extempore and therefore well might they work and yet easily preach the Gospel too but the Ministers now must attain to it by much study and hard pains and therefore had need to be sequestred wholly from all earthly imployments that they may give themselves wholly to that work of preaching and to have such sufficiency of means allowed them as may free them from all thoughts of other things and furnish them to buy abundance of books without which tooles you say in 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 else 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
dies Christ shews all mens labour in their religion is lost by reason of it in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the traditions of men the Apostle shuts heaven against it 5. Gal. and twice over denounces cursing to any yea angels from heaven that preach any other then what they preached and I am sure they never preached infant sprinkling yea whoever is an heretick vel dandi vel auferendi saâ—… in either excesse or defect by adding or taking away from the word God will add the plagues upon him that are written in that book and take away his name out of the book of life Saint Austin saith of Arrius how true that saying is I say not but t is an argument Adhominem a good item however for every one that is any other way Antichristianus that his paines are increased in hell as oft as any one thorough his hereâ—…e is seduces from the faith therefore va vobis Scribae Sacerdotes c. 〈◊〉 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 tyrannical truth treaders 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 losâ—…s 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 Oh What comfort had it been to have had the Son of God walkiâ—…g with us may the Christian 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 finem I say what comfort would it have been to have had not onely the name but the spiritual presence of Christ preserving for those that were consumed in that divellish devastation but alas the Herestes 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 rise 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 senceâ—… tread down our hedge break down our â—…ower 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 Sanballat scoffed at the Iewes Neh. 4. 1 2 3 saying in malice and mockage What do these feeble folk will they fortify themselves against our Orthodox Dâ—…vines will they sacrifice without a Priest among them will they make â—…n 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 â—…bish 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 â—…th 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 thenacceptable 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
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 flesh 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 captivity still at least in the Suburbs and by the borders of Babilon where you yet linger and loiter for all your pretences and protestations to go quite home with them that are resolved foâ—… Sion what mean you to stand so neer in affinity as to make one spiritualty one spiritual fraternity with such flâ—…shly minded men as the main body of the national ministry consists of in all Europe for t is evident you 'l enter into the lists and make head with the worst of them even with the Pope himself against any further discoveries of truth then will stand with your standing among them though the Lord makes out the truth more clear and you seem in your prayers to desire him so to doâ—… 〈◊〉 yea I am almost ashamed to utter what I see I see preciseness and prophaness go hand in hand to keep out the true Righteousness indeed So that if I speak to the whole body of the CCClergy throughout the earth as very often I do yet I bespeak you no otherwise then I find you viz. whether for this or for that in particular yet all banded in one general body against the truth for as Herod and Pilate though at enmity could yet agree as friends against Jesus so you though of never so different complexions and constitutions lives and conversations doctrines and disciplines forms and fashions and goverments and Gospels yet are all friends to Christs crucifying in his disciples yea how implacably are you at odds among your selves one sort of you being for the supremacy of the Pope another for the Super-intendeny of the Bishop a third for the superstitions of the Synods others for they scarce know which and they care not what but as the temper of the times doth dispose them some Rantizing infants from one ground viz. because its a tradition some denying that and disclaiming it as both a rotten and false one yet Romanizing still from some other some and those the most more loose a few more strict in their manners notwithstanding all which variety you are at unity still i. e. at emnity against the Gospel of Christ. But should you help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord surely wrath will be upon you with them from the Lord If you Iehosophats i. e. the honest Presbyters in whom good things are found who have taken away the groves and much more of that Romish rubbish then your father Asa i. e. the good old Bishops did before you if you good Iehosaphats I say will after all this join with the wicked Ahabs that trouble Israel in imprisoning the Michaiahs at least by a silent assent and with the Ahaziahs that do wickedly so as to lay your heads together for ship-loads of Gold 2 Chron. 3. 31. 19. 2. 20. 35. 26. 38. for more means and maintenance saying to them we are in this point as you are our people as your people our parishes as your parishes our Articles of faith herein as your Articles of faith our way of maintenance as yours and we will be with you in the warre to reduce the Giliadites the sectaries that should be subject to us to our obedience your ships and all your projects works and councels will be broken and disappointed as the others what ever may become of your persons true men in a false way are out of Gods protection as well as hypocrites in a true Therefore depart ye from the tents of those ungodly men yea arise and depart from that Papistical posture of parish Churches and Pastoral relation to such as are not sheep which not Christ Iesus but the Pope stated men in at first for this is not your rest because it is polluted it will destroy you with a sore destruction whereupon come out from them and be ye seperate yea come out of her come out of her ye that are Christs people for Christs Ministers you are not though never so good men by Antichrists orders and partake no longer with her in her sins least ye partake also of her plagues Fourthly the Godlinesse and honesty of mens persons doth not prove the goodnesse and truth of the outward form and way of Church-order they are in nor must hinder the overturning it if false who will say many of these under the Episcopacy were not good men if good men stand in a bad place soil or posture they have so much the more need to be removed as trees and transplanted into a better for many of you Presbyters that go for godly were as godly every joâ—… while you stâ—…d in that false Episcopal form as now and some of you somewhat more for it s much to be feared that the settling of you in the same Hierarchy over the faith and chair of infallibility here in England out of which you justled the Bishops and they but an age above removed the Pope and the enjoyment of so much of their means hath been a means of abating much of your godlinesse and righteousnesse too if ever you had any or else the Priest surely would not so have so soon forgot that ere he was Clark as to have gone about so high Presbytery did but that God prevented him of his purpose so soon as ever he was gotten out of his own growning condition and kept from the clutches of those that crusht him to crush those that groan'd under him for the same liberty of conscience out of Smectimnus his own mouth There were therefore if not as many good men yet many as good men and to their then light sincere souls owning Prelacy and some its like owning the Papacy it self as may seem to be among you that now disown both yet did not this forbid you nor stop your mouths from using sharp invectives against their Authority as usurped their Government as ill their spiritual Courts consistories and seveveral sessions as spiteful to the truth their wayes as violent against tender consciences that could not close with them their Liturgies Ordinations administrations of Ordinances Baptism and