that thou maiest remember it another time that Ierusalem is thus and thus scituated and then when he comes to age without any more resemblance of it to him in the map to indoctrinate him in what was done in his iafancy and bid him reflect back and call to mind what was shewn him in that map in which it was manifested to him what manner of city Ierusalem was and other such like ridiculous stuff and prate of the things so long since done that they are now flown both out of sight and mind even such and no better is it yea such piteous poor and meer painted piety is it for persons whether Priests or parents to stand prating to and ore poor ignorant infants and signing them at a Font or Bason whilest if they be not a sleep as my owâ—… silly experience teaches me they have been many a time while I have been sprinkling them in the midwives or the mothers armes yet they are at best no better then asleep because as heedless of what 's done saying to them very seriously by name as if they would have them mind what is said Thomas â—…nne c. I baptize thee in the name of the Father c. in token of remission of sins and then to sign them with the sign of the Cross in token to them still that hereafter when it is impossible they must by what is now so clearly manifested to their senses understand and remember that they must not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. and then when they are grown up to set them to School to the Font again and wish them to learn by what was once done to them there that this and that is signified saying you must understand that Christ was crucified dead and raised for the remission of your sins and that you are now to leave your sins to dy to them live a holy life take up your cross and follow him and all these things I now inform you in by word of mouth you must call to mind how they were most plainly manifested to you and lively evidenced to your very external senses and thereby to your internal senses in your baptism which is a visible sign to you and a most sensible demonstration therof a most lively preaching and resembling of them before your eies these things you must remember by the same token that you had once such a most not able remarkable memorable matter done unto you so long since that you cannot possibly observe perceive discover remember that ever it was done at all but as we tell you Babist This reflects with no small disparagement on the wisdome of God in appointing the sign circumcision to be set to infants even in their infancy Baptist. No such matter for God did not appoint it to be set to infants for any such end or use as to be a sign of any thing to infants themselues in their infancy but when at age Babist Nor do we set baptism to infants for any such end as to signifie any thing to them in their infancy but when they come to years Baptist. Circumcision being a permanent mark in the flesh remained Gen. 17. 13. and though set in infancie yet was a sign visible to the persons to whom it was set and to be seen by them as long as they lived but to baptism being a transient thing which vanishes soon after the dispensation without making or leaving any mark or impression upon the body whereby any one that nores it not while dispensed to him can possibly be capable to note it another time it is gone and lost and can be no sign to him any more for ever A permanent sign may be set at any time without prejudice to their use of it as a sign to whom it is set but the use of a transient sign must be made when it is set and it must be set at such times when its subject is capable to catch the meaning of it whilest it passes before the sences and upon occasion to recollect an Idea of what was done or else it perishes from being a sign to those persons from thenceforth even for ever Babist Then Circumcision might have been as well for born till the persons were of years the use being not made till then yet God who doth nothing in vain and out of season did for all that enjoin it long before why therefore may not baptism by the like reason Baptist. Besides that baptism is transient and that permanent which is enough to satisfie in this particular there was much other use and end for which circumcision was rightly dispensed to the infants of the Jews for which there 's not the like reason in baptism as namely to distinguish and sign them out to be what they were viz. heirs of the kingdome by birth Babist That is the very end on which we baptize infants and no other viz. to sign and distinguish the seed of believers from the seed of unbelievers and sign them out to be what they are by birth and what when they come to years they learne that they were made in Baptism viz. heires of the Kingdome of Heaven Baptist. When you have the same evidence of believers seed in infancy that the Jewes had of theirs viz. that they are heirs of the kingdom then I will allow you to do as they did viz. to sign and distinguish them as such but of the one of these you have evidence in nonage not so of the otherâ—… the kingdome that the Jews by very nature were heirs of according to the promise was that of the Earthly Canaan of which and that as a type they were apparent heirs by no other then very natural birth and that so soon as ere they were born and therfore full well within a while might they be signed But that which you take upon you so timely to sign persons as heirs to in baptism is the Antitype or heavenly Canaan which no creature is an apparent heir to according to the Gospel promise upon meer natural birth of any parents whether Jew or Gentile till he appear to us unless he dy before he hath deserved exemption by actual transgression and then Charity teaches us to hope as well of all as of one to be born by faith in Christ which birth if any infants were capable of it as to us none are yet because we cannot presume which have it and which not the workings of the spirit being so unknown to us that there can be no conclusion made we cannot by dispensation give right distinction but as in the type they sign'd them well nigh as soon as they were born with that natural birth of Abraham Isaac and Iacob after the flesh upon which alone they were heirs by promise of that earthly Canaan so we sign them so soon as they appear to be born with that birth of Christ by faith by which they are heirs of the true Canaan and that 's all the
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-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
relation to this case yet I do believe that whole housholds might sometimes be baptized then as well as now they are from whence yet it will not follow that infants were baptized yea whole thousands were baâ—…d sometimes in one day and yet no infants among them and that all thâ—…â—…sholds you so often instance in either had no infants in them or if they had yet none baptized however is evident enough to those that are not blind if â—…ll â—…e particular instances be examined As for the Iaylor the Apostles who never used to preach to infants spake to him the word of God and to all that were in his house the effect of whose preaching was not onely his rejoicing and belief but the belief of all his house also as well as the baptism of all his house together with him Act. 16. 32. 33. 34. And as for Crispus whose houshold is not reported to be baptized though no doubt they were so it s said that all his houshold believed in the Lord as well as he Acts 18. 8. and as for such as were baptized with Cornelius which were more then they of his own houshold that none of them were infants t is evident forasmuch as they were all both ready and capable to hear and the holy spirit fell on them all in hearing the word so that it was evident to Peter and as many as came with him that they imbraced the glad tidings of the Gospel upon the account of whose gladly receiving the word onely and that apparently Peter saies who can forbid water why these may not be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Act. 10. 44 to 48. And as for Stephanus's houshold as they are said 1 Cor. 1. 16. to have been baptized so are they all said to have addicted themselves to minister to the Saints which are actions exclusive of Infants 1 Cor. 16. 15. besides if housholds must needs be taken as comprising infants then that phrase salute the houshold of Onesiphorus 2 Tim. 4. 19. must be taken so to and wâ—…at absurdity were it to tell Cradle-bed-Infants that Paul the prisoner remembred his respects unto them as for that of Lydia as its likely enough she then had none so no man knowes whether ever she had any husband at all if she had she might have no children if she had children she might be an antient widow whose children were grown up to believe wiâ—…h her and besides that those of her houshold whether children or servants or both that were baptized with her were not infants but adult disciples is evident both by that compellation viz. the brethren a denomination never given to them and mostly because they were such as the Apostles did actually comfort as we never find they did any infanâ—…s in their infancy Act. 16. 14. 40. By all which by that time you have laid it to heart so little ground will be left you from all these instances for the baptizing of infants that it may without crouding be well written within the inside of a cherry-stone And now whereas Mr. Marshal more downrightly then rightly denies that children did eat the passeover which most undoubtedly they did I demand of him why if housholds be a term so conclusive of infants when its said housholds were baptized the same word doth not as much conclude children when its said housholds did eat the passeover Babist Mr. Marshal himself gives you good reason for that p. 40. of his Sermon the Argument saith he from the term houshold is not so strong to prove that infants did eat the passeover as it is to prove they may be baptized because no other Scripture shews that the passeover doth belong to children but we have other plain Scripture proving that baptism belongs to infants as well as grown men Baptist. I remember indeed that Mr. Marshall speaks thus yea more and more absurdly then thus doth he speak p. 219. in his reply to Mr. Tombos viz. that we shall never find so good evidence out of the housholds eating the passeover Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eat the passeover as this proves that the â—…nfants of the house were baptized but I must tell him first that what influence other Sciptures give toward the proof of either one or the other makes these never the stronger simply and in themselves so but that their particular strength and weaknesse stands the same but Secondly how dares Mr. Marshall say there 's no other Scipture save that is not that one particular sentence wherein the word houshold is exprest as eating the paschal lamb enough specially when the next verse or the latter part of the same verse viz. Exod. 12. 4. saies plainly that it was to be taken and eaten according to the number of souls in the house and by every one according to his eating and if the family were too little to eat it they should join families together are not children exprest undeniably here are they not among the number of souls capable to eat every one pro suo modulo according to the measure of his eating and digestion and doth not this evince as much for women And whereas for the exemption of women not as holding these did not eat it but to secure himself the more from that deadly wound which he is aware will light upon him if he grant that children did eat the passeover viz. our arguing upon him from thence to their right to the supper acccording to his own arguing from infants circumcision to their baptism he brings this reason viz. because according to us they were not circumcised and no uncircumcised person might eat the passeover I have to or three things to say to it First that phrase no uncircumcised person shall eat it must either necessarily be understood concerning those uncircumcised ones onely who were both capable of circumcision and of whom circumcision was required or else Secondly it must be understood that the females were accounted as vertually circumcised in the males Thirdly that very phrase that excludes all and onely such uncircumcised ones from the passeover as were capable of circumcision and of whom it was required serves us against you thus far however as to include and enright all them to the passeover that were circumcised and so if women did not as none need doubt but that they did yet all circumcised males and consâ—…quently male children as soon at least as they were capable to eat were under a right to eat the passeover and so as to prove you who deny them the supper to be ingaged in the guilt of diminishing Gods grace and robbing poor infants of their right as well as we if your own arguments be true viz. that to deny such dispensations to infants under the Gospel the answerable ones to which were dispensed to them under the law is to lessen the grace of God in the Gospel Covenant and make it straiâ—… then
answeâ—…ed again in Mr. Blackwoodâ—… rejoinder p. 30. Nor yet to speak of the jarrs that are between the grounds upon which our modern Dieines plead infant baptism and those of the antient fathers as Cyprian and such others viz. his 66. Bishops which are so filly and ridiculously superstitious that I am perswaded our Divines who live in these dayes wherein truth is comming from under those clouds which then it was comming under are ashamed of them and therefore invent what new ones they can and let them alone thus mangling the Fathers and quaâ—…rtering to their own use what they please out of them and even deifying some whilest they defy others of their sayings receiving their words and witnesse in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that infant-infant-baptism ought to be as right and rare rejecting their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or reasons why it should be as unsound too rank stark nought refuse and rotten but not to meddle I say with these discoâ—…ds here my intent is rather have patience with mâ—… whilst I do it but do it I must whether you take it patiently or no to discover the deep discord that is between you modern Divines among your selves which till you are better agreed will make you uncapable of ever subjecting others again unto your dictates in infants baptism Babist Is it not a marvel that so many eminent Divines industrious in the study of this Argument should so unanimously jar with their own principles and not be able to discern it but all those many must leave it to you to discover it Baptist. So saies Mr. Blake indeed p. 41. of his repulse in a luâ—…ory way to Mr. Blackwood to whom I seriously reply yea t is a mighty marvel indeed to see such an heap of witnesses concur so well together by the years as all your famous Oxthodoxists do in their dâ—…ctrine about infant bapâ—…ism some teaching one thing others clean contradictory â—…o that and yet all remaining orthodox still for all this Really Sirs such a shamefull conjunglement is to be found in your positions about the grounds you profess to go upon in this point as will in time though now you will not see it make you all amazed one at another that ever such a marvellous work and wonder should faâ—…l out among you as in the just judgement of God for your teaching his fear after mens precepts there doth at this day viz such a hiding of understanding from the prudent that even the princes of Zoan should be befooled confounded contradicted by none more then themselves and yet not take notice of it Sirs you had need to Synodize one year more and to Catechise one another into a little more Concordâ—…nce about your principles before you Catechetically impose that practise upon whole nations unless your grounds were more agreeable then they are with both the word and each other for some of you preach up that your practise and plead it with all your might from 1 Cor. 7. 14. taking the word hoâ—…y there as it stands in Deut. 7. 6-14 2-26 19. and other places where it is most evident that it signifies a people consecrated to God in the same way as the Priests Temple Altar Sacrifices and all things then under the law were and now nothing at all is and yâ—… I have known some of you again that have acknowledged the words sanctifyed and holy in 1 Cor. 7. 14. cannot be taken in any such sense but in that very sense wherein we take them yet supposing infants-baptism to follow from other places Some of you preach it up and plead it with all your might from Mark 10. â—…3 c. as if you did believe and would make folks believe that the children that were then brought to Christ were baptized either by him or his disciples and truly if you believe it not what is that Scripture then to your purpose nay it makes more strongly against you for if these very infants that were brought to and blessed by Christ himself to whom you say he declared the Kingdome to belong were not baptized your presumption is very high who dare baptize other infants of whom you have no such testimony yea some of you say that their bringing to Christ for imposition of hands doth suppose them to have been baptized before they came I wonder by whom witnesse Dr. Holmes p. 61. 63. yet some of you again confesse the contrary viz. Mr. â—…otton p. 9 of his grounds and ends whom Dr. Holmes so justifies and magnifies who in confutation of him saies thus That it doth not appear that the Fathers that brought these infants were baptized themselves and therefore neither might their children be baptized according to rule And yet both Mr. Cotton and his neighbour Mr. Cobbet also and eveâ—… every one else almost that writes or speaks as well as you Ashford Disputants make mighty ado but nihil ad rhombum from that place also Some of you plead the sprinkling of believers infants for none else must be sprinkled by the Popes confession only he takes believers not in so strict a sense as some do from Aâ—…t 2. 39. suppoâ—…ing that those to whom Peter said the promise is to you and to your children were believers and already in the faith even then when he thus bespake them which if they were t were nothing to your matter witness Mr. Vahan of Smarden at the Dispute at Aâ—…hford whose Arguments being it seems none of the most material are excluded from your Account whose supposition was supported with a position as false and silly as it self yet is it a maxime with the Clergy that was then blerted out from among you viz that the desire of grace is grace in refutation of which your doctrine appeal was made by your Respondent to the people whether the desire of Drink was Drink and whether because they all desired to go to heaven therefore they were at heaven others again acknowledge the truth in this viz. that the men were yet in unbelief while Peter spake that to them as Mr. Cotton p. 35. of his grounds who saith thus when he calleth man to believe or to repent he cometh to them not as having faith and repentance but as wanting both and Mr. Prigg also who hastiâ—…g into the help of Mr. Vahan at the Ashford disputation happily more then heartily help the Respondent against Mr. Vahan and himself too by his plain contradiction of the other and conjunction with the Respondent in that viz. that the men to whom Peter then spake in presenti the promise is to you and your children c. were not yet in the faith but the promise was made to them as they who yet did not should believe i. e. in futuro for by your favour Gentlemen if it be thus then it should seem and so t was told you then but you would not hear it that the promise of remission of sins though it be made good to believers and none else no not to
the word of God but onely it seems so to humane reason You see then how among your own writers the foundation of faith and true religion is laid not onely in the Scripture as the rule and fountain whence we fetch all but secondarily in sound Reason also improved in way of trial of things by it as without which no use can be made of Scripture so that though some Divines proclaim it to the whole world for so do your selves in this place that Reason it self is against them in their way and consequently that their way is against Reason and many Divines confesse their faith and religion in some articles and particles of it to be above Reason which is but a gentlâ—…-gigg too if by above Reason they mean so as that Reason cannot comprehend how they are at least conceive them possible so to be yet however farewel such a faith for ever for me as Reason fights with and far be it from me either to do or believe any thing against reason for as they that see not good ground in reason to believe what they believe can never be alwayes ready as every Christian ought to render a reasonable answer to such as ask them a Reason of the faith that is in them and are at best but implicit in believing so they who believe not only without and beyond but even against Reason it self opposing them in their faith are most unreasonable believers indeed and such as shall find that Reason as easily as they think t is answered will make good what objection it makes against the most unreasonable of them all but to leave this and to come to the discourse or ratiocination it self which followes between Reason and reasonlese for what else can I fitly stile such an Antagonist as stiffens himself against Reason and counts it nothing to refute it yea t is done here in your Review for satisfaction to the Reader as you say but t is undone again in the Re-review to the undeception of the deceived and the deceiver The objections of Reason and replies of reasonlesse and re-replies of Reasons friend are as followes Review 1 Infants have no knowledge of good or evil Ergo no faith By the same reason they should be denied to have the faculty of understanding the exercise of their faculty they have not no more have they of their faith not the act but the habit as was said before Re-Review Good Sirs consider what a reasonlesse reply to reason this is For if by faith you mean only a faculty of believing what ever in time may be told them which is the adaequate object of faith in general that is in all reasonable creatures and is de esse to them universally innate in them as a part of the rationall soul as well as the faculty of remembring what in time they may hear and of willing and chosing what in time may be propounded to them and of understanding what in time may be taught them but what is all this to your purpose who plead faiths being in some infants onely not in all when as faith in that sense is as much in all infants as in some and would if it could at all entitle such as have it to baptism entitle all mankind to baptism as well as some sith all have the faculty of believing things as beasts which are meerly sensitive have not flowing naturally from the rationall soul in man But if by faith you mean restrictively that faith in special whose adequate object is the word of God preached in the promise and precept of it which onely makes us subjects of salvation and baptism dare you say that t is of equal necessitie and certainty that faith in such a sense is in infants as the faculty of Reason and understanding is so that by the same Reason that we deny one of these to be in them it may be therefore denied that they have the other and that their non knowledge of good or evill will as much prove them to be habitually no reasonable creatures as it proves them to be habitually no true believers of the Gospel For shame Sirs blot out and abjure this absurdity for you cannot but know that the faculty of understanding in man is Habitus a natur â innatus a habit ingendred in them in very nature yea in all mankind necessarily qua id ipsum but your selves say faith in the sense in which we speak of it is but Habitus infusus a habit infused and that into some only for all say you have it not and I say t is Habitus acquisitus rather an acquired habit which comes if not without the gift of God to persons therein yet also in that way of hearing the word which on our parts is first done in order to its being begotten in us whereby we come to know good and evil first i.e. to be convinced of sin and guilt in our selves and righteousness and mercy in God through Jesus Christ and then to have faith in him to justification in this therefore Reason remains unrefuted and rather routs you then is routed by you Review 2. Their dislike at baptism testifyed by their crying if they had faith they could endure it with much patience The same reason might be brought against circumcision children when they felt the pain it is likely cried as much Besides we must denie faith to be in the best of Gods children if their sense under the cross and their complaing of it be an argument to conclude against it against the weaknesse of faith it may not against the being Re-Review Had circumcision bin administred on perswasion that the subjects to whom it was set were believers as baptism is to be Acts 8. this same reason might have been brough also against infants circumcision though I must confesse it to be the least among an 100 that in reason may be brought to disprove infants believing and therefore possibly you whom I observe sometimes to set up a man of straw of least strength to annoy you and then to shew your skill in fencing at him have singled out this easie opposite to encounter with and yet so far as 〈◊〉 see you do not as the proverb is give him as he brings neither but circumcision as is well known well-nigh to every body but your selves was dispensed to persons upon a far different account from this viz. meerly on their being males of a Jewish houshold and sometimes one a more slender acquaintance with Abrahamsâ—…a â—…a mily then so witness the whole City of the Shechemites whose males were all all circumcised on meer hopes of their princes mariage with Iacobs daughter but t was not dispensed as you senselessly suppose it was on supposition of its subjects having faith for as there was not present evidence to any body that any of those infants that were signed had faith so for all your childish conclusion p. 4. that the children of the Jewes had faith
men under their girdles and by force to tye high and low rich aâ—…d poor Prince and people male and female bond and free to serve God in no other way than the Pope or their Arch-bishops or Arch-presbyteries appoint and to tread all under them that with never such evidence of Scripture and demonstration of the Spirit and power do gainsay them or that poor party of people who meerly in order to the promotion of truth rejoicingly subject themselves to scorn shame hatred of all revilings from friends foes neighbors old acquaintance c. whether I say it be those or these alià s you or we that pretend verity and intend onely victory will appear more at large in the examination of the 23. page of your book in the first line whereof you charge us therewith as an evil most specially incident unto us mean while I let it pass and go on Report Secondly that the question to be disputed was Paedo-baptism namely whether the baptizing of little Children born of believing parents practised by the Church of God were lawfull Reply I remember indeed that when 't was questioned what the question should be Paedo-baptism was agreed upon to be it i. e. whether children ought to be baptized but had I been as wise as a Wood-Cock or minded the matter so well as I should have done I had spoken in a language more consonant to your practice for Paedo-rantism was the question I intended i. e. whether children ought to be sprinkled for though Baptism or Dipping of Infants is that the lawfullness of which you will never be able to demonstrate an error lying still in the Subject in case you did as in truth you do not dispense it yet you are gone further from the truth then so no more at best than Rantizing that false Subject which to do is indeed no Raptism at all I excepred against this in my Position as well as the other but your prudence was pleased to leave it out in your accurate Account thereof least it should do you more harm than good and asserted your errour to be double in your dispensation of that you call Baptism viz. first in that you plead to have Infants be baptized when they ought not Secondly in that you pretend to baptize them and yet do not of both which I demanded an account at that time and in all reason you should have given it but not caring how little your sprinkling is spoken of because you have little or nothing to speak for it you so took me at my word at the Table when I yielded to dispute Paedo-baptism that Paedo-rantism your only practise might not be medled with in discourse at all Secondly I observe when ever you come to dispute for your Childish-christeninâ—…s you plead only for the Infaâ—…s of Believers but is not your plea by far too narrow for your practise whilest you commonly christen the Infants of all you know your people are not all in the faith why else do you preach to them as prophane to the end you may convert them thereunto yet the wickedest wretches you so keep from the Supper that you often keep all from it for their sakes have access with their seed to be christened as freely for the most part as the other doth not that same faith that denominates men believers saints godly and gives them and as you say theirs too a true title to Baptism intitle their persons to the Supper or must a man bring you another and that a better kind of faith to the one than he had need care for toward the other this some of your Tribe do not blush to say because as the case is there is nought else to be said but know ye Sirs and they too that though you have your several sorts of Saints for your severall services viz. your grosser sort of believers to admit not in their own persons neither when at years but in their posterity only to your Rantism and a finer sort for the Supper yet Christ requires but one sort of faith and saintship to both these ordinances viz. no more than a true one to the one and no less than a true one to the other Again you had much need had you not think you to set children of believing parents as the only subjects of Baptism in the state of the question between us when throughout your whole Dispute as I shall shew when I come to consider it there is not a tittle nor grain of argument brought by you to prove the right of Believers Infants to Baptism but it serves as much every whit to prove the like for the Infants of Unbelievers also yea Sirs take this from me you do your cause a world of wrong in stating your question so streightly for besides that you give the ly therein to your own action which is the admission of all that are brought to you and are born within the precincts of your parishes you drive your selves to such a Dilemma by your own disputes that you will not know how to open your Church-doors for Believers Infants to come in thereat but Unbelievers Infants will with ease creep in at them too Thirdly one word more to this yet Did your Respondent assent to you in it as you seem to say that the Baptism of children is practised by the Church of God how pretily have you put these terms practised by the Church of God into the very question and that too as it stands stated beeween us Did I give and grant so much or have you not rather taken it for granted from me whether I will or no Sirs I had thought I had given you sufficient evidence of my denial that the Baptism of Infants is practised by the Church of God yea though the Church of the Pope and such as you call the Church of God as the Church of the Prelate the Church of the Presbyter and some others too do dispense Rantism to Infants under the name of Baptism yet I did then as also I do still deny it to be or have been practised by any true Church of God primitive or modern that then was or now is visibly constituted according to his will in the word As for what you call the Church of God whether you mean all Christendome or the Protestant part of it only it is even therefore no true visible Church of God because it Rantizes Infants for that being undoubtedly a stragling from the truth and an undue administration of that ordinance not only as to the form of it but the subject also the name of the true visible Church of God is ipso facto destroyed from it were there no more error in it but barely that if Doctor Featly to whom you send us in your Review define the true Church of God aright for while he saies that meaning that only is a true Church where the word is truly taught and the Sacraments duly administred consequently that is no true Church where baptism is
Disputation cutting off the business by the buttocks and so sending it out naked into the wide world your THEN Sirs is a word out of joint 't was not then but a pretty while after then before the Disputation came to this full point which you have already brought us too in your Account after which you say there was no other Answer given by me nor to be expected for as I often offered fuller Answer to all you urg'd in one intire Discourse but that 't was an unseasonable motion in your Account p. 10. and in no wise so pleasing to your Priestly patience as 't was to the peoples to expect so long as to hear it so there was much more then this uttered by some of your selves though you give us not so much as the sum of it in this your sum Here 's but one particular mans influence toward the maintenance of infant-Infant-baptism inserted here in your Account viz. onely Mr. Willcocks thiâ—… was he who when had been the prime pleader in your cause was afterward and good reason too for he was the fittest for your turn though not the truths very gravely desired by you how justly judge you to be judge in it and to determine his own Disputation and be the main moderator of what came out of his own mouth and mine too a thing never heard of in Accademicall Disputations the Rules of which you were so stiff to have us steer by this was he who if he were as not I but Report saies he was your special Pen-man in the Account as he was your special spoks-man at the Disputation seâ—…s so light it seems by every mans else as to set down no mans Arguments but his own it 's like they were not very much to the matter and indeed they were not nor his neither though his own are exprest for the most material but better or worse there were more Arguments urg'd then these one by a Scotchman who then liv'd at Kenington what he is call'd I know not so well as whether for he had a call to Dover since that from whence whether he is now call'd I know not he laid down his Argument in this form viz. to whom the Covenant belongs to them the initiall seal of it belongs but the Covenant belongs to infants c. but seeing me startle at his Anti-scripturall term of Initial seal by which he denoted baptism whether he urg'd more or what more he urg'd I remember not well but I 'm sure he was at Ne plus ultrâ in that for I durst not admit of that improper term which made his Syllogism Sophisticall and his Disputation ex falso suppositis for he took it for granted by all men that baptism as he call'd it is an initiall seal about which yet sub judice lis est it being doubted by many whether baptism be a seal at all and deny'd by some of whom I profess my self one so opinion'd who in its due place shall I doubt not give good account on 't there was likewise another Argument urg'd by Mr. Vahan who from Acts 2. would have drawn the right of baptism to believers infants and being askt whether those Peter then spake to were believers or unbelievers when he spake to them and replying that they were believers heard the contrary both clear'd by my self and confessed by his Partner Mr. Prigg my quondam friend unless I became his enemy that day because I told him the truth who convening with me in that though not in the true Consequence of it did however so contradict Mr. Vahan that he came in to his help ore the shoulders There were also two more Arguments besides these in the Account urg'd by Mr. Willcock viz. one ex particulari the other ex negativo as I took occasion to give a hint thereof above which he or whoever was the pâ—…n-man of these passages was it seems as little willing to own as his own name or his handy work it self sundry more Arguings there were and some Arglings also made by some who would have now and then a snatch and away which me thinks you might have given a transient glance at at least in A true Account for your utter silence concerning which you might justly be blamed yet I blame you not much when I consider how sensible you might easily be of liableness to more blame for the matters themselves had you shewn them such untempered morter were they then can well be conjectured by you you are now under for letting them alone altogether Report Another flat falsification and abuse of me and the world is this you misreport me and that in two places viz. at the bottom of both your sixth and seventh pages which makes you doubly guilty of that single fiction as having confessed that circumcision was the seal of the Gospel Covenant and that Ishmael who was that carnall seed of Abraham onely because born in Abrahams house had right to it and received it Reply That this is A true Account of what you then said I said I dare not deny but do deny it to be A true Account of what I said whether you understood or understood not my words I know not but I utter'd not a word to such a purpose and were you not men minded to mis-understand whâ—…n to undâ—…rstand seems never so little to make against you I make no doubt but to make your own true Account make you eat some of that you have here uttered that Ishmael who was Abrahams carnal seed even meerly because born in Abrahams house had right to Circumcision and received it as every male so born also did I confess I confessed but denied all along that Circumcision was a seal as to Ishmael of the Gospel-Covenant or that he had it under such a notion as a Seal at all I said it was a Seal to none save to Abraham and that even to him 't was a Seal of not any thing at all save of the righteousness of the faith he had which words in the sense I then expounded them are not meant of the Gospel-Covenant but of that particular personal Covenant God made with him concerning his father-hood of the faithful a peculiar privildege which God gave to him and to none in all the world besides him as for Ishmael yea and Isaac himself they neither of them had it in this sense as neither had they that Covenant or promise of a father-hood which it was a Seal of though even Ishmael himself and the lowest males in Abrahams house were all to be circumcised upon this account only if if there had been no other as he was commanded to circumcise all his males As to a fuller account of my grounds for this opinion I shall suspend it till I take my other Account of these passages in youâ—…s and take notice only here first of your sacred Sophistication in giving that out for granted which was so abundantly denied Secondly that close contradiction you here give not
onely to the truth but your selves also for you give out in the next page but one before that I denied Circumcision to be a seal of the Righteousness of faith which in your own sense is as much as of the Gospel-Covenant to any of Abrahams posterity and that I multipli'd words in proof of the contrary and yet here in relation to that very Relation of your own in the weak wilfulness of your memories you give out that I had confessed Circumcision to be even to Ishmael the seal of the Gospel-Covenant that is with you still of the righteousness of faith thus for your own ends fathering your own false-tenet upon me ye have not lost all by the shift for you have fastn'd the fault of forgery upon your selves and this puts me in mind of another of your mis-reports which because t is so suitable to this I 'le give you some little sense of it here though I find it farre off hence in your Review p. 13. l. 1. 2. where looking or rather lacking over all your arguments again as somewhat rude and deform'd in their first delivery and among the rest this from Circumcision of infants to their baptism you positively affirm thus that the Adversaries confess baptism to be the seal of the Gospel-Covenant whereas if by Adversaries you mean your friend my self among others besides what else shall elsewhere be produced in proof of my dissent from you in this point your selves can bear me witness or if you will not a thousand others will that on the very day of Disputation when the Clergy-man of Kenington stiled baptism an initial seal I deni'd it to be a seal at all and am sure it would have found you all more work then you are aware of to have made good that un-gospel like expression of it though I grant it to be a sign of the Gospel-Covenant Report Another as flat a falsiâ—…y as ever fell from the mouths or pens of men who pretend to truth is that clause which lies in the last line of the seventh page and first line of the eighth wherein consider it with the words before you say I confessed that the spiritual seed of Abraham and their children had under the Gospel as good right to the seal thereof which is baptism as Ishmael who was that carnal seed of Abraham had right to the seal of the Gospel-Covenant Circumcision Reply Whereas besides my constant denial of Circumcision to be a seal to any but Abraham as I said immediately above and as your selves testifie of me and besides my denial of baptism to be a seal at all I either did deny the children of the spiritual seed i. e. of believers to have right to baptism or else to what purpose did you oppose me for this was the very question between us which as you affirm'd so I from the beginning to the end of the Disputation all along most inalterably deny'd Indeed I confessed ore and ore again that Abrahams spiritual feed i. e. believers have right to baptism but that the natural seed of this spiritual seed of Abraham are Abrahams spiritual seed as so born or that believers children quà tales are semen fidei as well as their parents is a most silly saying of your own page 14. but that which all the day long I most strenuously stood against much more that they were the subject of baptism yet you say here in the Preter-plu-perfect tense that I had confessed their right to baptism as good as Ishmaels to Circumcisâ—…n which me thinks if I had done so would have been exprest some where or other in the foregoing part of your true Account or else it is not so true as 't would be taken for but sith it is not to be found that I confest such a thing in all your Relation of the most materiall things that past among which this had it been confest as you here say had been the most materiall of all for it had been the full giving you the cause and saving you the labor of more Disputing we 'l take it for granted if you please rather then charge your true Relation of the most materiall things as not relating the most materiall of all that this your Testimony of my confession of this matter is most prodigiously false and abusive Sirs I wonder you are not ashamed so palpably to speak contrary to what you have here recorded I know not well what you mean by so many foul mis-reports unless as a certain great Benefactor to the Romish religion perceiving it unable to stand by the Scriptures bestowed a Legend of lyes towards its support which is call'd Legenda aurea so you supposing your infant-Infant-baptism uncapable to be maintain'd any longer by principles of truth and reason have thereupon been so bountiful to the cause as to give in this golden-leaden-legend Another sorry tale and strange story you tell is not of me but of one of my side as you are pleased to speak and this me thinks if I be not mistaken with a kind of Emphasis of the Featlean strain as if it were some presumption for a Russet Rabby or secular Artizan to climb so high and slutter and file so neer the pulpits and pompous Belconies of the Priests and as if he were a man Sacerdotalis ambitionis loving the uppermost Room and chief place in the Synagogue more to be taken notice of himself then that the truth should be taken notice of by the people in which things if you muse as you use yet know Sirs that we have no such custome nor the Churches of God of whom you say thus Report That having plac'd himself on the highest of the pulpit stairs to be seen of all and craved the liberty granted by the propositions to ask questions and receive satisfaction he profest himself a stranger and to come thither by accident though both afterwards appeared contrary Reply Though both will yet appear to be contrary to what you would have them appear to be if you could tell how viz. a couple of untruths for verily he was a stranger and so I then told Mr. Prigg who askt me of him that had not been long in the Countrey and was unknown both by face and name not to my self and some others yet however to most of that Auditory in which I believe not one of many could say who or whence he was as to his coming thither by accident so he did too i. e. unappointed and unsent for in which sense I 'm sure some of you came not by accident but as specially bespoke in the name of a great Patron of your Party both to be there and undertake the business and appointed if not primarily yet secondarily or upon their refusal for whom some too confidently undertook they should undertake it who yet say of your selves page 3. you were not the men appointed to undertake it if by accident you mean thus as well you may for a man may come by accident enough to a
if they were to bind us from other duty by the candor and sobriety of a Christian as if this lay chiefly in forbearing to publish the Gospel of Gods grace to the sons of men for fear of displeasing by the ingenuity of a Scholar which makes many a one forget his integrity as a Minister such a sense as profest hostility to them likely to be put upon it by the Ministers if I resused to go out with them or taried there to do service to God such fearful foresights of great disgrace likely to light upon their meeting and dangers of I know not what unless of the downfal of their way which the Ministers had more then all others if the Auditory were not dismist without a Sermon such hydeous apprehensions as they had and direful representations as they made to the people of Chymaera's non entities things that neither were nor were like to be and of they knew not what inconveniency would follow such chargings of all lastly upon my self if I offered to preach there to the people when I saw I say such horrible affrightments at it and such abominable deal of do made by Ministers against so harmless a motion as a Ministers preaching in one of their publick places to hundreds that were then ready to hear him who also would have spoken nothing but the truth or else have given them all or as many of them as would have staid free liberty to rectifie him if he had not I was so ashamed to see it that for very shame I was perswaded to express that love which I truly bear to their persons though I contest with their corruptions so farre as in a loving manner to walk out with them and rather then offend them further then needs must to perform that service to the truth without dores which with their leave might as well have been done within Report You relate that one of you then spake to me as followeth that I would seriously consider into what a dangerous Error I was fallen Reply Alias a Dangerous truâ—…h that will danger the undoing of you one way or other and that whether you imbrace it or no for if you do it will spoil you here and strip you stark naked of much of your earthly excellencies and enjoyments and expose you to such ridiculosity as to be owls and fooles among the rest of your Cloth that imbrace it not for though if you deny your selves follow Christ and suffer with him here you shall reign with him hereafter and yours shall be that Kingdom of heaven yet you will lose your Kingdom here on earth but if you imbrace it not specially when spoken to your consciences it will judge you at the last day and be your condemnation for ever Report And not oâ—…ely so but that I was the cause of the fall of many others Reply And of the fall of many more may I be if it be the will of God if they fall no further then from the Scribes to the Scriptures but if they fall away from that truth we walk in after they have known and own'd it as t was foretold many should do and too many accordingly now do separating themselves from the true Congregations of Christ since their separation from the false sensuall having not the spirit that fall will be on their own score and not on mine Report That I would saddly remember what Saint Austen saith of Arrius that his pains are multiplyed in Hell as often as any one departs into his Heresie Reply A sadd thing indeed and seriously to be laid to heart by you and me as not onely Professors but Promotors also to our power of different waies whereof one only can be the truth for the danger will ly on their side that hold the Heresie and hold it up and not at all on the others Report That I would consider what arguments had been used and how unsatisfactory my Answers were Reply So I have done o're and o're again already since you urg'd them and upon occasion of your impression of them am concerned to consider them more closely yet then ever and having now well-nigh finisht this animadversion of your Account 't is the very thing I am to go upon by and by and what ere my answers were then it matters not if they were too short then for want of time and liberty from you to utter them I shall take liberty to speak the more home to your matter now Report That I would not resist the spirit of God Reply But I am to try the Spirits whether they be of God or no a thing which you are not yet too much guilty of unless it be of neglecting it or else I may resist him unawares if after triall and experience of him I with stiff neck resist his strivings with me to own the truth he manifests to me and leads me to as I know when I was ready to do even when he began to enlighten me first in that part of Christs will â—…e here holds out to your selves and as they did who stoned Stephen in malice when they could not resist with clearer light the spirit by which he spake to them it is hazzardable whether I shall have forgiveness or no in this world or that to come or you either if this as God forbid it should ever prove to be your case Report That I would remember that though in this unsettled and distracted Church I did not fear being called to any Account for my doctrines yet I must appear before the dreadful judgement seat of Christ who is the patron of Paedo-baptism praying God to give me a right understanding you took your leave and departed Reply Though your Church cannot call me to an Account at all if it be a Church of Christ indeed I being none of it the Church judging such only as are within her and not those without yet I shall be willing to give it to the utmost in the stricktest way wherein your Church could as a Church expect it of me or bring me to it if I were a member of it which way is not haling to prison hanging and burning the wonted way of your Churches dealing with falsly supposed Hereticks and should that be the way I should I trust in God submit to give Account in 't rather then deny the truth but it is demanding a reason of mens different faith and as they find it unsound admonishing reproving and in case of non-amendment reâ—…ecting disowning but if your Church and its Ministery be like each other I find not your Church so forward to call us to this Account of our saith for you her Ministery do utterly refuse to accept when we offer it how often have we been an hundred times more ready to give reasons of our way then you Church-men whom she trusts are to receive them but if we durst not give Account to Christ for what we do we durst not give Account for it to your selves Assure him
reasons for baby-baby-baptism be strong and solid your Reader if rational will receive them if weak as you say they are he is a Reader scarce worth writing reason to who will be prevailed with by your desire so to cover their weakness as in charity to suffer himself to be overcome and carried away by them notwithstanding that their weakness to close with you in your cause and to be beaten into a belief of your baptism as good though it hath but broken reeds and bulrushes to maintain it by the force of bare beggings and beseechings or if in this request of yours to us to cover the weakness of your Arguments your meaning is not that we should be so silly as to build our belief and practice upon them though weak by your own confession whose they are but onely that we should not publish discover and divulge their weakness to the world but in charity be content to think our think or to see and say nothing truly Sirs what others will do at your request in this kind I know not but I assure you I cannot possibly for my part grant your desire in this case forasmuch as your selves have engaged me several waies not to be silent on pain of giving away the cause which if it were onely my own too the matter were so much the less you should have it with all my heart yea verily and my own life too to do your souls good for I know I could freely part with it to be a means of effecting your salvation but since it is the cause of God which he hath intrusted me with the pleading of against you who presume to enter the lists against it with such silly tools and weak weapons on behalf of a Babish-baptism which is not from heaven but of men I dare not give place so far as in foolish pitty to spare the Cittie Babylon or in Charity not to bewray a Breach or weakness in her walls of defence when I spie it for that were in Charity to betray the truth of of God and such Charity is more Antichristian by far then Christian what ere you call it and such as could have small hope of acceptance before God however esteemed of among men wherefore I desire you to have me excused if I cannot in charity cover the weakness of your Arguments for in Charity to poor souls that are led aside from the way of truth by your piteous pious pretences and weak reasonings for your way and I am concerned in the very next place after I have done with this of yours to the Reader to discover to the world the weakness of them besides sith you have made so bold with your selves as to proclaime the weakness of your own Arguments for Infant-baptism I hope the Counties of Kent and Sussex will consider this that their choise Ministry that stood up to maintain Infant-Baptism at Ashford did after in their own Account theerof give out of their own accord that there was weakness in the Arguments they brought for that purpose men mutire nefas I hope it shall be no offence to you for me to second you in your own saying 't is you who have publisht your arguments to be weak my business shall be only publickly to prove them so to be as you assert them yet if it be offensive to you it shall be no wonder to me for I know already that you can bear it better to have your Disputation ly under disgrace and disparagement under shame and censure of weakness from your selves in print then from your supposed Adversary and true Friend my self so much as in a private Letter only and that some men as the Proverb is may more safely steal the horse then some so much as peep o're the hedge Pre. Not to suffer the cause to be wronged thorow the defects of those who had more zeal to maintain it then abilities c. Post. T is both usual and lawfull for us to judge of causes by the effects that naturally and necessarily flow from them for qualis causa i. e. naturalis per se talis effectus Retró e. g. Infant-sprinkling hath been a cause efficient and per se from whence much evil hath necessarily crept into the world for it hath been a means of confounding the Church and the World together of letting the Gentiles or Nations by whole sale into the outter Court of filling the world with meer nominal Christians and carnal Christianity whereby they have got advantage ever since to tread down the holy City and true worship and worshippers as Heresie Hereticks of bringing the nations into one Catholick Church whereof the Pope was universall Bishop or overseer for ages together thorow the eyes of his creatures the Clergy the very Stirrup whereby he and his Ministers who have blended themselves into a blind and beastly uniformity have become Masters of the Kingdomes and have got up to ride them a plea and president for traditions it being one it self which ever make Gods commands void and mens worship of God in vain an inlet of these and innumerable more mischiefs and absurdities for posito hoc uno absurdo sequuntur mille therefore it is undoubtedly an ill cause also t is lawfull to judge of a cause by the common Consequents which come from it not as caused properly but meerly occasioned by it and in respect of which it is called only causa sine quâ non i. e. that without which the other would not be and yet no other then the bare accidentall occasions of those effects which flow from something else as the cause thereof perse and most especially when those consequents are declared by the word of God to be such as will upon that occasion universally and unavoidably come to pass and thus we may give a shrew'd guess that our cause is good viz. that our Gospel Ministery Church-way and Baptism is the true one because we see it is seconded now and ever hath been with what it was of old seconded and foretold also that it should ever be even every where to the worlds end viz. divisions in families two against three and three against two the Father against the Son the Daughter against the Mother c. offences of friends and fleshly relations the account of Heresie and baseness hatred of men persecution cavils stits tumults about it by which things Christs people Gospel Ministers and Ministrations are ever proved to be his Luke 12. 52. 53. Math. 24. 9. 2. Tim. 3. 12. 1 Cor. 1. 27. 2 Cor. 6. 4 5. So that where there 's none of this I avouch the Gospell in its purity is not there though where these are the Gospel is not the cause for that is men lusts and flesh fighting against the light but the only the occasion whereupon they arise when Satan the strong man holds the house the goods are all in peace but when Christ the stronger man comes to storm him out there 's contention
be set out in such a holy manner for glory and for beauty with his Pontisicalibâ—… and most holy sumptuous superstitious attire this holinesse of the holy Priest-hood that then was and its holy pertinances that holy people and holy seed you stile very fiâ—…ly and I agree with you in the term for 't was indeed the holiness of that Covenant that then was while the first tabernacle and its worldly Sanctuary was yet standing a federall holiness nevertheless though you call it by no name but what I freely allow of yâ—…t I call it by one or two names which though they be as true and properly due to it as the other and Epâ—…thites given ordinarily by your selves to the holinesse of almost every thing else under that Covenant yet least it pluck you up by the roots as touching your opinion in this point of infant-holinesse and baptism I much fear you will hardly allow of them as to the parents and the seed if you can handsomely evade them by secundum quid or some such like cleanly distinction these are first a ceremoniall holiness the rise of which denomination and reason why given are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi ad tempus durans for a time onely its non-continuance to the end or its non-conveyance down-wards from the Church of the Jews to the times and Churches of the Gospel Secondly a typical holinesse as being but a shew shadow or figure of some more excellent holinesse to come for the law and first Convenant had but the shadow of things to come and not the very image of the things Heb. 10. 1. I say a typicall and therefore but a temporall holiness which stood and was seated onely in divers outward bodily rites sacrifices actions observations ordinances offices officers places gestures vestures ornaments meats drinks and a certain fleshly birth-right and title to certain earthly preheminences dignities priviledges liberties inheritances a kingdome and all this for the time then being onely and to point out a true more speciall reall spiritual and eternal excellency and glory under the Gospell in order to the manifestation of which all the other was but a pageant for as the Mâ—…p of that Ierusalem that then was delineates to our capacities the beauty of that earthly fabrick yet is far iâ—…ferious to the City it self therein deciphered so the old Ierusalem with all her holy things were but a shadowy representation and patern of the New Ierusalem and the true heavenly things themselves which the other is as far inferiour to in worth and real felicity as any Mapp of it upon the wall is to the City that is set out and darkly described by it Thus did their High-priests in all their holiness yea and kings too King Solomon specially in all his glory and their prophets also in all their materially holy unctions to those severall holy functions type out that one spiritually anointed one of the father our Lord Iesus though a single person to his tripple office of King Priest and Prophet over his Church so their carnally holy meats drinks and abstinencies our spiritual meat and drink which they are said to eat of in a figure And our abstinencies from fleshly lusts and morall pollutions so their holy washings the washing of Regeneration and renewâ—…ngs by the spirit their holy sacrifices blood of sprinkling which as all the rest could not make perfect as pertaining to the conscience but sanctified onely to the purifying of the flesh i. e. the delivery of them from that outward imputation of impurity and uncleanness that would else have lain upon them the blood of Christ purging the conscience from iniquities and dead works wherewith it s defiled to serve the living God in true holiness and righteousnesse all the daies of our life so Circumcision of their fleshly seed which was outward and in the flesh tipified not Baptism as is simply supposed from Col. 2. but the Circumcision of the spiritual seed i. e. believers new-born babes begotten to Christ by the word with the Circumcision made without hands i. e. sanctification and cutting of the filthy lusts of the flesh so their outwardly royall Priest-hood the spiritual royal Priest-hood i. e. the true Saints who are truly as the other ceremonially and tipically a kindome of Priests made Kings and Priests to the Lamb and shall once reign on the earth 1 Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 5. 10. So the outward holiness of their nation tipified not the same kind of outward hoâ—…esse of any one Nation taken collectively in the lump as the whole Nation of England Scotland c. and all their seed as you ignorantly imagine but the inward holinesse of the holy Nation of true believeâ—…s themselves whether parents to wicked children or children of wicked parents scattered through all Nations under â—…eaven these Peter writes to and calls the chosen generation now i. e. the Regenaration themselves not the natural generation of these also a Râ—…ll Priest-hood an holy Nation a peculiar people to God in a spiritual sense as Israel was in a certain carnal and outward sense before 1 Pet. 1. 1 2. 9. â—…o their holy land our inheritance incorruptible reserved in heaven the heavenly country which we look for with Abraham Isaac and Iacob with whom we are heirs by faith of the same promise their holy City our holy City which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God Heb. 11. Rev. 12. Heb. 13. their holy Temple Gods Evangelically holy Temple where he will dwell which Temple ye aâ—…e saith Paul to the Church 1 Cor. 3. Their carnal freedome our spiritual freedom from sin which who ere commits is but a servant for all the other though born of Abraham Iohn 8. Their passeover Christ our passâ—…over that was sacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5. Their Rock our Rock of refreshment Christ their cloud Christ overshadowing by day and enlightning by night his people 1 Cor. 10. Their Manna Christ our bread that came down from heaven Iohn 6. their delivery out of Egypt the worlds Redemption by Christ and as sundry other things of which I cannot now speake particularly so lastly to draw yet a little neerer to the point in hand their holy seed issue infancy tipiâ—…ied 〈◊〉 â—…as both corruptly and carnally you conceive the â—…leshly seed of believing or iâ—…-churched Gentiles for these are in no wise the Anâ—…itype to the circumcised infancy of Israel but as I hinted before the truly and spiritual holy seed it self i. e. believers themselves or if the seed of believers not their natural seâ—…d but their seed in a spirituall sense i. e. that are begotten by them by their words unto the faith for believers as men beget men onely and no more in that way of bodily 〈◊〉 but as believers they may beget believers by way of spiritual 〈◊〉 by comunication of the gospel to their consciences thus Paul was the father of the Corinthians in Christ Iesus begetting them all by the gospel 1 Cor. 4 15. tâ—…us
unto the other for these saith he i. e. these two mothers and children the bondwoman and her son and the freewoman and her son are the two Covenants or testaments meaning in signification or in way of resemblance of them the one from mount Sinai the other from mount Sion both spoken of and to the life also pointed out one ore against the other in Heb. 12. 18. to the end that from mount Sinai or that Testament which was given in the hand of the Mediaror Moses that gendreth to bondage or enthrawles her children this is Hagar for this Hagar who brought out her son to bondage is saith he mount Sinai in Arabia or that law of Moses given on mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to i. e. as a type points out and signifies the Ierusalem that now is i. e. the Church of the Iews before Christ which notwithstanding her childrens abode iâ—… the house of Abrâ—…ham and her Hagarlike flaunting and vaunting her self over the other for a time as if she were the onely mistriss whose seed must inherit all yet in comparison of the true mother and her seed viz. the gospel Ierusalem which was yet to come was but in bondage with her children and must when that seed once should come in be chashiered and cast quite and clean out of doors as a seed to be no more accounted on so far as to abide with the other for nevertheless i e. all her present liberty and immunity notwithstanding what saith the Scripture saies he cast out the bond woman and her son for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the Son of the free woman i. e. the seed of the old Covenant of the Earthly Ierusalem viz. the natural seed of Abraham shall not share in priviledges nor the inheritance promised in the Gosspel together with the spiritual seed viz. the believers or children of the Church under the Gospel Thus as Hagar and her son Ishmael that stood in Abrahams house a while and were proud and insolent as if they should have dwelt there for ever were at last packt out before Isaac the true son and heir by promise of the old inheritance and ordinance when he was born and before Sarah who would not indure to have Ishmael have any portion in Canaan or any room in the house with her son Isaac so also Sarah her self and her son Isaac I mean the fleshly Ierusalem and Jew that dwelt as Mistris and heir for a time in the house inheriting only some outward excellencies and enjoyments were at last being found mocking thereat cast out of the house i. e. the Church the Son-ship the glory and all before the true Mother and her children viz the Gospel Church or true Sarah and the true Isaac Christ and his Saints or seed of Believers who will not bear not brook it to have a meer fleshly seed though of Abraham himself much less of any Gentile believers to dwell with them in the family Isaac and the fleshly Israelites were by promise to inherit the old Testament priviledges and the Ishmaelites were not suffered as such to partake with them therein Christ and believers are by promise to receive the eternal inheritance nor is any mans fleshly posterity no not Abrahams own by Isaac I mean the Israelites themselves as such permitted or promised to participate therein Ishmael though as Abrahams seed after the flesh he had a portion yet had nothing to do with that of Isaac the child of promise in the type Isaac though Abrahams son not only after the flesh but by promise too as in reference to Ishmael and so in true title to a better portion then Ishmaels viz. the Earthly Canaan and that as a type for a time yet being but his fleshly seed in comparison to Christ and believers and by his bare fleshly birth save only that he was a spirituall child also by believing as inferior to them as Ishmael was to himself hath nought at all to do as the fleshly seed of Abraham with that heavenly portion that belongs to these Now then if it be so and so it will appear to him that doth not trifle but truely understand the Scriptures and this last especially which with many more viz Heb. 8. Heb. 9. speak expresly of two distinct covenants or Testaments made with two sorts of seeds of Abraham concerning two Canaans viz. an Earthly and a Heavenly whereof one all along was a type of the other for a time only and now ended contrary to all our blind Seers that confound and blindly blend both of them into one if so I say that Abrahams own sons by bodily birth are not now his own in Gospel account nor heirs as so born only of the Gospel promise and inheritance nor house dwellers in the Gospel Church for want of personal faith though Abrahams children after the flesh still as much as ever then I cannot but stand amazed at the perverseness of you the Priesthood in three things First in that meerly because you and your people do believe and I would to God you did believe for so but few for all your flourish of either you or your people do indeed therefore you count your natural seed the seed of Abraham this you express in plain terms in your Review p. 14. Secondly in that even Eâtenùs as your children only you hold them heirs of the promise of the Gospel covenant made with Abraham Thirdly in that you sign them as visibly such by Baptism as you call it and thereby admit them into membership â—…n the Gospel Church as you call it and having yet no evidence of their belief conclude them under a true title to all outward ordinances save such as upon your own heads only you keep from them if by the word they have such title to Church-fellowship as you say they have viz. the Supper of which you make them snap short as much and as groundlesâ—…ly to the full if baptism at all belong to them as we in baptism Sirs let me reason with you a little and begg some cool consideration and ingenuous answer from you concerning these particulars First which way come your natural seed you being but Gentiles in the flesh to be the seed of Abraham Secondly why do you or how can you sign them as heirs of the Gospel promise so simply upon that account only there are but two seeds of Abraham that I know of in all the world viz. 1. His seed after the flesh and such are all those that are born of his body viz. Ishmael and his Children by Keturah to whom he gave portions and those that came of him by Isaac and Jacob which only for Esau sold his birth-right were heirs with him of the Land of Canaan 2. His seed after the faith and such are those only that walk in his steps Rom. 4. 12. that do his works John 8. Who are also by that same faith which denominates them his children said to be
for t is contended by youthat the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of such must be meant of these not so such as are like to these whereby you utterly overthrow your selves too for if that speech of such be in sense and signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not talium but horum then it can reach no more to other infants of the same kind then to the other kind of infants i. e. the Saints these being both viz. the one in specie the other in qualificatione at most but such and not the same for the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresses all that are alike to these whether in kind or qualification onely or both but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Individuum Indigitativum as it were that points out these Individuals that were then present and no more so that to allow you your own fained sense I say if those were not baptized whom Christ so Individually demonstrates and indigitates as heirs of the kingdome of heaven much lesse may any other infants of whom if you render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and give the sense to be horum not talium Christ can't be understood as speaking there at all For the clearing therefore of the Minor which onely will need proof in this Syllogism unlesse you will say let Christ and his disciples do what they will wee l do what we list consider this that t is well nigh universally confessed by your selves that these infants were not baptized Mr. Cottons words upon this very place are these viz. neither do I alledge this place for to prove that Christ baptized these infants for it doth not appear that their fathers who brought them were baptized themselves and therefore neither might their children be baptized according to rule and as he speaks thus of this place Mark 10. so much after the same sort he speaks concerning another place viz Act. 2. 38. 39. 41. from whence you also ground the baptism of believers infants from whence also as we do from this we thus argue the contrary viz. If the infants of those parents Act. 2. that were obedient to the faith and baptized were not baptized with the rest then its evident that infants even of baptized believers were not wont to be baptized then But those infants then were not c. Ergo c. The Minor of this Syllogism also Mr. Mr. Cotton proves to my hands who saies thus But to deal ingenuously and faithfully with you the text viz. Acts 2. 41. might hold forth a just colour of an objection if you had so applied it against the Argument gathered out of v. 38. 39. for the baptizing of infants for if they who were baptized were such as gladly received his word verse 41. then it doth not appear out of this place that infants were at that time baptized with the rest because they could not receive the word much lesse gladly least of all expresse their gladnesse by any visible profession This objection I confesse would have prevailed with me to have for borne any proof of the baptism of Infants out of this this place were iâ—… not partly for the reasons which have been alledged above from v. 39. partly also for that I find the Lord Iesus is wont to accepâ—… the acts of parents in the duties of the second commandement as done for themselves and their children these are Mr. Cottons own confessions about these two places in the last of which he seems to say if I aim right that those children Act. 2. were not baptized in their own persons but accounted as baptized by God accepting their parents baptism on their behalf as well as though they had been baptized in their own persons which if it be so is of it self a clear argument against infant baptism as for the other place Mark 10. I never could meet with the man yet that was so shamelesse as to assert that the infants there spoken of were baptized excepting Dr. Holmes and he indeed helps this â—…ame businesse ore the stile and lends a left handed lift towards the proof of it that these infants that were brought to Christ were baptized and that thus If Christ speaks of and doth such after higher things to such little children whilst little children how much more may that which in nature antecedes and goes before these namely baptism be administred to them whilst little children But there is Mark. 10. mention of and doing of an higher thing then Baptism namely confirmation of them by prayer and imposition of hands Ergo how much more may they be baptized The same he both argues and asserts in these words viz they were brought to him for an outward ordinance imposition of hands that ordinance given to them did suppose a former namely baptism as we have shewd saith he above and therefore if a little child be brought for the first ordinance that he as such is capable of as children were of circumision it must be to baptism and 〈◊〉 little below he addes this viz. Christ did not onely cherish their faith that brought â—…em but also cherished that baptism the children had received In which expressions he is so unexpresse or at least so whifling to and fro that he must have more brains then I that can pick out of them what he means distinctly by them for in some of them one would think he meant as if those infants were baptized before they came to Christ and were brought onely now for imposition of hands in some again as if they had bin then baptized and brought then to both that and to the other but which of the two he means it matters not so long as I shall prove by and by that t was neither this nor that But by the way I desire all men to take notice of Dr. Holmes his proofs whereby he strives to clear it that the infants brought to Christ-had then the ordinance of imposition of hands and so had been baptized before and how they are not onely nothing cogent but so clearly cogent and consequential to the very contrary that he that reads them with reason must needs conclude the Doctors right eye of reason was not a little bleared not to say absolutely blinded by one thing or other when he wrote them yea all he saies for the clearing of that doth clearly contradict and overthrow it In proof of what he saies in this particular viz. that the ordinance of laying on of hands was dispensed to these infants that were brought to Christ he alledges the practise of the Antient times at it is mentioned by Pareus Caluin Hophman Marlorat Bullinger and Cotton too which all according as Dr. Holmes himself hath recorded their words first severally in chap. seventh of his animadversions p. 58. 59. 60 and summarily ore again as it were to set his folly on high that all might see it in the 10th chapter p. 85. 86. do testifie uno
consequence as this in hand and therfore I will wave it here yet not so as to decline the discourse of it with you upon occasion any more then of the other well then that they are not all Reprobates it is asserted by you and us too but what is this at all to your purpose For First is there no Medium between being a reprobate and a present having the holy spirit there were twelve Disciples at Ephesus which had not so much as heard of the holy spirit so far were they from having it yet yet dare you say they were all reprobates there were many men and women that believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdome upon which the holy spirit had not yet fallen were they all reprobates because they had not yet received it or those thousands Peter promised the holy spirit to were they all reprobates because they yet had it not when he spake to them yea millions of men ly yet in wickedness and so far from having that at present they rather scoff at the holy spirite yet dare you not say they are all reprobates for some of them may turn at Christs reproof for ought you know therefore what consequence is there from not being reprobates to a present possession of the holy spirit Secondly do you know so precisely which infants are Elect and which Reprobate as to take upon you to distinguish them by baptism or are all infants of unbelievers reprobate so that you may accordingly denominate them for such by whole sale as you do Do not the infants of unbelievers very often prove believers and so elect and precious and as ordinarily believers infants when they come to years I mean prove reprobates were not Asa the son of wicked Abia and Iosias ofâ—… wicked Ammon elected both when Ishmael and Esau the sons of Abraham and Isaac themselves were in Scripture secundum tâ—… o Accountant p. 13. both branded for reprobates Lastly to the plain perverture of the words of the the text you quote to your own ends instead of Iesus Christ between whose and the spirits being in men there is no small difference for Christ may be in us by faith I mean we may be in the faith when yet he is not in us by his spirit I mean before the spirit is yet given witness all the disciples that believed and were baptized with water some while before Christ gave them the holy spirit Act. 8. Act. 19. instead of Christ I say you insert the spirit of God you also wholly pervert the sence of the Apostle in that place 2 Cor. 13. 5. who speaks it not to infants nor of them neither but of persons that could both know and prove and examine their own selves of all which infants were uncapable by your own confession he wrote it of them to whom he wrote it and so indeed though you are slow of heart to consider it the whole Gospel was written viz. de adult is adultorum officiis of grown persons whether parents or children and their duties but not for the use of infants in infancie at all In the next place upon occasion of my denial that it can be made appear that infants have the holy spirit to the making of them subjects of baptism you argue it on thus Disputation The report of Scripture concerning them and the necessary consequences of the former Arguments do make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason then the Profession of any particular person who perhaps may be an hypocrite as Symon Magus can make it appear of himself Gods testimony being to be preferred before mans ' Disproof Here is one of the most prodigious pieces of absurditie and contradiction of your selves as you speak in other places that was ever discerned to pass from men that cried out so loud as you do for libertie to reason logically since the art of Logick was found out In that you here call the consequences of all your former Arguâ—…ents necessary consequences which is as much as to say such as conclude the thing in hand i. e. that infants have the holy spirit necessarily universally and infallibly for that and no other were you so well skilled in Logick as you would seem to be is a necessary consequence which proves the matter concluded certainly so to be yea certo it à esse nec alitèr sâ—…abere posse a necessary consequence is when there is tam necessarius nexus indissolubilis dependentiâ—… c. such infallible dependence between the subject and the praedicate that the conclusion must be universally and perpetually true whereas your conclusion which is this viz. That little Children have the holy spirit as it followes not so much as probably nor possibly from all that you have here premised toward the proof on it witness all the Disproof made of your Disputation hitherto so much less doth it follow from them necessarily to be true for then it must bâ—… at least truly denominated de omni i. e. universally true concerning all little children that they have the bospirit de omni being the very lowest degree of necessity but this for shame you cannot say that all little children of every sort have holy spirit no nor yet so much as all of that sort of whom you so peculiarly assert it viz. the little children of believers among whom when they are at years there are as many destitute of the holy spirit as are indued with it And in further evidence hereof that it follows not necessarily from any thing you have said that those little infants you sprinkle have the holy spirit I appeal from your selves to your very selves for howbeit you here affirm as also p. 16. â—…ch necessity in the consequences whence you conclude that infants of believers have faiâ—… and the holy spirit yet to the utter confutation of your selves herein you elsewhere confesse that at the best your proof can be no more then probable viz. p. 18. where you write concerning the infants of Christian parents having faith and the spirit as if notwithstanding all that was said before to prove the certainty of it you could not now tell well what to say to it for as in p. 16. you acknowledged that all infants have it not so these are your own words p. 18. viz. the spirit is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor barr'd from working it in any of the children of infidels so that no judgemâ—…t of science can be passed till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a poâ—…ori onely and yet by the way be it known unto you that every necessary consequence demonstrates a priori the discovery of habits it made that unlesse iâ—… could be certainly presumed what children have the habit what have not for tâ—…w â—…ing of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound nor yet bard thâ—…re â—…a conclusion made In which words
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
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
sith tâ—…ey are no longer then while they have it but faith in Christ is according to your selves Habitus ad placitum a deo infufus only not innatus and is in them neither qua sic nor essentially nor universally in all nay but in a few infants by your own confession and you know not which neither for though you do altum sapere so fâ—…r sometimes as to conclude it is in infants of believers yet you do insipere so far sometimes as to undote that again and say the spirit is neither bound nor barred in his working of it in these or those so that till they are at yeares there can be no conclusion made p. 18. therefore me thinks you should blush at this illiterate and indigested assertion viz. that there can be no more concluding against the being of faith in them then their having reasonable souls Secondly if from their non declaring it there can be no more concluding against their having faith then against their reasonable souls then there is no more concluding against the being of faith in one infant more then its being in another or against its being in unbelievers infants than in those of believers for the reasonable soul is in all even in the infants of unbelievers as well as of believers Secondly if their non-declaring it be no ground to conclude against their having faith yet I am sure it is ground enough to bar you from concluding that they have it specially that this infant hath it more then that for though you confess there can be no conclusion made till you see the fruits of their faith yet that is the bold conclusion you undertake to make Fourthly whether we can upon its non appearance conclude against their having faith yea or no yet upon its non appearance we may boldly conclude against their baptism and admittance into the visible Church here on earth into which not an invisible habit of faith gives right but an outward appearance and profession to believe witness not my self only who am of little credit with you but Mr. Cotton also none of the least of your Champions that appear for infant baptism whose very words p. 48. 49. of his Way of the Churches in New England these are viz. It is not the seed of faith nor faith it self that knitteth a man to this or that visible Church but an holy profession of the faith and professed subjection to the Gospell of Christ in their communion Be ashamed therefore of such a monstrous position that persons not appearing to believe in Christ can conclude no more against their faith in Christ then against their reasonable souls Determination The seed of faith sown after discovers it self when the season comes Detection Yet so audacious are you that whilest it is but in the seed at most by your own confession as in infancy to attempt a discovery of it to all the world to be in these infants viz. of believers and not in those viz. of infidels before the season Determination The testimony of Scripture concerning their faith and the proofs taken from thence are equivalent to the best testimony and profession of any man concerning his own faith Detection O Sapientia as if the Scripture did as punctually personally and particularly testify concerning this and that individual infant which you sprinkle that it doth believe and those infants that you deny to sprinkle that they do not believe as men at years do to us by their words and works that they do or do not believe Secondly there is but one testimony of Scripture alledged by your selves where you say it s asserted of infants that they do believe viz. Mat. 18. 6. and that as I have shewed First speaks not of little ones in your sense but of little ones in Christs sense viz. believers indeed and his disciples whom he stiles little ones also a little above Matth. 10. 42. a place where we read not that any infant was among them Secondly that Scripture testifies of those of whomsoever it speaks in actu secundo that they do believe and so to do your selves yield is impossible for infants therefore it cannot be meant of them Thirdly if it did speak of little ones properly so called so as to say they do believe yet that they were believers and not unbelievers infants is a thing which a wise man may fumble himself 55 times over and become a fool before he once find it so to be Fourthly 't were but a Prosopopeia however Determination If it be further askt how faith is bread in them it is answered by the holy spirit whose waies are inscrutable who ties not himself to means works where he will and how quo magistro quam cito discitur quod docet saith Cyprian Detection And yet you scrue so farr into the inscrutable waies of the spirit in this matter as though he works where he will and how both to bind and bar him and to determine both where he doth and must work faith and where he doth not and must not viz. in believers infants not in infants of infidels else why do you refuse to baptize the one upon non-appearance of faith and yet plead for the baptism of the other as in whom it appears to you so clearly that by argument you say you make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason that they have faith then the profession of any one particular person that evâ—…r I baptized can make it appear of himself for thus you peremptorily conclude p 5. and then as prettily unconclude it all ore again p. 18. saying unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit of faith what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us there can be no conclusion made why also do you say the promise is to believers and all their seed which is as much as to say God is bound upon his word and covenant unto these children not unto others and therefore must be as good as his word for I hope you all agree that God will not lie p. 14. though I confesse p 18. you unsay all this ore again and grant that he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor bard from working it in any of the children of infidels O fine whisles Determination If it be inquired how faith can be said to be in them without their consent the answer is as well as originall sin to which they never consented and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam to condemnation Detection That original sin is in infants so far as it is in them without their consent I do not deny it being a matter more imputative as I have shewed above then inhaesive and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam was to condemnation is an undoubted truth which makes me believe otherwise then once I did viz. that whatsoever befel whomsoever meerly by Adams sin
him him more to the ordinary way and meanes of faith then of obedience in other matters as repentance self denyal c as to their salvation seeing he must go out of the road and tract in the saving of them wherein he saves men may he not as well save infants without faith without which he will save no man as without self deniall and suffering and confessing of Christ c. without which he will save no man Fourthly specially since infants are not mentioned as meant a jot more in the places that speak of salvation by faith then in the places that speak of salvation by obedience in all things for as it is said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned infants no where expressed or meant there so t is said as universally he is the Author of all them that obey him and he shall take vengeance on all them that obey him not and cut them off that hearken not to his voice infants no way expresly excepted as not meant there The Scriptures therefore are still to be understood de subjecto capaci when they promise or threaten things on conditions and terms of faith unbelief and other good and evill works as confessing and denying Christ and exclusively of infants where infants cannot possibly perform them for as when it s said he that works not let him not eat infants are no where excepted yet are not by the spirits appointment to starve though they work not neither are they meant there because they cannot work and as under law when it was said Cursed is he that continues not in every thing written therein and do this and live the way wherin men were to live or dy was set forth by those words and not the way wherein infants should be cursed or blessed accordingly as they were or were not found therein in infancy so Analogically when it 's said under the Gospel the just must live by faith and he that believes not shall be damned and Christ in flaming fire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord c. it is to be understood as spoken of the waies wherein men walking shall live or dy and not at all of the way wherein he saves or damnes dying infants for that stands still by good reason from Scripture that they being uncapable to do what on mans part is required to life i. e. to act belief unless wee l hold they are all damned dying in nonage as you pittiful merciless men hold that 20 to one are but we bloody Baptists that none at all are we must hold them to be excused from the terms of believing and presented righteous before the Father by the righteousness of Christ without faith and therefore though I see I shall meet with this argument again in your Review where I le talke with it a little more yet I le conclude here just contrarily to what you conclude with viz. that the tenet of no justification nor salvation for dying infants by the righteousness of Christ without faith in their own persons is a meer â—…igment of the Arch-Anti-baptists i. e. the Priests without ground and reason from Scripture whereby as by some shew of reason to flatter men on to a continuance in that false way of bringing infants to be sprinkled that so their Kingdome and priesthood many continue to spread its black wings over whole provinces and parishes at once and to submit them to their arbitrary jurisdiction as well a ware that it can stand no longer then the other for once give over christening the whole parish infancy and then farewell that parish posture which the Pope set up in all Christendome some 600 years ago yea then down falls the parochial-Church-steeple-house Priest-hood pay and all Amen so be it THE SECOND PART OF ANTI-BABISME OR A REVIEW OF THEIR REVIEW I Come now to take notice of the second piece of your Pamphlet a thing made up of several sorts of matter and â—…rickt together into one slender Tractate and entituled A Review of the Arguments used in the Disputation my Animadversion of which I answerably stile a Re-Review or Review of your Review In which Review of yours I find some things said and disputed over again which are before disputed in the Disputation some things as it were unâ—…aid and undisputed ore again which are disputed before in the Disputation and somthings viz. here a little and there a little disputed which the Disputation disputes not before at all So that the business if you view it one way stands ternal i. e. brancht out into 3 heads barking all like those of Cerberus against the light but if you review and behold it another way it seems to stand Quaternall or quartered out into four heads acting all in their several turns against the truth viz. First A Praeamble or March towards the battle p. 11 12. Secondly An Onset or charge given by a Forlorn hope of three worthies or choice Arguments whereof the first is a freshman that was not in the last dispute the two last old Souldiers that are bold to face about and fight us again though wounded well-nigh to death in the last battel p. 12. 13. 14. 16. Thirdly A very hot dispute or Reply against Reason and its forces storming your strong hold of infant-infant-baptism or an earnest encounter with such objections as Reason saie you makes against it all which you make a puff at and attempt to vanquish in seven or eight several repulses p. 16. 17. 18. 19. Fourthly A Bugbear bringing up the Rear of the battel horribly dressed and horned with seven horns all pushing and poking against the truth on purpose to to fright men from being baptized and make such as are ready to turn to the truth to tremble and forsake its tents alias a warning or Morter-piece charged with a number of small shot viz. the horrid sins this wretched errour of the Anabaptists alias that odâ—…ous error of owning the truth involves men in that more hits then hurts them that have the spiritual armour on presented and discharged to scare the Christian Souldier i. e. the Christian Reader if possible out of his Christian wits and senses Thus does this Squadron of militarie matter made and raised in defence of infant-Infant-baptism divide it self and play its part against which notwithstanding we shall God willing adventure forth in the strength of Christ give battel to it and to each part of it successively as it lies in order Review There might innumerable Arguments be brought both from Scripture and Reason for the confirming of the practise of the Church of God from the beginning whose authority alone if it were of any esteem with the adversaries thereof were enough to have silenced these disputes at least to have laid the itch and quenched the heat of them in baptizing the children of believing parents but as the hast of the Disputation did forbid the Ministers then to be
conversion of children of christian parents or when they are first discipled cannot be known for the most part by either themselves or others whereupon he concludes that if we baptize them at age though never so punctually at the time of their profession of faith repentance and desire of baptism we cannot possibly baptize them when first discipled or immediately after conversion as we ought to do by the example of the primitive times wherein yet they did thus and no otherwise witnesse all the instances of his own alledging but those that baptize them without delay so soon as ever they are born they cannot do otherwise then jump just with the very time wherein they are first discipled according to the primitive pattern he himself produces wherein of all that were baptized whether Iews or Gentiles immediately upon their being discipled we read not of one infant And good reason why they must needs hit right upon their first being discipled or converted that baptize them in the first infancy for though the time of the first conversion or discipling of the children of Christian parents be not scarce possible to be conjectured at either by themselves or others yet to go round again it may so safely and surely be supposed and conjectured to be in the first of their infancy that they may warrantably be baptized then as then newly made disciples without any danger of aberration from either Christs commission or the primitive custom of baptizing persons when first discipled and professing themselves disciples O the wisdom he that being in the fire would not come out to hear how bravely Mr. Baxter brings about and about again his businesse in that 8 chapter of the second part of his book t is pitty but he should be burnt And lastly whereas Mr. Baxter queries so oft when Mr. Tombs would have such baptized the set time of whose conversion is not distinctly known leaving Mr. Tombs to tell him his mind as he sees good himself I tell him if he ask me the same question that in my mind such whose conversion is not known when it is as by his own confession the conversion ofChristians children some times is not witnesse that one in which he instances and as few as he knowes of that sort yet how many hundreds of the children of Religious parents among whom I my self make one do know when they were first truly converted such I say should be baptized as neer as may be upon the time of their conversion and becoming disciples and if it have been then foreâ—…owd it must be after as soon as it can but in no wise so many years before it as the priests unviversally do it and such of whom it is not known nec per se nec per alios when they first were discipled and converted but oh how do I fear that as he that never doubted never believed so many of those implicit converts Mr. Baxter talks on that never knew when they were discipled and converted were never yet truly discipled â—…or converted at all to the truth as it is in Iesus but as they had it more by tradition from their fathers then unfained search of Scriptures such I say of whom t is not known when they first were converted and discipled shall by my consent be baptized when ever it is first known that they are converted and discipled unto Christ by their own profession of their conversion and discipleship and desire of baptism and this not by my consent alone but by the joint consent of all these very Scriptures which Mr. Baxter himself hath coted for our example and warrant all which if as far as Christs own precept and practise and the primitive Churches example can do it they do not warrant the baptism of all and onely such persons as were first taught or made disciples by preaching or instructed till they both learnt believed and imbraced the Gospel and professed themselves disciples and offered themselves to baptism and consequently of no infants then for my part I le lay aside all sense and reason as no more to be heeded as a help to understand the Scriptures and turn a very Tom-fool and he that can Altobe logick these Scripture institutions and instances into plain Scripture proofs of infant Church membership and baptism Erit mihi magus Apollo for there 's no mention of infants either expressely or implicitly in any one of them Oh therefore to Eccho back to Mr. Baxter a little in much what his own words to us concerning those Scriptures p. 127 that those who are so inclinable to seperation from the primitive practise would consider the unfitnesse of infants to be admitted by baptism to be Church members under the Gospel Oh that they that inchurch whole parishes as if they because the Pope will have it so were all Churches and will have no trial at all and discoveries of the work of persons conversion before they admit them but take them all at hap hazard as they fall from the belly within the bounds of that parish where they are plac't and popified would but lay to heart all these Scripture examples and make more conscience of observing their rule and not presume to be wiser and holier then God when it was mans first overthrow to desire to be but as God though he did not attempt to go beyond him as the priests do in adding other Subjects to his ordinances then himself appointed which changing of his law will be mans last overthrow Isa. 24. doubtlesse those that Christ baptized by his disciples were Church-members but those were not infants but such as were first made disciples by preaching onely Iohn 4. and he that will go beyond Iesus Christ in strictnesse shall go without me I do not think he will be offended with me for doing as he did i. e. for baptizing none but such as believe and professe themselves disciples and as repent of their sins and desire to be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of tâ—…m and so I have done with Mr. Baxter till we meet again onely since Mr. Marshal is pleased ponere obicem to object and bolt in here that we cannot say none in these places were baptized but such as did thus i. e. believe and professe themselves disciples p. 217. to Mr. Tombs because the word onely is not here I may well call it obicem or objectionem obularem a hint not worth a half penny and if he appeal to his own conscience it will tell him no lesse neverthelesse what ere he thinks I say again all that were baptized in the forenamed places were such as are there specified to be profest converts and believers and if there were any more let him assign and shew us whom and wee l believe him as for the housholds himself is in the sands whether there were any infants in them or no and I have shewd above that they that were baptized in them are exprest all by some
instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized to take a small sucking babe out of their armes and dat him with a drop or two on the face and send away all the other unbaptized Babist The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child that could not speak for it self and expresse his good resolutions to forsake the divel c. and his desires to be baptized Baptist How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signifie things to sucklings while they understand them not and that too by such a vanishing visible sign that when they can understand they neither see nor never shall and such like Trumpioall transactions to which there are as few grains of reason concurring as there are inches in an Apes tail even your selves however it happens that you so contradict your selves yet that is no news with you as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism are even in this very cause found falling out with and fighting down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections which byyour own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism but I le spare you till I come thither 3ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof which you complain and grumble much p. 1. 11. 12. that t was set aside and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation is so utterly against your infant baptism that even this alone were it of any esteem with you had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it and laid the itch and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty is most manifest if by the Church of God and the Fathers therof you mean what I do viz. the Church of God in the primitive which were the best and purest times of the Gospel whose practise in this particular is set out in the word but specially in the Acts of the Apostles the fathers of which Church and of the Church in after ages too were the Apostles themselves viz. Father Peter Father Paul Father Barnabas Father Iames Father Iohn and the â—…est whose authority from Christ was great indeed and adequate with the Scriptures then written and the foundation for all the Churches to build on and such was not the authority of the Churches then much less since which are to be subjected to their word in Scripture this Church and these fathers never knew such a baptism as yours nor is there the least tittle of talk concerning any such matter to be found among them Or if by the Church and Fathers of it whose authority and practise you build on you mean those of the ages next to the Apostles Then first I marvel why you should put your selves upon the triall by succeeding ages and decline the first and purest age of the Gospel of all specially since there 's as clear history and more infallible testimony given in the word of what was done by the Church and the first fathers the Apostles then ever was in any age inferiour to it whatsoever and more specially yet since its being in after ages is no palpable argument of its being in the first age for the mystery of iniquity was at work from the very Apostles t is now Ergo it was then is not so good a wherefore to our why as we look for besides t is ingenuously confest by your own writers viz. Mr. Blake in answer to Mr. Blackwood p. 58. that faith can hang on the humane testimony of the succeeding fathers in whose daies infant baptism was no further then de facto viz. that it was onely and not de jure that it ought to be and Mr. Marshal p. 5. of his sermon that the practise of the thing in their dayes proves not the truth of it at all Secondly neither doth the second Century help you so much as to a proof de facto For First as much as you would seem to be verst among the fathers in which many Priests are better read then in the Scriptures and some to seem to be better read there then they are will quote the fathers when they have not read them but by snaches and pickt a few fine phrases out of them to make their sermons the more sententious yea and sometimes for those very sentences for which they might more truly quote the Apostles that primitively pend them witnesse one of your tribe whom I heard with my own ears say of Heb. 2. 16. he took not on him the nature of Angels thus viz. for as Saint Barnard saith when as he might as well have said as the spirit or as the Scripture saith He took not on him c. if yet he knew that t was in the Scripture as much I say as you are versed in the fathers you are desired by Mr. Blackwood a man better read in those fathers then either you or I yea you and Mr. Marshall also who quotes Iustin Martyr are defired by him in his storming of Antichrist p. 25. 26. 27. to prove if you can out of any place of Iustins genuine works who is the antientest father extant next the Apostles whose works are accounted on that there is so much as the name of infant baptism much more the thing yea he tells you ye may as soon find a Dolphin in the woods as any such thing save onely that t is once mentioned in a spurious book falsely called his out of which book Mr. Marshalls quotation is neither doth Mr. Blake gainsay this nor yet Mr. Marshall in their replies nay they rather seem to grant that it s to be doubted it was so which makes me as well as Mr. Blackwood not a little wonder that Mr. Marshall should quote it with so much confidence I mean so as to assert it thereupon as a matter manifest that the Church counting from the time of Iustin Martyr viz. 150 hath bin possest of the priviledg of infant baptism for the space of 1500 years and upwards for had he not doubted but that the words the cites were without question the words of Iustin himself he had not had sin but now he hath no cloak sith he demonstrates to all men Dubitatum per magis dubium and tells the world to make them believe that Iustin disputes the condition of children that dye baptized and unbaptized when yet it s not believed but much doubted by himself whether Iustin did any such thing yea or no as to the words Mr. Marshal p. 4. of his sermon cites
out of Irenaeus who lived toward the end of the second Century which Englisht are thus viz. Christ came by himself to save all all I say who are born again unto God infants and little ones c. it s not likely that in this sentence that father by the word born again meant baptism as Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal contend for by that sence they father such absurdity upon that their father as children that pretend to honour their father may be ashamed of whilst they make him say Christ came to save all infants that are baptized when as neither all infants that are baptized are actually saved quâ baptized nor are any unbaptized infants damned quâ not baptized but both alike saved as both alike they either dye before they have bard themselves by actual sin and derserved exemption or living to years believe and obey Christ and both alike damned as living to years they both alike obey not his Gospel but however let Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal squeeze what they can from the quotation it must yet remain as doubtful whether the speech of Irenaeus if it were his own were at all of infants baptism as it doth whether the speech fathered on Iustin though it be of infants baptism were at all his own and so what dubious evidence the second century affords so much as de facto that infant baptism was then in being all men may see whilst you can say no more then perhaps it was so and a fool may say as much as perhaps it was not which is a proportionable answer to that argument for t is commonly said in the Schooles saies Mr. Marshal that fortè it a solvitur per fortè non Secondly but what if your testimony de facto concerning the practise of infant baptism in the second century were as clear as t is cloudy yet what green headed anuquity is this in comparison of that we plead from viz. the Apostles themselves when you are stormed out of all your strong holds then you send us still to ages above us and cry out your practise is of 1500 years standing but sith you cannot say as we can of ours t is above 1600 years old nor is yours now likely to live to it as good you had said but 15 for our way onely being found in the first century and yours not at all before the second we are a people so much elder then you upstarts that your antiquity is but novelty with us whoregardlesse of what by mans wisdome was foisted in in after ages can aver with as much confidence as you can that now it is that from the beginning it was not so nor yet in end shall be I much marvel why Mr. Marshall contents himself to preach positively no otherwise then thus p. 3. viz. this priviledge of baptizing infants the Christian Church hath bin in possession of for the space of 1500 years and upwards he might as easily have said 1600 had his ground been as good for that as for the other and yet his ground for the other is so infirm and sinking under him that I believe he must fall down as low as the third century before he find sure footing for his proof of no more then the bare practise of infant baptism As for the Ius of it its nere the nearer if he could prove the matter of fact to be in the second though that still is the main question betwen us sith t is confest by Mr. Marshall that he uses not the Testimony and judgements of the Antients to witnesse to the truth of it but onely to prove a then practise of infant baptism and the question de jure whether infants ought to be baptized no one of the fathers nor yet the joint consent of many saith Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood is a competent Iudge therefore if any of you who stand so much upon that young antiquity of it and plead the authority of the Church and fathers shall argue thus t is 1500 years old therefore it is 1600 you live below that candor ingenuity and discretion that I find in Mr. Marshal and Mr Blake who both deny your consequence and in this case close with us in the very truth Thirdly as for the third century t is somewhat more then probable that such a superstition as infant baptism was comming in at least or else t is like there would not have been such pro and con as was about it for true Origen if the Testimonies fathered on him be his own which he who well weighs what evidence is put in to the contrary by Mr. Blakwood p. 34 of his Rioynder to Mr. Blake where he saith that the original of Origen is lost that the Translator confesses he added many things of his own that Erasmus saies one cannot be sure whether one read Ruffinus or Origen that the learned put his commentary on the Romans among his counterfeit works as much sophisticated by Russinus and also what is said by Mr. Tombs too notwithstanding all that Mr. Marshall brings p. 15. 16. 17. 18. of his to Mr. Tombes whereby to salve it will find small ground to believe Origen I say a man of many errors stiles it a tradition received from the Apostles which if you will believe implicitly you may but else you need not for t is no more then a bare scripturelesse assertion Cyrian also and a Councel of 66 bishops almost contemporary to Origen are supposed to be of some such mind but upon such silly grounds as you that now plead infants baptism are ashamed of witnesse Mr. Blake p. 40 who denies them not to be erroneous as Mr. Blakwood calls them and therefore you may as well be ashamed of their opinion and expression of it also it being for all their reasons as scriptureless as that of Origen who brings nothing to prove what he said Babist But Mr. Marshal p. 18. tells you that it was because none opposed the lawfulness of infant-baptism which if they had Origen would no doubt have maintained by Scripture as well as affirmed it to come from the Apostles Baptist. This is strange when it is most evident and Mr. Marshall himself denies it not that famous Tertullian the first of that Century that might in respect of his Seniority to Origen and Cyprian be stiled a father to them both perswades by many reasons to deferre the baptism of children as most profitable Saying Let them become Christians when they know Christ. And in another place It behooves them that are about to enter into baptism to pray with frequent prayers fastings kneelings watchings and with the confession of all their sinnes past which things infants we know cannot do First then I appeal to your own consciences and Mr. Marshalls also whether this be not a plea against it as unlawful for to decline what 's most profitable is unlawful Secondly whether here be not pro and con among the Fathers about it and so though their
testimony serves to prove what Mr. Marshal brings it for viz. that it was practised in their times yet it serves not to your purpose who upon the Fathers and their churches authority would gather and ground the right of that practise for who but children will go about to prove the verity of a practise by the Authority of those Fathers whose witnesse agrees not together and who are contradictory to one another in their testimonies of it and some of whose testimonies in that thing are quite and clean contradicted by the testimonies of such as concurre with them almost in every thing else for so I may truly say the testimonies of Father Austin are who in one place viz. ad Volusianum Ep. 3. according to Mr. Blakes quotation of him p. 51. writes thus viz. The Custome of the Church in the baptizing of infants is by no means to be despised nor to be accounted superfluous nor yet were it at all to be credited were it not a tradition of the Apestles Thus this Father who though inferior to the other in time yet is not inferiour to the chiefest of them in your Account but he brings no Scripture neither any more then Origen for the same yet it is like some sleighted it as superfluous in his daies but Ludovicus vives a man so observant of Austin that he wrote Annotations upon him in those very Annotations of his upon the 27th chapter of the first book De civit Dei according to Mr. Denns quotation of him p. 51. against Dr. Featley is so far from crediting that he corrects Austin rather as to that piece of faith saying That of old it was the custome to baptize none unless they were of full ago and did desire baptism in their own persons and did undeestand what it was to be baptized Now who can safely build so much as you do unless he mean to be both blindly guided with you and a blind guide to the blind on the authority of such Fathers as saving their honesty in what they knew and eminency in some things were yet so silly in some others that they did the Church no such good office as they wot of who ere they were that canonized them into such fatherhood over the faith that their opinions must be as Oracles for all to act by witnesse good Saint Bernard the last in that Catalogue who saving that he knew some truth as other honest men did in those dismal daies wherein he lived was wrapt up into a mist of so many other errors besides that of infants baptism that we may boldly use the proverb viz. Bernardus non videt omnia for as Mr. Blackwood quotes out of his 65 ser. in p. 31. of his storm speaking of some Christians that opposed the popish stream he saith thus They laugh at us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we require the praiers of Saints All which doctrine though falling from a father is yet indeed too ridiculous to be received for truth in these daies of its return from captivity by any but meer children in the Gospel Thirdly I appeal to your consciences not to Mr. Marshalls and Mr. Blakes here for they from the Fathers assert no more than matter of fact that infant-baptism was then whilest you matter of faith that it ought to be whether that foretold testimony of Tertullian may not ballance with those of Origen Cyprian c. who were not so â—…ear the pure times of the Apostles as he and whether he were not as likely as Origen and Austin to know if it had been so that infant-baptism was a Tradition from the Apostles and in case he did know it to what end he should deny it to be now dispensed or do you imagin him a man of so mean a conceit of the Apostles wisdome and so highly conceited of his own that he would forbid that as unprofitable which the Apostles prescribed and prescribe a more convenient way himself sure he must know as well as they if it were Apostolicall and they possibly might not know so well as he that it was not being all Iuniors to him and one of them viz. Cyprian so much beholding to him for much of what he had that he dignified him with the name of his Master such a diligent disciple i. e. reader and learner of Tertullian was he that Da mihi Magistrum was his common speech of him so that his rational diswasion from infant-infant-baptism cannot but be a more cogent ground of faith on one hand then Origens Scriptureless position and Cyprians Antapostolick and reasonless reasons and perswasion to it are one the other unless you will needs so father it over the Fathers themselves as to authorize which of them and which of their sentences you please disowning the rest as not Orthodox or Authentick further then they serve your own turns and then by my consent they shall be no longer fathers to you but you fathers over them and us too in their stead But Mr. Marshall who hath a longer arm then every body reaches us a rap yet by a certain quaere which he propounds to Mr. Tombs p. 35. 36. 37. to which till he hâ—…h some answer he will conceive we are so sick of Tertullian that wee le say no more of him his quaere is this Babist Why may not the diswasion cited out of Tertullian de baptismo infantium reasonably be interpreted of the infants of infidells only whose baptism he would have deferred till they come to years and to profess faith themselves and not of the infants of Christians I am inclined to believe that to be the true meaning of the place for such considerations First because Tertullian alledges this double reason why he would have the baptism of little ones delaied viz. least their Sponsors or Sureties be in hazzard of not fulfilling the promises they make on their behalf by either their own mortality or the childrens proving untoward or inclineable to iniquity for whom they undertake Secondly Because t is clear and evident by the 39th Chapter of Tertullian book the 18th Chapter whereof hath this disswasion to baptize little ones that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of believers are by birth designati sanctitatis salutis counted holy from 1 Cor. 7. 14. not sancti till they be born of water and the spirit and have a kind of priviledge and prerogative by nature yea such a sanctity and the very same as is called faderall or covenant holinesse that gives right to baptism Baptist And so saies Dr. Holmes also p. 122. upon the same text of Tertullian Mr. Marshal quotes and out of which he raked his 2 reasons to which second reason of Mr. Marshal I answer First and that thus confessing that that good old Father who is no more infallible than your selves so that his Sentence without reason proves any thing at all to be de jure doth seem to me to erre together with you though not
way of quaere and so let it passe viz. First if the seales in plurall marke your words therefore both at least yet both are but signs neither in true locution must both follow the right of the inheritance of which children are in capacity as well as men then to fill you with your own phrase why is not one seal of the same inheritance of the same salvation given to infants by you as well as the other i. e. the supper as well as baptism Secondly if these in plurali or if no more then baptism be to be given to children consequently upon no more then capacity of salvation the capacities of infants being equal and they quoad nos all alike capable to enjoy it if God who is neither bound nor barred please to bestow salvation why are not both these or at least that one sign of baptism which you give to some infants given by you to all infants as well as some i. e. to ungodly mens children as well as to those of godly parents the Dr. strives with all his strength and straines one point more yet to strain Tertullians testimony to his turn yet will it not do in any wise Babist Tertullian in that text mentions not onely childrens being holy but he mentions also that place Iohn 3. 4. in relation to children except a man be born again of water and of the spirit c. from which we may perceive that Tertullian grounds infants baptism upon Scripture Baptist. To which first supposing that by that birth of water and the spirit is meant nothing but baptism in that place of Tertullian we are yet upon I reply Secondly thus viz. appealing to the Drs own conscience and Mr. Marshals also whether he speak that very clause of Scripture in that very place of his we are now upon to that very intent as to ground infant baptism upon it or whether if it be read with a right and true Emphasis and reference it doth not of the two rather suppose it was not to be in infancy for having as Mr. Marshal understands confessed so far of infants of the faithful that they are designati sanctitatis et salutis i. e. to be held in the mean time to wit in childhood and before baptism as holy and happy reputatively only yet he saies that none of all them are sancti i. e. holy indeed for that we see is Tertullians sense of the word enter into the kingdom unlesse they be born of water and the spirit that is as I conceive till they be converted and baptized which thing that it is at all to the infants of the faithful in their minority he saith not at all here nor any thinglike it but elsewhere mentioning the same Scripture Iohn 3. 5. as he puts the water and the spirit together so both before and behind it he puts teaching and dipping faith and baptism as things that by the law of dipping are imposed as of necessity to go together saying he hath bound faith to the necessity of baptism therefore all believers speaking of none else were baptized and then Paul when he believed was baptized in his book de baptismo advers Quintil. Editio de la. cerda vol. 2. p. 153. ibid. c. 13. as Mr. Blackwood quotes him in his storm of Antichrist p. 28. 29. so that in the quotation were are yet upon the Antithesis lies thus in my conscience as I read him viz. infants of the faithful in their infancy may be reputatively holy but not really holy none being really holy till such time as they be born of water and the spirit which was not in infancy in Tertullians apprehension as it seems to me in that very place which the Dr. and Mr. Marshall make so much of as the words designati sanctitatis non sancti do shew whereupon I perswade my self it was that in that other place of his that I must return to he uses disswasion from dispensing and perswasion to deferring baptism to all but specially to infants not of infidels onely but believers also as I shall shew clearly to Mr. Marshal now who scruples it and that by such reasons as shall take that rub and stumbling block of his out of the way I mean this last text of Tertullian of his own and Dr. Holmes his alleading by which they were both gravelled from believing Tertullian to be ours for indeed whereas that place he last alleadged did give him supposed ground to scruple whether Tertullians disswasion from baptizing of infants were from any but the infants of infidels I hope to shew him such a necessity of understanding his disswasion to be from the baptism of any infants whatsoever as shall give him contrarily sure ground of belief that howbeit Tertullian would have some infants higher accounted on then some yet he would not from thence have any baptized to which end I shall set down Tertullians disswasions of infant baptism in English as I find them quoted by Mr Marshall in latin who I observe seldom Englishes what may make against him p. 34. of Mr. Marshall against Mr. Tombes and in p. 122. of Dr. Holmes in English and more largely then by either of them by Mr. Blackwood in his storm p. 29. together with the grounds why he would not have little ones baptized and leave it to be judged what little ones he means Tertullians words are these viz. According to every ones condition and disposition and age the delay of baptism is more profitable but especially concerning little children for what necessity is there if it be not so much a necessity as to have the sureties also brought into danger who may both by their own mortallity fail of fulfilling their promises and by the increase of an ill disposition be deceived The Lord saith indeed forbid them not to come unto me let them come therefore when they grow up to youth c. thus far Mr. Marshal and the Dr. Mr. Blackwood writes further thus Let them come whilst they are young whilst wherein they come they are taught let them become Christians when they know Christ a little further he saith shall it be done more warily insecular things that to whom earthly substance is not committed Divine should be committed they shâ—…ll know to beg salvation that thou mayst seem to give it to him that asketh it al so in the 20 chapter of the same book he saith it behoves them that are about to enter into baptism to pray with frequent prayers fastings kneeling and watchings and with the confession of their sins past in all these words is he recorded by the three authors above named disswading from baptizing infants now whereas Mr. Marshall professes he stands much inclined to believe that these little ones to whom Tertullian would have baptism delayed are to be interpreted of the infants of infidels onely and Dr. Holmes helps him what he can in this by quoting the words of learned Iunim upon the place who is just of the same opinion
with Mr. Marshall yet lends him as little reason towards it as one can likely look for from so rational a man I shall immind them first that Vossius on the place quoted by Dr. Holmes in one and the same page with Iunius found no good ground to evade the bang Tertullian gives to infant baptism in such a fashion as to say he denies onely the baptism of infidels infants how far you will heed him I know not but he thinks his think thus viz. not that infants of the faithful are here denied by Tertullian but that nothing is denied by him but onely the necessity of these infants baptism when there 's no danger of death because t is said what necessity if there be no necessity defend you your selves if you will against that consenr by silence of Vossius to us in this that t is all infants to whom Tertullian would have baptism delaied for that affronts your poor put off and I le look to Vossius his own put off as well as I can that he shall not go clear away with it for my own part then allowing Vossius his own thought I take the like liberty to think otherwise and the boldnesse to assert the contrary viz. That Tertullian denies more then a necessity of infant baptism yea he denies any conveniency or lawfullnesse of the thing also especially in the testimony cited by Mr. Blackwood which the Dr. and Mr. Marshal durst not mention and clearly enough in those cited by themselvs for if it behoves them that are baptized to pray confesse sin c. which no infant can do then it behoves us not to baptize them and if it bring sureties into danger then t is not convenient nor expedient as well as not necessary and if it be more profitable to delay it to infants then we are so by duty bound to do what 's most profitable and edifying that to do otherwise is to do that which is unlawful moreover it being granted by Vossius that Tertullian denies but so much as the necessity of baptizing any infants I le prove thence a necessity not to baptize any for if there be not more or lesse a necessity of one kind or other viz. vel praecepti vel medii there 's a necessity at least of letting it alone for Christ commands no ordinance of his without need and with such indifferency as destroyes all necessity of obeying it and what way or point of worship was not ordained by himself is by command from him of such necessity to be declined that as he who preaches it though an Angell from heaven is to be held accursed so he that doth thereafter shall have no thank for his labor for in vain do they worship him that either teach or take for doctrines the traditions of men Secondly and further to prove it least Mr. Marshal and the Dr. should not grant Vossius that Tertullians denial is of the baptism of all infants even of believers as well as infidels I argue that more plainly First from the universallity of the expression of himself in his disswasion which extends to all manner of persons without exception for it may be thought he was somewhat soiled with that superstition which was rife in after ages viz. that baptism was best dispensed towards the end of a mans life that he might have a sign of the forgivnesse of all his sinnes at once whereupon Tertullian would not have unmarried persons baptized until temptation was over so far was as he from desiring such early dispensation of baptism as that to infants I say his perswasion to delay it extends to all manner of persons and therefore to the infants of believers as well as to other little ones Secondly his indefinit and indifferent expression of these little ones concerning which he speaks for saith he specially about little ones promiscuously including all excepting none as it had bin necessary for him to do if he would be understood to speak but of some and not of others for if Mr. Marshall should preach or write his opinion against the baptism of unbelievers children onely retaining to himself his present earnestnesse for the baptism of other little ones and deliver himself downrightly and indifinitely thus onely in way of dissawsion viz. I would not by any means have little one baptized I find no ground baptizare parvulos to baptize infants c. so running on and never distinguishing so as to say in that sermon or speech I mean onely infants of infidels I should not take him for so judicious a man as I yet hold him to be saving his holding so stiffly still for infant baptism Thirdly by the reason he gives why he would not have little ones baptized viz. least their sureties should be in hazzard of non-performance of their words by reason of their own death or their God childrens untowardnesse which danger may come as well by baptism of believers infants as of others As whose Sponsors whether fathers or mothers or God-fathers and God-mothers may die before they grow up or if they live be frustrated of their ends by the wickednesse of these children or god-children also Fourthly in that he speaks of such children of whom the Lord said forbid them not to come unto me which in the Priesthoods own sense at least are believers children yea and them onely by which clause according to you he may seem to speak of them onely rather then of infidels childrens onely whom you your selves forbid to be brought to Christ at all Fiftly in that he saies let them become Christians when they know Christ belike then if your sense be true some Infants may be warrantably enough made Christians before they know Christ but some infants again may not at any hand be made Christians till they know Christ which if it were Tertulliaus meaning as t is yours he might mean honestly in it as you do but t is too mean an opinion to keep touch with the word which never knew any way but one wherein disciples and Christians were made i. e. of profest faith repentance and baptism after they knew Christ by the preaching of the Gospel Sixtly in that he saies we should be more wary then to commit Divine substance to them to whom earthly substance is not committed now we know that earthly substance can be no more wisely committed to infants of believers in their non age then to infants of infidels Seventhly by one end why he would have them be capable to beg salvation first viz. that God may seem to give it to them that ask it which end is destroyed if baptism be dispensed to believers infants in infancy for they can no more ask it then the infants of unbelievers Eightly because he saies it behoves them indifinitely meaning all them that enter into baptism to pray and confesse sin c. which conditions are as exclusive of all infants as of some those of believers being no more capable to do that then
so far from conceiving much more expressing any such thing that where I speak in publique of that point of baptism in prevention of that prejudice and opinion of our harshness which your publike balling at us begeâ—…s in your heareâ—…s I commonly deliver my self to the contrary But now Sirs as for your selves who so falsely father this doctrine upon me as mine and that with such abhorrency of both it and me for it and with such patheticall expressions of your zeal against it as that you even set your teeth an edge as it were and whet the spirits of all men to abhor us for it if they had nothing in all the world against us in point of doctrine but that not to let their souls intermeddle with our secrets whose rage is so fierce and whose wrath is so cruel what if I go no further then your own Account of the Disputation at Ashford to prove that your selves are the men that hold this doctrine that though persons believe yet if they be not baprized they must be damned and not we are you not then condemned out of your own mouths to perpetual abhorring now therefore Quid rides de te fabula narratur thou O Accountant art the man of whom this tale may be told more truly then of us who hast plotted so well as to plat a whip here for thy own back yea I appeal to the whole world of wise men â—…o judge whether I do not bring proof out of your own paper if your true Account be yours and be as true an Account of your judgements as t is pretended to be of your disputation that it is your own judgement and not mine that baptism is so necessary to salvation that even such as believe and yet are denyed to be baptized notwithstanding that very belief of theirs shall be damned go bur back with me therefore to the 7th page of your Pamphlet and compare it with what you say in the third and fourth pages concerning childrens believing and see what an Account you have there given of your own minds in this matter In the fourth you conclude from the like in the children of the Iewes that the children of believing parents have faith in the third page you conclude from Mat. 18. 6. that little ones do believe now look but in the seventh page and let all the world judge whether you do not there say of these same persons viz. of the infants of believing parents of whom you asserted before they were believers that if they may not be baptized and that 's none of the childrens fault neither as the neglect of baptism is in men it destroies the hope that the parents can have of their salvation for it leaves them in no better condition say you then Turks and Pagans and their children the salvation of whom is with you as hopeless for ought I see as of the Devills which things let that or any judicious Gentleman spel and put together and see if it be not tantamount to such a testimony as this viz that those that believe and are not baptized shall be damned for to be damned and not saved are all one and as for children of Turks and Pagans dying in infancy you record it it as a monstrous thing that I should say that for ought I knew they might be saved yea by the reply that was made to that speech of mine by one who said perhaps I thought the devills might be saved it appears that your party thinks it as possible that the devils may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans and yet of the children of believing parents who in your opinion do also believe themselves you say the opinion of the Anabaptists which denyeth baptism to little children puts the parents out of hopes of their salvation und makes them to be in no better condition then Turks and Pagans yea you say believing parents may say of their children that dy without baptism what hopes of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels and really they say true if the state of infidels dying infants be so damnable as you saie it is is it you or we Sirs whose doctrine damnes believers if they be not baptized I le conclude this matter with you much what in your own words and form of speech Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven whosoever believeth not shall and be damned this doctrine of yours that little infants are believers and yet out of all hopes of being saved if not baptized shuts out believers if they be not baptized i e. if they be not rantiz'd for that is the best baptism you use and by consequence if your doctrine which you delivered in this Account â—…s judiâ—…ious Gentlemen that read i will affirm be true that even believers not baptized shall be damned you had need baptize your believing infants indeed i. e. to do more then criâ—…rosse two or three drops of water on their faces or else for all your plea for their baptizing on pain of their damnation they l be damnâ—…d if they be no more then sprinkled for want of true baptism when all is done for that is not so much as the Ceremony it self in truth which you are so hot for without the substance yet would I not have you be an abhorring for all this but pittyed and prayed for rather that you may in time for this and all other your follies and false accusations of others of things whereof you are more guilty your selves abhor your selves in dust and ashes that you may not be an abhorring as he is more then half blind that doth not see who will be once amongst both God and men Rev. 17. 16. Rev. 19. 2. And thus I have done with your first Argument Review The second is this little Children under the law received the Seal of the Gospel covenant for circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith which is the Gospel-Covenant The Law saith Do this and live the Gospel only believe in the Lord Iesus Christ and therefore God calls it an everlasting covenant and the Apostle saith the Law that came 430 years could not disannull it Gal. 3. 17 and he saith expresly the Gospel was preached to Abraham ibid. ver 8. nay more the carnall seed of Abraham Ishmael and Esau men branded for Reprobates in Scripture yet because they were born in Abrahams house received that seal by Gods appointment Why then should not children under the Gospel receive baptism which the Adversaries confess to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant Re-Review This poor forlorn wretched Argument hath been handled and laid sprawling once or twice before where both its consequence is denyed and good reason gien of the senselessness of such syllogizing as is here from the Law to the Gospel therefore it is but needless to defend our selves any further against it it being a demi-dead man that is disabled from being dreadful to us already
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
word of God Review 5. They lose it again when they come to more years else why are they taught the element of faith By the same reason they should lose the faculty of understanding also because after they are set to learning learning is for the brinâ—…ing forth into act and perfecting of the degrees otherwise one that is at 24. years of age having received faith once might give over learning more for if this argument might hold either they lose it or why do they learn Re-Review Hâ—…op Sirs what pretty cutted stuff is here as if you did not know well enough but that for advantage sake to your crooked cause you rather chuse here to seem ignorant of it that teaching and learning is not onely for the further bringing forth of habits that are in us into their acts and perfecting of them in their degrees but also for the begetting of some habits in us that never were before viz. noâ—… natural and innate habits as the faculty of reason and understanding for instruction is not for the engendring but improving of these in us but all such kind of habits as faith is viz. acquired habits teaching tends not onely to the perfecting of such a posteriori after they are once begun but a priori also to the very being and begetting of these whether they be habits about matters of this life or that to come t is true therefore learning is to be continued for the perfecting of habits begun and begotten in a man otherwise indeed as you say one of 24 years having once received the faith need be taught no more but it is to be also for the beginning and begetting of faith in him otherwise to one at 24 years of age having not yet received it the faith is preacht by you in vain that he may receive it There is a teaching to beget grace and faith where it is not and a teaching to increase it where it is Mat. 28. 18. 19. a teaching before and a teaching after faith and baptism and if you ask a reason of both these the one is to beget faith into both the habit and the act the other to build it up into higher degrees the second teaching indeed supposes a being of it in men the first teaching no being of it as yet when you begin first to preach to them for your preaching speaks to them as to unbelievers whereupon this argument holds good that if ever they had faith in their infancy they have lost it now for why else are they taught the element of it why taught in order to the receiving it for reason in this objection must be understood as speaking suppositively onely i. e. in case persons had faith in infancy it s now lost why else are they taught to this end that they might have it but not so positively as your expressions represent it as if reason did really assert that infants do lose any faith they had in infancy for howbeit reason acknowledges that such in whom faith is may lose it if they look not to it yet reason knows well enough that those can never be said to lose faith in whom faith never was at all Review 6. Habits encline more towards their proper actions but children of Christians are not more inclined to actions of faith then infidels An Argument from comparison is subject to many exceptions caeteris paribus being to be proved before it can hold if the objector had considerd that among chil dren born of the same Christian parents under the same education one gives a better specimen not only in acts of piety and religion but knowledge he would not have concluded to the denyal of the habit of faith in one more then of the faculty of understanding in the other We must necessarily hold 1. The habit of faith must be before it can work 2. That the Spirit of God infuses this habit 3. That he is not bound to work it in the children of Christian parents nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels 4. Whersoever this habit is it inclines to holy actions when there is opportunity and the season for bringing them forth 5. This inclination is not equally alike in all in whom the habits themselves are Sampson and David are sufficient instances David for exceeding in acts of piety and relegion 6. Instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered Lastly that no judgement of science can be passed till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made These premised the answer is 1. That 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 barred there can be no conclusion made 2. That in those children where there is lesse promptnesse to acts of faith then in others we cannot argue ad negationem habitus because they work not equally Lastly by this cross interrogatory are those children of infidels with which the objector makes his comparison being called and instructed inclined to acts of faith or not If the former it presupposes they have the habit and so the working in them and those born of believing parents may be one If the later the Argument is deny'd for the children of Christians are more inclin'd Re-Review This is wit whether wilt thou I think he is wise that well knows either what you say or what to say to what you say so reasonless are severall pieces of the return that is here rendred to reasons objection I speak not of a few faults which in the first part of it escaped the presse and made it nonsence for those you corrected in the copy you sent to me so that I might do no less then do you right so far as to transprint it as I have done according to your own emendation Nec tibi Typographi crimina dem vitio But of the faults which escaped the pen or rather the pates of those that composed this rambling responsion the major part of which whether it past from you willingly and ingenuously or rashly and unadvisedly rather I know not is a most flat unsaying of most of that you have said before and much of what you say again in the next page after and an acknowledgement of the clear contrary to that which you have hitherto tugged for and which you persue the proof of well-nigh throughout your whole Pamphlet an absolute overturning of the basis on which your book builds infants baptism which is this assertion viz. That it sufficiently appears that these little infants in particular have faith meaning infants of believers in contradistinction to those of Turks and Pagans whom as concerning their original condition and their birth-right to salvation you rather rank with the Devils then with the children of Christians I say a plain
Philistines for which the spirit is pleased to record and recommend them both as examples to all ages and rank them among others of whom the world was not worthy in one line Heb. 11. 32. caeteris paribus unproved too such comparison if any be so is beyond all comparison odious and subject to many exceptions but be it all just as you have said it yet as little yields it to the support of your infant faith and childish baptism as if you had said nothing at all Sixthly whereas you say that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered And seventhly and lastly that no judgement of science can be passed i. e. true demonstration made of this habit of faith till the acts themselves be seen and examined and that a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made and then from all these preparative premises draw up your conclusive answer in three heads answering thus in the first place viz. That it cannot be certainly presumed what children have faith what have not and that the working of the spirit in that particular is not known to us and ore again also that the spirit is not bound nor barred and therefore there can be no conclusion made I say t is all necessarily to be held for truth yea t is a truth so preciously pertinent to our purpose against the purpose of your own pamphlet that had we been to conclude in a little compasse all that need be said toward the appearance of this position viz. that it doth not sufficiently appear by any evidence of it in their infancy that infants of believers have faith any more then other infants we could not in so few words have spoken so pithily to such a purpose which when I consider I cannot but wonder and conceive you will once wonder at your selves when your eyes are open that they whose words all these are should act against them all so absurdly as to make it the biggest business throughout their book to make it appear and that sufficiently that believers infants have faith beyond other infants Babist A charitable judgement concerning their having faith is sufficient to admit them to baptism and that is the utmost that we assert can be had of their belief not a judgement of certainty Baptist. A judgement of charity that there 's faith in persons sufficiently warrantably and certainly grounded is sufficient to baptize upon and such is that judgement on which we baptize who baptize none but such as the word requires us to believe to be believers i e. such as personally profess so to be and of such as those though we have but a judgement of charity concerning their faith yet have we from precept and president out of the word a judgement of certainty concerning their right to baptism but a judgement of charity taken up on meer fancy and conceit without warrant from or rather against both Scripture and reason warrants no man to dispense baptism upon it as from God for if it do I may as well baptize the great Turk as a little infant and no better is your judgement of charity concerning faith in little infants upon which you attempt to baptize them Babist Our charity is better grounded then so yea far better than yours as certain as it is and is as due to children of believing parents as to persons at years for we have Gods testimony concerning them in this matter whilest you have but mans testimony concerning himself yea Christ hath amply declared his good will to them in Scripture whose testimony is not onely Tanta-mount but to be preferred before mens from which it more plainly appears that infants have faith then the testimony of any particular person can make it appear for himself Baptist So you say indeed both before page 5. and behind p. 19. but how dare you assert then that you go not about to prove certainly but only probably that believers infants do believe for verily if it be so as you say that God himself gives testimony for them in Scripture that these little infants do believe then never say no judgement of science can be passed no discovery made of the habit of faith nor peremptory presuming what infants have faith and what not till you see them act it for Gods testimony is more credible then mans indeed hath he said it and is it not so yea verily let him be true but every man a lyar for mans own word can create but probability and charity and not so much neither unless he speak it from Gods word that believers infants do believe and in fidels infants do not but if God have said so then cursed be he that will not believe it to be so for if his word be not perfectly demonstrative and scientifical and past all doubt but I confesse I find not a word of his concerning such a thing then I le never trust self confuting Clergy men any more 2. Whereas you answer that in those children where there is lesse promptness to acts of faith then in others we cannot argue ad negationem habitus because they work not equally What is this to the present question and position concerning no more inclinablenesse to holy actions in children of Christians then of insidels for those are such of whom your selves assert the one have faith the other have none but these you speak of now are adult ones such as in whom there is some promptness to acts of faith appearing differenced only secundum magis minus some inclining more some lesse to acts of faith concerning all whom sith those of them that have least promptness have at least an apparent promptnesse to acts of faith who denies but that they may have faith though they work not equally but what 's this to the proof of more or lesse inclinablenesse to holy actions among infants who are so far from having some more some lesse that even none of them have any promptnesse thereto at all 3. Whereas you fiddle it on a little further and think to coop us up by your crosse interrogatory you may well call it a crosse one indeed for its a net that catches your selves let us answer it which way soever you would have us For if we say heathens infants are inclined to acts of faith and should make that good against you as we shall hardly ere trouble our selves to do unlesse we did believe it to be truth can you give any just account of your denial of baptism to these yea who can forbid water why they may not be baptized that have and are inclined to act faith as well as the other and in whom as in those of believing parents the work is palpably at least possibly and probably the very same But if we say no infidels infants are not inclined then we must take what comes on it for you are resolved to hit us home indeed and so you
he that is blind â—…ees no such that receive the truth in truth for a time and after fall totally from it that is neither here nor there to us in this case for if there be inwardly no dram of faith at all yet if there be such an outward serious profession made of it that we thereupon I say again thereupon and not on charity misgrounded can judge it to be we are excused in baptizing such hypocrites and apostates and their comming to holy things with unhallowed hearts will be not upon us but themselves but if there be never so much faith in the heart and no profession of it without whereby it appears concerning this and that particular peâ—…son that he believes so far as we can discern God will not hold us guiltlesse in baptizing such persons for taking his name in vain That opinion therefore of a necessiâ—…y of faiths being really in persons as well as a profession of it before we may baptâ—…ze them Reâ—…nlesse might as well have writen under his own head as under the head of Reason for that is owned no more by one then by the other t is a real profession of it that in foro hominum gives admission and warrants the administration which because it neither is nor can be made by any particular infant and consequently no appearance made that it hath faith therefore infants may not be baptized This indeed remaines a scruple unremoved by you to this very hour or is rather a matter unscrupled and altogether undoubted by us viz. that it cannot be made appear concerning this or that particular infant suppose any one of them you sprinkle that it hath any faith at all You tell us enough hath been said to this in the Disputation I tell you that more then enough is said against it in the Disprobation yet sith you are pleased to add as little as can be in further satisfaction I shall add as much as need be in further refutation of your folly You say that a Charitable judgement concerning this or that particular persons having faith for your proof now is to be de individuo is sufficient to admit them to baptism and that this judgement is as due to children of Christian parents i.e. every particular amongst them that are brought to be baptized as to any aâ—… years that mâ—…ke profession It seems then that the believing parents personal profession of his own personal belief which is that onely whereby we judge him to be a believer doth prove himself to us to be a believer not one jot more plainly then it proves all his children if he hath never so many to be believers as well as he and that we are bound by duty to judge all the children of a professor to have faith as certainly as we may judge that professor himself to have it for the same judgement of charity that is due to professed believers is say you equally and every whit as due to such believers children Are you not ashamed of such a blind businesse as this what doth a mans personal visible acting and professing of faith discover it to others that the habit of faith as you call it is in himself no further then it discovers it to be also in his children did you not say but the very next page above that no judgement of science concerning a persons having faith can be passed till the acts of faith themselves which are never seen in infants are seen and examined which is as much as to say that when the acts are seen and examined as they may be in men then a judgement of science may be past on them do you not say that the discovery of the habit of faith to be in infants is made onely a posteriore i. e. onely by their future professings and personal actings of it which is as much as to say when children come once to act faith then it may appear and be known that faith is in them but tell then or in their infancy it cannot appear to be in them do you not say it cannot be certainly presumed what children have fâ—…ith what have not the working of the spirit being not known to us and the spirit himself not bound to work faith in all the children of Christian parents nor barrd from working it in any children of infidels and thaâ—… there can be no conclusion made of this thing which infants have faith which have noâ—… which is as much as to say that though it may be more certainly concluded presumed and judged concerning men at years who have and who have not faith yet the same doth not appear concerning infants in infancy are not these your own sayings but a few lines above and yet for all that have you so soon forgot your selves as to unsay it all again in this page where you ingage to make it appear concerning the particular children which are brought to be baptized that they have faith and to determine that in charity we are bound to judge faith to be in believers infants as much as we are bound in charity to judge it to be in the believing parents themselves that make profession and such judgement is as due to one of these as to the other were there ever such contradictions as these committed to paper before But le ts us examine your reason why we are to judge faith to be in these infants as we are to judge it to be in any that make profession you say because the Scripture hath so amply declared the good will of Christ to them which is Tantamounâ—… to any ones single profession of himself I answer that the Scripture declares the good will of Christ to little children in general without exception and not to one more then another but what 's this to prove any of them to have faith much more what is it to the proving and making it appear that this and that particular infant hath faith which is the matter now in hand when other infants have it not or to prove believeâ—…s infants to have it exclusively of the infants of unbelievers yet you say this declaration of Scripture wâ—…ich your selves confesse p. 5. declares concerning infants in general proves this or that single infant in contradistinction to others to have faith as sufficiently as any ones single profession proves it concerning his single self Nay this report of Scripture makes it appear say you most â—…ottishly p. 5. that infants have faith more then the particular profession of any whom we admit to baptism can make it appear of himself and yet to go round again a pâ—…steriore onely i. e. by profession of it onely the discovery of the habit of faith is made O curious criss-crosse The second reason you here give why a charitable judgement concerning their faith is due to these particular infants and not others i. e. infants of believeâ—…s and not unbelievers is this viz. Because you say we know nothing against any particular infants why
baptism will speed both alike with him at last or if he mean onely that another manner of baptizing in water is lawful then he hath no enemy of us in that point save that we still shall differ about the subject for let any administrator take profest believers onely and baptize them i. e. overwhelm them in water and let him do it where he will yea how he will for me viz. backwards or forwards sidelong or headlong so he do it and they be not naked Rantist But still me thinks the main things the Dr. drives at remain unresolved for he tells you first that if it could be made appear that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water and were totally dipt yet thereby it appears not that all others must be baptized in such a manner Secondly that it cannot be made appear that either of them were dipt or plunged but onely washt in the River Baptist. No did I not shew you sufficiently above in what cases particular examples do prove what the general primitive practise was and may be argued from as from a general rule of what ever ought to be viz. when that or those particular practises are enjoined to all as well as to some in one and the same word of tighteousnesse but specially when propounded as paterns and written as rules for our instruction and such are both these baptismes of Christ and the Eunuch which had never been recorded but for our learning and for examples sake unto us in which respect though he needed no baptism as we do to be a token to him of the remission of any sinnes committed by him Christ himself submitted to baptism for howbeit it was partly and perhaps primarily to fulfill all the righteousnesse of his own law as well as of Moses Law in his own person as he testifies it became him to do in Mat. 3. for he exacts and expects no more obedience to himself and the father either active or passive from us then he acted and yielded to the father first himself yet was he baptized partly also to the same end in order to which he did all things else that he either did or endured which was imitable and remaining for us to do after him as baptism is viz. that he might leave us who are so often charged to follow him an example that we should follow his steps Mat. 16. 24. 1 Pet. 2. 21. Rantist This is true the matter of his baptism is imitable by us and we are to be baptized as well as he nor do I yet see reason as the Ranter seems to himself to do why Christ himself should be ingaged to baptism or the Eunuch either and our selves exempted from it but whether it be so needfull to be done just in that manner as you would make it to be I see no ground yet to believe that Baptist. Can you be baptized in a better manner think you then that wherein Iohn baptized Christ and Philip the Eunuch me thinks you should not derogate so much from the wisdome of those Primitive Administrators as to imagine such a thing and if you cannot are you not half wild in contending for a worse Or Secondly would you be baptized in not so low base contemptible ridiculous tedious a way to the flesh as they but in a more honourable more moderate more easie more tollerable more world winning more self pleasing more flesh favoring a manner or what is it you would have me thinks either that soure service of going down into a River or pond and being dipt or overwhelmed in water there which served our Lord Iesus Christ and that honourable Eunuch might serve you or else that easie sweet service of sprinkling which you content your selves with might have served them one of the two for as they were required to be baptized no more then you so surely in no more unwelcome a way of baptism then your selves and they would not have so farre supererrogated as to have been baptized at all if it would have fulfilled righteousnesse in that point to have been sprinkled onely on the forehead Nay that would not for saies Christ when he came to Iohn and Iohn at first refused to baptize him Thus it becometh us to fulfill righteousnesse Thus i. e. not onely in this matter but in this manner but if you will needs perform this service more easily then Christ and the Eunuch did perform it onely as in sprinkling you do not and let be done in what manner or accidental form you please and if you like not to do it openly in Rivers or such like places we stand not on those nicities though many thousands of Primitive Saints as well as modern were and are so baptized let it be done in a Cistern so it be totally and truly done yea make one big enough for the disciple and the dispenser to go down in both together so that the one may conveniently be overwhelmed in water by the other and then let it be done in a bason if you please As for the other thing the Dr. saies viz. that there is no proof at all of the dipping or plunging Christ and the Eunuch but onely of their washing in the River I wonder the Dr. did not look into his Lexicon before he asserted such an absurdity as this if he had he might have fonnd cujus contrarium that there is proof enough that they were dipped or plunged in the alledged texts but no proof at all that they were washed in any other way for the very thing that is related of them both is that they were dipt plunged or washed by dipping t is said of Christ plainly Mat. 3. 15. that he came to Iohn to this very end that he might be baptized by him and verse 16. being baptized he ascended presently from the water and of Philip and the Eunuch Act. 8. 38 they descended down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him and ver 39. when they were come up or ascended out of the water Now I appeal to all rational and unprejudiced men in the world that are skilled so farre in the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to have once seen the genuine sense and signification of it in any Lexiâ—…on which is to dip plunge put under water overwhelm with water primarily and secondarily to wash or clense by dipping or dousing whether there be not in those Scriptures plain proof of their dipping and plunging or washing by dipping and not the least hint or evidence of any other washing at all The Dr. himself grants that they went into the River I marvel to what purpose if not to be dipt there he confesses also that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized which in plain English is dipt or overwhelmed in the River mark his words in the river also that such baptism of men especially in the hotter climates both hath been is and may be lawfully used and yet for all that denies
that in many more places then those alledged by your selves as namely to add to your store Act. 2. 27. thou wilâ—… not leave my soul in hell Luke 11. 7 my children are in bed with me But is it so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and is so rendred in that place and many more then I am sure hat here it doth not signify out of for he that is in a City put a Nazareth or Capernaum is at that time when said to be in it not out of it nor only by it but in it money that is truly denominated to be in a purse is at that time truly in it and neither out of it nor beside it leaven hid in three pecks of Meal whilest hid is in it overwhelmed covered with it and not on the outside with a few dusts of meal sprinkled on it only He that is in hell i. e. the grave in bed while he is truly said to be in it he is in it and not at it only and so he that is truly denominated to be baptized in water or in Iordan in the River Jordan is not ouâ—… of it not at it not by the side of it not neer it only as you fancy them to have bin that were baptized of John in Jordan He I say who is said truly and the spirit lies not to be baptized in Jordan must needs be whilest he was in the Act of this baptizing not out of Jordan nor just by it only but truely in it and that 's more then he needs to be in order to baptism if he can be baptized as well standing by it only in that fiddling way of sprinkling Whereas therefore you contend against baptizing i. e. dipping into Jordan into Rivers and plead for a baptizing in water onely by the Example of Christs baptism which you yield in Jordan but not into it I marvel what wide difference you see in these two that you should grant it to be in and yet be affraid to grant it to be into Jordan you cry out not into not into by any meanes for that is no way consistent indeed with your dry washing but by all meanes let it be in only viz. in water in the River in Jordan let it be in water then as much as you will for me so it be in water that you are baptized and not out of it and not well nigh without it as most of yâ—…ur christened Creatures are whilest little or none in comparison of such a measure of water as must necessarily be in order to a true baptizing of them doth once come neer them Fourthly it appears plainly that the way of baptizing in the primitive times was by totall dipping not sprinkling in that they chose to do it in places where there was much water or many waters which they need not have done if sprinkling might then have past for baptizing Iohn baptized in the River Iordan and was baptizing Iohn 3. 23. in Enon neer to Salem and the reason is rendred thus viz. because there was much water there and there they came and were baptized and as the reason why they went to be baptized there was because there was much water or many waters for the word is Plurall so surely the reason why they went to such a place was that they might be baptized i. e. dipped in water as they could not conventently be elsewhere at least not every were for where might they not easily have bin sprinkled and upon this account no doubt as Iohn chose to preach about those River sides viz. Iordan and Enon that their converâ—…s might conveniently be baptized Paul and Silas being at Philippi and abiding in that City certain daies to preach the Gospel on the Sabbath the most likely time of vacuity from other occasions for people to assemble to hear in went out of the City by a Rivers side and there sate down and spake to as many as resorted thither to hear viz. certain women for men for the most part were more shy of the Gospel as now they are that they might conveniently dispense baptism to them as should imbrace the Gospel as a certain woman named Lidya and her houshold did and thereupon out of hand were all baptized Act. 16. 12. c. Rantist Their baptizing where there was much water for this reason that they might do the work so effeâ—…ually to every person as by dipping is a frivolous conjecture as if there could be no reason why Iohn should chose a place where many waters were but that he might dipp the whole man in the water the cause rather seems to be this because waters in those hot Countryes were rare and in some places could not be had in a great distance and because there came multitudes to be baptized for the dispatching of which they might well seek places of many waters where John and his disciples might at once be imployed one water of depth sufficient would have served for the use of dipping for dipping sake he might have sought for a deep but needed not to seek many waters Baptist. So saies Mr. Cook indeed to A. R. p. 15. 16. and Mr. Blake to Mr. Blackwood who jumps as just with Mr. Cook as one that never saw nor heard of any sprinkled can likely do with another who maintaines sprinkling to be the onely way of baptizing but both weary themselves to little purpose The question is not whether Iohn had no reason but that which we alleadge of baptizing where there was much water but whether that which we alleadge viz. that he might dipt the whole man be not one reason as for that you bring viz. because there came multitudes to be baptized and that Iohn and his disciples might at once be imployed in baptizing that can be no reason at all of their running into rivers to baptize nor of their dispensing in Iordan In Enon and in places of much water or in many waters and therefore for ought I see yet ours is the onely one for verily were it not for the sake of totall dipping they need not for the multitudes sake that came to be baptized nor yet for the multitudes sake who did baptize I mean Iohn and his disciples who no doubt were all at once imployed in that work have sought for a place of much water or many waters for as one bason of water may well serve to sprinkle a whole parish of many persons or if not it s easily replenisht so many persons imployed at once in sprinkling might easily put their hands into one or if not might they not easily have it in many basons what a poor shift is this Rivers Iordan Enon many waters and why because many were baptizing and many to be baptized one water of depth quoth Mr. Blake would have served for the use of dipping for dippings sake they he might have sought for a deep but needed not seek many waters but would not one water of no great depth as a bason
head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three daies burial which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning 2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures those few that were in the Ark only excepted were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion not by dipping so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping and to the preservation of Noâ—…h and those that were with him in the Ark on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptism as its Antitype Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16 17. And then again p. 19 20. 21. he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large and to prove that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things that are signified therby then it may be as well nay must be rather by washing pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water sprinkling and infusion being as if not more agreeable to the nature and institution of baptism then dipping or immersion for as the word used i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing so the thing represented sigâ—…yed and sealed saith he in the wonted implicit phrase in baptism is a washing 〈◊〉 Cor. 6. 11. ye are wasted c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10. 22. t is a cleansing and purging 1 John 1. 7. blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9. 14. blood of Christ shall purge your conscience which things viz. washing clonsing purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping and though it were granted saith he that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water and being dipt therein that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now then the examples of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying but it may be objected saith he that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there the face or head onely I answer first saith he the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly with as good reason one may plead thus that t is most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as his stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who would endure saith he such reasoning These outward elements of water bread and wine are for spiritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing yea the spirituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism viz. The application of Christs blood and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring sprâ—…kling and that probably if not certainly with allusion to the administration of baptism Isa. 44. 3. Joel 2. 28. I will powre out my spirit upon all flesh Ezech. 36. 26. He spâ—…inkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean this clean water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Christ represented in the water of baptism so in the new testamet Act. 2. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12. 24. Now saith he let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken of and withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to iudge whether sprinkling be not as if not more agreeable to the nature of this sacrament as dipping or immersion In this manner Mr. Cook delivers his conceptions in his to A. R. we will onely see what his parallel saith who argues as Mr. Cook doth epitomizing as it were the labors of Mr. Cook unto his own turn against C. B. wee l first fully receive his charge also and then fully return what in right reason remaines to be returned to both If by baptism saith he we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death and also made partakes of his resurrection will it follow therefore that there must be some ceremony in the application of the water to resemble it if you may take this liberty of argument give me leave saith he to attempt the like and with as good reason to conclude that baptism must be no other then sprinkling that there may be proportion between it and that sprinkling of blood and water that did foreshadow it or baptism must be onely by powring of water there being a lively representation between that and pouring out of the holy spirit or that baptism must be by washing with water only there being a lively proportion between that and washing away of sins by Christs blood you see saith he what you will gain from these disputes from Analogy and proportion To this purpose Mr. Blake p. 6. as if he had stopt all our mouthes by this at once for ever yet I hope he shall see that he hath left us room enough yet to breath in and by which to breath out some reply Now to give the more plain quick cleer and condign check to these two palpable controulers not to say contramâ—…lers of the present piecious and apparent Truth reducing Mr. Blakes sharp and snap-short Syllogisticalls unto that long circumferaneous collation of Mr. Cook out of which for ouhgt I find he fetch it and in the answering of which Mr. Blake is answered as well as he I most earnestly intreat both those two and all other opposites to that one and onely true way of baptizing we plead for viz. of total dipping seriously to advise what is granted and denyed what is asserted and argued and by what weak Mediums and on what crazy grounds those things are that are
the image for when the picture is understood that even that of which it is the picture is made cleer and verily farre more cleer then without a picture and as a true picture is not well understood if the likenesse or lively resemblance of the picture be not observed so neither are the sacraments unlesse the likenesse of the outward signes and things thereby signified be understood in this sense the Appollogy of the Augustinian confession doth divers times call the sacraments by the name of pictures And again p. 363. shewing wherein the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified consists it stands saith he in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel similitudine signorum cum rebus signatis in the analogy and likenesse that is between the signes and things signified And then he goes on quoting Austin thus De qua Agustinus Si inquit sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent and then again p. 365. speaking of those sacramental locutions as you call them whereby the sign is oft called by the name of the thing signified and said to do and be that which onely the thing signified is and doth in truth This saith he is by a sacramental metonimy and the meaning of it is not that one is changed really into the other but because the sign doth so lively resemble the thing signified Next to which he cites again the very same sentence out of Austin which is rehearsed in latin just above together with somewhat more all which I English thus viz. If the sacraments should not have in them some likenesse to the things whereof they are sacraments they could not be sacraments at all but by reason of this likenesse it comes often to passe that they bear the very names of the things they resemble By the way I cannot but take notice what an argument here is against infants baptism as well as against the form of Rantism fot if true baptism must resemble as well as signifie to the very eyes and so mediante oculo to the understanding and minds of persons to whom it s dispensed is it possible for that baptism that was dispenst in Infancy to represent lively and cleerly to my sense and reason when I am at years the things therein signified for to call that a sign much more a lively resemblance of a thing before our eyes so Buchau saies of baptism ante oculos objicit which we never saw at all or if we did t was when we could not apprehend it and so long since that we necessarily and universally forget it and that so farre that our fancy can never possibly recollect that outward appearance of those inward things is no better then meer childishnesse and very vanity to me Rantist This shewes indeed that t was the opinion of these Reverend men that there ought to be of necessity as cleer a resemblance as may be of the thing signified in the administration of the outward and visible sign in all sacraments or else they are no sacraments but that is nothing binding to us without some good ground out of Scriptures to believe it therefore le ts see it appear from thence and if you will from the Scriptures you began upon Rom. 6. Col. 2. in which I see nothing on which you can ground that in baptism there must be visibly and representatively a death burial and resurrection though I grant all these are signifyed thereby Baptist. I rejoice much to see you renounce that implicit faith whereby you have formerly lived it may be more upon the mouth of Calvin Ursin Austin and other Authors then on the mouth of Peter and Paul or the mouth of Christ himself in his word neither do I urge any thing out of these Authors to be taken upon trust without trial yet prove what they say however in this point and hold it fast too if by the word you find it to be good I come therefore to consider that which first occasioned all this discourse and to see if such a matter as a death burial and resurection of Christ be not here expressed or at least implyed neither of which yet is granted by Mr. Cook or Mr. Blake as things to which true baptism is to bear some resemblance and here let me tell you though you and the rest are engaged to make the best of your rantism now you see it questioned and have begun in the face of the world to defend it will sooth men up and tell them there is none but the Anabaptists gather that there must be a representation of death burial and resurrection from those places and such like yet we are not alone in our assertions even from those places that these are to be resembled for some that wrote impartially upon the places Rom. 6. Col. 2. even of your own way before the matter came so much in question have shewed their sense therof to be the same with ours as concerning the representation of all these witnesse one Mr. Thomas Wilson who in an exposition of his upon Rom. 6. declares from the 3 and 4 verses thereof in this manner That baptism is a pledge of our sanctification in all the parts of it thus the death of sin saith he is effectually represented by the water cast on us at our baptism though by his favor who was I perceive of Mr. Cooks conceit that infusion might serve turn not half so effectually as by the water overwhelming us the burial of sin by our being under the water and by our comming out of the water our arising out of our sins to a better life through the power of the holy spirit applying Christs death and burial for the bâ—…ating down of our corrupt nature and his Resurrection for our quickening to godlinesse of living Thus he Neither is he alone in this sense upon these places but most if not all modern writers that do purposely or but occasionally touch upon these places as Calvin Ursin Paraeus Tiâ—…enus Zanky c. do fully agree with him in this particular viz. that the lively resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection and of ours with him that is to be held forth in the administration of Baptism is among other things signified in those Scriptures and do with him expound the words baptized in his death buried with him in baptism into death wherein yee are also risen with him c. not of the things signified only viz. our Mortification of sin and rising to holinesse in a way of likeness to Christs death and resurrection but also of the outward right and form of administration of the sign it self to be done in a way of likenesse to them both so that we by that as by an image or lively resemblance may not only be kept in a lively remembrance of the matter of them but may beat the manner of those matters also in our minds Thus Calvin l. 4. c. 15.
s. 5. Alterum sructum affert baptisnius qui nostram in Christo Mortificationem ostendit c. id est another fruit of baptism is this it sets forth our death to sin in Christ and our new life in him fitly as the Gosspel saith Rom. 6. 3. we are baptized into his death and buried with him in baptism into death that we might walk in a new life By which words he doth exhort us to an imitation of him as if he should say we are admonished by baptism that by a resemblance of Christs death we should dy to our lusts and by the example of his resurrection we should rise to righteousness c. Also l. 4. c. 16. s. 16. speaking against such as say no more then truth though Baptismum esse sepulturam in quam nulli nisi jam mortui tradendi sunt id est That Baptism is a form or way of burial with which none but such as are i. e. appear to be already dead to sin or to have repented from their dead works are to be buried And that he might vindicate infants who yet in infancy cannot dy to sin or repent from dead works tells us but believe him who will in that Nos jam ante Mortuos per baptismum sepeliri id est That persons are to be buried in baptism before they be dead before they repent or appear to have died to sin and to prove that he cotes this very place Rom 6. 4. which the scripture saith he Deserte reclamet nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri ut emoriamur ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemur i. e. very elegantly proclaims the contrary namely that we are buried in baptism into death on this very condition that we may die to sin and may even by that outward visible burial we have in baptism be minded of the duty of mortification Which Exposition is the truth yet not the whole truth nor yet so much as serves the turn Mr. Calvin brings it for t is true we are baptized into death or buried in baptism in token that we must and on this condition that we shall dy to sin yet not only so but also in token and on condition that we are dead in a measure or have repented already nor doth it follow because we are buried in baptism that we may and in token that we must die more and more to sin that therefore we are to be buried in baptism before we die to sin for we are to repent before baptism and after it also But however the truth that is in it is enough to serve our turn at present i. e. to prove his Judgement and ours to jump together as to the true intent and meaning of those phrases in the text viz. buried with him in baptism into death which both hee and we take to expresse the outward riâ—…e of baptism and that that outward rite be performed answerably to the name here given it in manner and form of a burial which cannot be without submersion and this too in token and as a resemblance of our death to sin and burial with Christ the signatum or thing signifyed and resembled which whether it go before or come with or after the sign is not material And though Mr. Calvin and we are twain and cannot agree whether we are to be baptized i. e. buried in baptism before we are dead to sin or after yet herein we meet in one with all other Expositors on this place so far as I find Mr Cook and Mr. Blake only excepted viz. that whether Mortui or Morituri we ought to be buried in baptism according to this place not spiritually only for that is the inward thing signifyed into which i. e in token and resemblance of which we are outwardly buried but visibly and representatively also in the ceremony Much what to the same purpose speaks Calvin again about three or four pages after ' where coting both the places we are now in hand with viz. Romans 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. He Expounds the words buried with Christ in baptism of the verity of the outward rite it self representing and betokening the spiritual death to sinne that ought to follow it Paraeus also upon Vrsin p. 375. speaking how baptism is a token not only of remission of sin but regeneration also which he makes so synonimous with our death and burial with Christ that he cotes these these two places Rom. 6. 4 Col. 2. 12. to prove regeneration to be signifyed in it for we are said saith he to dy and to be buryed with Christ in baptism gives this as one reason why we are said to be regenerated that is in his sence dead and buried with Christ in baptism because of the likenesse that is between baptism and those things so that he also takes the phrase buried with Christ in that place to sound forth Sepelitionem externam internae simulacrum that external act of being buried in water by baptism that is the lively embleme of the internal Zanchy also upon Col. 2. 12. writes thus viz. Regenerationis duae sunt partes c. of Regeneration there are two parts Mortification and vivisication that is called burial with Christ this resurrection with Christ the sacrament of both these is baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again it may be said truly but sacramentally of all that are baptized that they are buried with Christ and raised with him yet really only of such as have true faith Now I appeal to all men whether he do not here expound Paul in the words buried with him in baptism and therein risen with him as speaking of the outward rite of baptism whereby the spiritual death and resurrection is resembled yea and so lively resembled that even such as have no more then the bare outward sign of water in baptism without the thing signifyed may be said though Sacramentally i. e. and analogically and in respect of neer resemblance yet truly to be buried and raised with Christ this cannot be said of them that are but ranâ—…ized onely for if in respect of any Mortification and vivisication they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ yet that outward rite and ceremony cannot of it self denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ for there is not so much as any likenesse of such things in it but he that hath the true outward rite of baptism i. e. dipping dispensed to him may be truly said to be buried and raised with Christ though he have no more for he hath the same visible overwhelming and burying in water and raising again in baptism which in the bare ordinance of baptism Christ himself had Bucan also that famous professor of Theology though he were so far benighted by being no doubt accustomed to sprinkling that he saw not the difference that is between it and dipping so far but that he supposed one might serve as well as
the other yet coâ—…es this sixâ—… of the Rom. 3. and 4. to prove the Analogy that is between the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism in his 24 question in page 668. quae est analogia conventenâ—…a sigâ—… et rei signatae in Baptismo optima c. saith he What is that Analogy and Agreement which is between the sign and the thing signifyed in baptism Most apâ—… forasmuch as in the same Manner as the water washes the body and clenses it from bodily impurities so the blood of Christ by its merits washes away our sins and spiritual impurities and his spirit sanctifyes us Moreover that immersion into water or aspersion doth most clearly denote Rantismon the sprinkling of the blood of Christ in order to remission of Sins and imputation of righteousnesse but the abode Quantumvis Momentanea quantula cunque saith Tilenus though never so small so that both these confute Mr Cooks fancy of a necessity of 3 daies abode under water if we will have Christs burial represented lively denotes the death burial of our corruption by vertue of the death burial of Christ that is the mortification of the old man but the rising out of the water doth most analogically as it were object unto our eyes â—…he resurrection of the new man or our vivisication and newnesse of life and also our resurrection at the last day See how this man saving that he shuffles in aspeâ—…sion and immersion as nothing differing doth own immersion into water abode under it rising out of it as the most admirable way of analogy to signifie and resemble what evâ—…r was to be resembled in baptism again in his 53 question p. 692. he quotes Rom. 6. 4. saying with allusion to that Scripture that Predicatione sacramentali we are said in baptism to die to be buried to be raised with Christ and that baptism confirmes our faith in these things because it doth pingere mortem c. plainly paint out the death burial and resurrection of Christ and therein is documentum c. a certain lesson of our renovation and resurrection Now the reason of all such sacramentall locutioâ—… whereby the things signified are said to be done in the outward sign is saith Paraeus analogia signi et reâ—… signatae tale enim quiddam est res significata in suo genere quale quiddam est signum in suo genere c. The likenesse that is between the outward sign and the thing signified for such as the thing signified is in its kind just such a thing the sign is in its kind for as the water washes away the filth of the flesh so Christs blood our sinnes and in such a manner as the sign is outwardly dispensed so inwardly the thing signified as the minister acts without so God within c. As therefore God within by the power of Christs death and resurrection mortifies buries to sin and raises us to righteousnesse so must not the administrator without semblably bury the person in water in baptism unto death and raise him again unto life or in token of his resurrection to a new life if not where is then the analogie and if no analogie why are we said sacramentally in baptism to be buried and raised sith the cause of all such sacramental locution is because the sacraments are as Austin saies pictures of the things signified in them or is aspersion an action as answerable to a burial and resurrection and painting it out as lively as submersion and emersion do hic murus ahaeneus esto This I know as sorry a shifâ—… as it is must be your most inmost shelter when all is done for it can never be with any colour of reason nor is it by any reasonable men that I know save Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake denied but that baptism must 〈◊〉 according to the word yea that word Rom. 6 â—…ol 2. bear analogy to and the image of the thing signified yea and that very thing of all the rest which are represented therein viz. a death burial and resurrection by being under water and brought out of it again though by all that sprinkle t is moâ—… heedlessely thought and therefore as senselessely taught that rantism i. e. aspersion sets forth those to the life as much as baptism i. e. immersion or overwhelming Among the rest that write of baptism with any allusion to those Scriptures we are yet in hand with what learned Tilenus saith is worth your animadversion I confesse the man though in his judgement he seem clear for our manner of baptizing by immersion submersion and emersion as that which was the onely primitive action and institution yet is so far benighted by the mist and black vail of implicit faith which hath covered all Christendom as to suppose that aspersion may now serve the turn and that for sundry reasons some of which are apparently faâ—…se and never a one of them worth a â—…raw which I le repeat and answer as I go for saith he Ritus in baptismo est triplex immersio in aquam 〈◊〉 sub aquâ et emersio ex aquâ quam vis autem immersio usâ—…atior olim fuerit presertim in Judea c. The outward ceremony to be used in baptism is threefold dipping into the water abode under the water and rising out of the water but howbeit this immersion was the usual way in former times especially in Judea and other warmer Countries rather then aspersion where note that he grants and who does â—…ot but Mr. Cook Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake that having once denied it do strenuously resist it that the primitive way in Iudea and those Regions was totall dipping yet saith he the circumstance pertaines not to the substance of baptism which is false for I have proved that to be no baptism that is but sprinkling Secondly and sith the analogy of the Sacrament may be held out no lesse in aspersion then immersion which is as false and fond a fanâ—…asm as the other for sprinkling hath no more likenesse in it to a death a burial and a resurrection which though Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake deny it yet Tilenus himself abundantly pleads as I shall shew and that ex instituto from these Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. ought to be represented in baptism then it hath likenesse to immersion submersion and emersion and that 's not so much as is between an apple and a nut Thirdly and sith in legall purifications sufficiebaâ—…t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprinklings did suffice which if they did it was because these sprinklings with blood of the sacrafices which were as well on the mercy seat as on the people in token of onenesse or atonement between God and them were instituted directly and solely to point out the spiritual sprinkling of Christs blood on the mercy seat in heaven and on us here on earth in token of atonement which is not the thing onely mainly originally or immediately signified neither so as that it onely is to
be remembred and resembled in baptism but the truth of the death burial and resurrection of Christ as the root whence all the other flows and therefore that reason though true yet is nothing to the purpose Fourthly sith immersion quoth he may indanger the health specially of such tender infants as are wont to be baptized now a daieâ—… which shewes that of old such were not baptized and that Christ never instituted this ordinance for infants who cannot bear the dispensation of it to them as it should be by right without danger of death but must of necessity and in charity and in humane prudence taking upon it to correct the divine wisdome of Christ and modle his ordinances more to their own ease have another thing i. e. Rantism universally dispensed to them instead of it Fiftly sith both these rites viz. sprinkling and dipping are expressed by the name of baptism Mat. 3. 26. Luke â—…1 38. Mark the 7. 4. then which nothing is more contrary to truth for though t is true that dipping is stiled baptism in Mat. 3. 16. the place he brings to prove that where note again that Christ himself was baptized by submersion yet that 's not true that Rantism is any where called by the name of baptism yea in the very places he uses to prove that viz. Luke 11. Mark 7. t is most evident that t was more then sprinkling yea and no lesse then a dipping that is there called baptism for t was washing of hands which if ever any body living saw any but slovens wash when foul by no more then sprinkling two or three drops of water on them they have seen more then ever I saw to my remembrance since ever I were born and christned For these forâ—…named reasons saith Tilenus we suppose the Church by the law of charity anâ—… neâ—…essity may use which of these rites she pleases By all which it appears that though speculatively he saw submersion to be the way by institution unlesse out of necessity and charity the Church forbid it yet practically he was as you are for aspersion and this makes the more against you in this matter in that a man that retained sprinkling as you do sith t is the fashion in these colder climates should yet be constrained to confesse so much institution as he does for that way of truth I mean submersion which we contend for for seriously take away the wretched reasons which flattered him in to speak favorably of sprinkling he was as to the true way of total dipping caetera orthodoxâ—…s as orthodox as we desire him to be Iâ—…e bestow the paines of rehearsing what he writes so far as concerns our purpose in very elogan Latine p. 884. 886. 889. 890. of his disputations in as plain English as I am able Baptism saith he is the first sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which with a most paâ—… and exact Analogy between the sign and the thing signifyed those that are in Covenant are by the Minister washed in water the outward rite of baptism is three fold immersion into the water abiding under the water and resurrection out of the water the form of baptism to wit internal and essential is no other then that Analogicall proportion which the signes keep with the things signifyed thereby for as the properties of the water in washing away the 〈◊〉 of the body do in a most suitable similitude set forth the effiâ—…acy of Christs blood in blotting out of sins so dipping into the water doth in a most lively similitude â—…et forth the mortification of the old man and rising out of the water the vivification of the New although that Leviticaâ—… rite of sprinkling of blood Exod. 24. 8. did more grossely resemâ—…e the blood of Christ yet that was not so exact a similitude as is in the water of our baptism That same plunging into the water holds forth to us that horrible gulfe of of divine Justice in which Christ for our sins sake which he took upon him was for a while in a manner swallowed up Abode under the water how little a while soever yet saies Mr. Cook it must be three daies answerable to Christ three daies burial or else it answers it not as a true resemblance of it at all denotes his descent into hell even the very deepest degree of lifelessenesse while lying in the sealed and guarded sepulchre he was accounted as one truly dead rising out of water holds out to us a lively simitude of that conquest which this dead man got over death which he vanquished in his own den as it were that is the grave in like manner therefore it is meet that we being baptized into his death and buried with him should rise also with him and so go on in a new life Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 12. that these things are signifyed unto us in baptism the very outward rites themselves do teach for immersion shadowes out to us the pravity of our nature dying in us in which our old man dies and is buried with Christ the progresse of which benefit putting forth its power in us by a little abode under the water points out even as rising out of the water sers forth a new life corruption being done away hence it is that baptism is called the washing of Regeneration and that whereby we are saved â—…us 3. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. namely because what is done outwardly by the body in the sign the same is truly performed and confirmed to believers in the soul and even therefore both the names and properties of the sign and the thing signified are very often interchangeably attributed to each other by a Sacramentally metonimy Thus saith Tilenus in the forecited pages and some of this he repeats ore again page 1078. whereby you may guesse that in this his thoughts were well digested Forma Baptismi est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies he sive Relatio c. The Form of baptism is that Analogicall relation of the external and earthly which are the signes with the heavenly things or things signifyed this relation and most lively similitude that is between them is the cause why both the names and the properties of the signes and things signifyed are frequently given to one another by a familiar metonimy of the holy Scriptures wherein baptism is called the washing of regeneration and is said to save us saith he and in this respect also say I we are said to be buryed and raised in baptism in those places because of that lively resemblance of and likenesse to a burial and resurrection that ought by institution to be in the dispensation of baptism and that is in that institution if practised as ordained by Christ. Now who would think by all this but that this man had been baptized indeed i. e. dipped into buried under and brought out of the water in his baptism in remembrance and resemblance of Christs death resurrection and his own with him for how
does he speak and that out of these Scriptures we are upon that we ought thus to be baptized and these things are exactly exemplified to us saith he as if he had the lively Essigies of all that was done to him in his baptism dwelling indelably in his mind as if he had been truly buried and raised visibly in baptism indeed and yet behold I believe I may be so bold as to guesse by what he saies in favour of infants sprinkling and by one thing or other that he was not baptized all this while but meerly a Rantist and none of us in practice though so much for the way of dipping in his discourses Rantist But quorsum haec what mean you by all this quotation of Authors Baptist. Because Damnati lingua vocem habet vim non habet the words and constructions of a condemned man that is prejudged to be a heretick before he is heard are like to sway but little among his Accusers and therefore I rather chose to convince Mr. â—…ook and Mr. Blake who deny these Scriptures either to expresse or imply a representation of death burial and resurrection to be held forth in baptism by immersion submersion emersion by the judgments of their own approved orthodox Authors then by my own judging within my self that those words of Paul Act. the 17. 28. viz. as certain of your own poets have said was ad hominem an argument of more weight then an Argument of ten times more weight then it self and that if the joint harmony of Modern Divines holding forth from Rom. 6. Col. 2. a necessity of resemblance of burial and resurrection to be made in baptism by immersion submersion emersion be not considered the never so well grounded Testimony of my single silly self must needs be sleighted Neverthelesse whether you will hear or whether you will forbear I shall leave a word or two upon record whereby either to inlighten you that there is a resemblance of a burial and resurrection necessarily to be held forth in baptism and that no lesse is necessarily implyed at least in these two places Romans 6. and Coloss. 2. or else to leave you without excuse in your disownings of it For First this will appear plainly if it be considered that by the word baptized in the texts is undoubtedly meant the outward rite ceremony sign and form of the administration of baptism Secondly if it be considered that the phrase buried with him and risen with him i. e. Christ doth expressely relate immediately and specially if not onely in those texts to that outward sign it self as that in which taken distinctly from the mistery and inward grace we are said to be buried and risen not onely in signification but in lively representation of the inward and spritual burial and resurrection with Christ and not to the spiritual internal death and resurrection it self as that which is to be understood by those phrases at all muchlesse onely or altogether or abstractively and apart from any outward and bodily burial and resurrection in baptism as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake seeme too impishly to imagine Thirdly this appears yet further insomuch as there are other phrases in that 6 of the Rom. that do intimate and expresse that spirituall death and resurrection that is signified by the an alogical and representative burial of the body in water and raising it again in baptism viz. dead to sin alive to God newnesse of life c. Here is mention made of the things signified And as for that that is spoken of undâ—… this expression buried in baptism t is delievered as a medium whereby as a motive whereupon as a reason wherefore as an image and representative wherein we are both to read and remember and also to practise and perform that other for do but mark how shall we saith he that are dead to sinne i. e. should be so live any longer therein know you not that as many of you as were baptized into Christ i. e. into or in token of an interest in him of a onenesse and fellowship with him by faith are baptized into his death i. e. in token of such a communion with the power of his death as kills sin and crucifies the old man So that henceforth we should not serve sin therefore or hence it is saith he that in baptism i. e. the outward ordinance we are buried with him i. e. outwardly visibly bodily in water into death i. e. in token and resemblance of our dying to sin by vertue of his death that we should be ever practically mindful of this that like as Christ rose again after he was dead so we should rise to a new life for if we have bin planted together in the likenesse of his death i. e. signally in outward baptism spiritually and really in the inward work and washing performed by the spirit upon the soul we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection i. e. we should be de jure and shall de facto as we believe Fourthly this burial and resurrection that is immediately expressed by the words buried with him in baptism wherein you are also risen with him is made a motive argument and incitement to the spiritual death and resurrection for therefore are we perswaded to die to sin and live righteously because in baptism we are buried in water and raised again in token that we ought so to do and on this condâ—…on are we baptized and buried and raised therein and so interessed into all the other benefits of Christs death remission of sins and salvation viz. that we should die to sin and live holily and to this end also that we may be minded thereby to do so Nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri in baptismo Scriptura reclamet ut emoriamur ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemer Saith Calvin l. 4. c. 16. S. 16. Now if this death and burial that we are buried with in baptism be to this end to teach us and shew us that and how we must die to sin then the buriall in baptism there spoken of is not the death to sin it self for the motive and things we are moved to are two and so are the sign and thing signified now Fifthly t is not only such as is made a motive to the other therefore is not the other but such a death and resurrection as is performed accomplisht transacted 〈◊〉 baptism i. e. in the very time and juncture of our baptizing therefore cannot be meant of our spiritual death and resurection immediatly but oâ—… that burial and resurrection which the outward man in a figure or resemblance passes through both at in the administration of the ordinance for the spiritual death and resurection is that which though it be signified and resembled in baptism yet it is seldom if ever transacted in a person in that juncture of time wherein he is baptizing but for the most part before or after yea ever either before or after and
after a space and not hold them alwaies under it for if they had how they could have come up out of it I know not Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture then he did Mr. Cook from whom he borrowed this Argument and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden or else Mr. Simpson stole it for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his which he desired should be communicated he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water and took them up again but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you Rantist Now you talk of dipping under water and taking up thence again I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water and to lift him up again above the water sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water and stand there up to the middle and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under â—…y the administrator but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others is there any command for them to go into the water Baptist. I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden and you have laid your heads together you jump so right in one mind in this matter for in this manner and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above divinity admits not say you of se-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call se-baptism I know not but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism yet we have president so plain as is equivalent witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water and yet saving your ignorance which permits not the baptized to be agents Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ and that is sufficient that betakes himself not onely to the water but also so farre into it that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back and then dash him in against his will and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed besides doth the condemned mans being agent and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head as toly down and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself what dribling Divinity is this Rantist Mr. Blake saies surther that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments and lay them aside for that businesse but we find no such thing mentioned we find saith he one in the new testament stoned and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of un lothing for that end nor yet of the putting on of garments after baptism when yet sometimes there had been all reason for the mention of it as in the case of Paul of whom after he was baptized it is said he received meat and was strengthned but not that apparell was put on him nor dry and warm clothes applied to him which we should sure have heard of if he had bin dipt over head in water Baptist. If by putting off of clothes Mr. Blake mean as it appears he doth by his talk of naked dipping in the same place such a putting them off as is in order to putting on others fit for such a purpose in their stead I know not onely no necessity but no modesty also in such a divestment nor yet does Mr. Tombes I dare say though in his expressions viz. that informer dayes it was thought no immodesty and that there is no necessity that persons be dipt naked Mr. Baxter is so abominably uningenuous as to wrest his words into such base and sinister senses and to abuse him to the world as if he had meant it was no immodesty in old time to be dipt naked and as if he held it lawfull to be dipt naked though not necessary when ingenuity of judgement and such love as he pretends to Mr. Tombes would have construed his meaning to be this viz. that it was counted no immodesty in former times though it be now by Mr. Baxter to be dipt in that way wherein we are dipt which is not naked as Mr. Baxter bruits it and that it is not necessary to be dipt naked as Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook think it is if persons be baptized by a totall dipping and as for the Scriptures mentioning of the putting off and on of their clothes in their addresses to and dresses after baptism there was not onely no necessity but at all no expediency in the mention of such a matter yea both reason and nature it self suggesting how needful that was to be done it would have been very vain and superfluous to have talked on it as for the double mention that is made viz. by Luke Acts 7. 58. of the witnesses that stoned Stephen laying aside their garments at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul who is said Acts 8. 1. to be consenting to his death and also by Paul himself Act. the 22. 20. confessing to God his persecutions and how when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed he was standing by and consenting to his death and kept the raiment of them that shew him Mr. Blake cannot be so silly as to think that that clause concerning those mens clothes was put in as a
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
baptism that was in the primitive and purest times and for a reformation of all things according to the word and example of the Churches the word speake of it is true those Churches indeed worshipped thus were congregated thus ordered thus baptized thus viz. by dipping when they believed but sprinkling infants is the way and fashion now adaies and as for what was done of the Churches of old we have nothing to do with it and if any list to be contentions for it we have no such custom now nor the Churches of God! of which sure Mr. Cook cannot but be ashamed who hath covenanted to reforme according to the word fiâ—… a covenant keeper and a Custom-monger cannot possibly be denominated both of one Rantist Nay stay a little you 'l forget your own words I think anon did you not say your self even now that we must put difference between examples in substantiall matters and in matters meerly circumstantial we desire to keep as close as your selves can do to the primitive custom in things of weight and that there may be no variation from it without a violation of the will of Christ in any point that is positively commanded but I hope you will not make such a matter of moment of the manner of baptizing as if Chrst had injoined this way or that way of dispensation of it viz. dipâ—…ing so strictly as that sprinkling may not be used nor yet sprinkling so as that dipping may not be used nay rather its a meer ceremony a prudentiall point in which the Church may use her discretion so as to dispense it either way as conveniency and charity may dispose her and no lesse is very well observed by Mr. Baxter p. 135. Christ saith he hath not appointed the measure of water nor manner of washing no more then he hath appointed in the Lords supper what quantity of bread and wine each must take and as it would be but folly for any to think that men must needs fill themselves with bread and wine because it best signifies the fullnesse of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies our burial with Christ c. Christ told Peter that the washing of his feet was enough to clense all a little may signisie as well as much as a clod of earth doth in possession of much lands and a corn of pepper fignifies our homage for much and much to such a purpose are those words of Mr. Cook p. 20. some of which having been quoted and spoken to before though not so satisfactorily but that they sway with me still I am almost loath to repeat them yet sith they be so among the other I can hardly decline the mentioning them once more by your leave in answer to the objection that a little water doth not so fitly and perfectly represent as dipping and plunging sith in the one the whole body is washed in the other the face or head only He saies first that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly that with as good reason one may plead thus that at the supper it is most convenient that every Communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as stomach and head will hold to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who saies he would endure such reasoning Thirdly These outward Elements of water bread and wine are for speciall use and to signify special things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not to represent nor so much as to take of the heart from the spirituall to the corporal thing not the washing away the filth of the body in baptism nor the glutting or satisfying of the natural Appetite in the Lords Supper is to be looked after but the washing and refreshing of the Soul which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking of a little bread and wine In circumcision a little skin was cut of You see what these worthy men say you need not be so hot as you are for the ceremony if so be you keep the substance Baptist. I have received as much as all this comes to long since in a loving letter from a worthy friend of mine whose words shall sway me where I see them suit with the word of truth where not I must be excused to the full as much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxters sway you be they right or wrong Grant that dipping was alwaies used in those Hot Countreys yet you know saith he that necessity and charity dispense with Ceremonies even of Gods own institution nor is the Nature of the Sacrament altered by this change viz. from dipping to sprinkling for seeing the whole vertue of the Sacrament is in signification perablutionem it no more matters Quantum quisque abluatur then it doth in the Supper Quantum quisque comedat But verily I am not able to discern either in this or in that you say above or in that you cite out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter the least warrant in the world for the way of sprinkling or for waving the old wonted way of dipping with all the wisdome I have to weigh it by at this instant as for what you take notice of that I said my self above viz. that there is difference between matters circumstantial and substantial so that we need not be so strict in the observation of the one I will not eat any thing I then uttered but me thinks you might as well had you not been partial have taken notice of what followed as of that which had you done you would have seen how little accrues to your purpose out of that grant of mine for I told you there and now tell you again sith I see you so quick to catch at things by the halves and slow to mind what in them makes against you that howbeit it is not so material which way you baptize so you baptize yet if you Rantize onely you vary not onely in a circumstance but in the very substance of the Ordinance doing quite another matter then that you should do and not the matter i. e. Baptism in another manner onely for we will bear with that as a thing neither here nor there whether you baptize i. e. wash a person by overwhelming or burying him in water in this gesture or that this form or that with his face up or down yea be it by infusion of water on him or immersion or putting him under it which of the two is most proper and easy we weigh it not so you see to it that you bury and overwhelm him for all this while you retain both the true outward sign which is baptism or burial
preserve truth from being lost so that if truth be lost while I do my duty t is no sinne of mine if it be not lost while I neglect my duty it is yet my sin God disposeth of events not we therfore what consequences may be occasioned sith they are not caused by preaching the Gospel I may not for fear of them nor shall shun to declare the whole counsel of God I know necessity and charity do dispense with circumstances in ceremonies and with ceremonies or ordinances themselves of Gods own institution sometimes But first it is with the omission onely but not with the alteration of them into other if a man converted on his death bed or on the ladder when ready to be executed as the thief was upon the crosse be willing to be baptized if it may be but cannot in charity he may and of necessiâ—…y he must be dispenst with dying unbaptized in such a case but no man may dispense another thing to him i. e. Rantism in its room and stead no more then he may give other things then bread and wine in the supper to a stomach too weak to bear either of those for that is to take upon him to make another institution and Gods leave man never had so to do Secondly it must be by leave from the Lord implicit or expresse upon which onely we can ground the lawfulnesse of omission and necessity and charity but not charity mistaken are leave enough no doubt to let a lone though in no wise to alter what ever he ordaines as when it neither can be at all nor can be done conveniently nor possibly without killing men indeed whereupon we find no fault found with Israel in the wildernesse for forbearing to circumcise 40 years together it is like least it should hinder them in their warfare but sure I am they should have heard of it from the Lord if to forgo the sorenesse of that circumcision they had circumcised i. e. cut off onely the hair of their heads Let the Ranter therefore shew us Gods word for his omission and the Rantizer for his mutation of Baptism and we will fall in with either as we see it evidenced therein Rantist If you do but mind the Testimonies I cited out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter and what you hinted your self as wâ—…tten to you in private you cannot chuse but see word enough for our use of sprinkling though dipping were used never so in the primitive times for they tell you but me thinks you do not much mind it that the Scripture requires not totall washing that Christ appoints not the measure of water nor manner of washing more then the measure of bread and wine in the Supper he hath left it ad libitum and as they say very well the whole vertue of the Sacrament lying in signification per ablutionem it matters no more Quantum quisque abluatur then quantum quisque comedat and as it is folly to think that men must eat in the Supper as long as head and stomach will hold because it signifyes the souls refreshment so that in baytism we must be washed all over because it best signifies our burial with Christ a little signifies as well as much a clod of earth a pepper corn a little skin cut off in circumcision so by a little bread and wine eat and drank and by a little water sprinkled may the refreshment of the soul be represented Baptist. That which best signifyes is best to be done and forasmuch as tâ—… at best signifies that both signifies and resembles the quantity of the Element that manner of action which best resembles is best and fittest to be used undoubtedly in baptism in which Christ hath undoubtedly appointed what is best whereupon if Mr. Baxter grant or if he do not he cannot deny that overwhelming best resembles and consequently best signifyes our burial with Christ he never will give good reason whilest he breathes upon this earth why washing all over as he calls it should not be used as for that reason that is given against it here by himself at second hand and by Mr. Cook at first of whom he borrowes well nigh every bit of what he saies against a totall dipping save only his fearful fairfowl flourishes upon it viz. First that the measure of water and manner of washing the whole body is not appointed Secondly That then in the Supper there must be a eating to the full Thirdly That a little may serve as well as much there 's little weight as far as I see in any part of it The first hath so little reason that it hath no truth in it for Christ hath appointed vertually in some measure the measure of water in that his very appointment of the manner of washing in the way of a totall overwhelming as appears before in the signification of the word Baptize which signifies a dipping or overwhelming of that subject that is particularly denominated to be washed by it whether it be the whole man or but a part of him if the tip of the finger only be said truly to be baptized then that tip must be totally washed if the hands be denominated without a figure to be baptized then the hands at least are totally washed if the man be the subject properly predicated to be baptized then that man also must be totally washed but in Scripture the man is required and appointed to be baptized to the performance of which such a measure of water is consequently appointed as may be at least sufficient for that end and required it is that it be neither so little that it cannot totally wash him nor yet so much as must necessarily drowne him as an ocean would but a proportion suitable to that purpose To the second I might answer that there is not altogether the same reason for such a totall filling and swilling in the Supper as there is for a totall swilling in baptism sith the main and radical matter that is to be resembled in baptism is Christs death burial and resurrection but the radical thing that is resembled in that action of our eating and drinking in the Supper is our faith whereby we feed upon Christ and accept him each to our selves as our Redeemer without which that he is a Redeemer will do us no good for faith is the appropriating of of Christ the bread of life eâ—…ch to our selves who is set before us in common in the whole loaf and as it will do a man no good to have bread and wine before him which are elements most refreshing unless he take them and eat and drink so neither us to see a Saviour set before us unlesse we take of his salvation to our selves This is that which is most immediately signifyed and particularly represented in the Supper which businesse of bare taking Christ Jesus to our selves by faith is represented truly in taking never so little but a burial and resurrection not â—…n never so little water a
few crumbs of bread and sips of wine taken do reptesent a taking of Christ in the Supper but not so a few drops of water tisfled upon the face Christs death buriall and resurrection and sith you say the refreshment of the soul by the fullnesse is represented in our eating and drinking in the Supper and yet that eating and drinking a little bread and wine not to fulness is enough in the supper to represent that and so why not a little water not deep enough to dip and bury in applyed to us in baptism the burial and resurrection of Christ I might answer that the refreshment of the soul by Christ is represented rather in the elements then in the action of either eating or drinking in the supper by the bread which is a strengthner of mans heart and wine which is for them of a sorrowful heart and therefore there might not be altogether the need of representing our râ—…freshing by eating and drinking much at least so much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Ba. talkes of viz. to the filling and glutting of our selves to the top as long as head and stomack will hold that action would yield but a small resemblance of a refreshment and were enough to make a sound man sick but there is a reason in all things and a difference as we say between staring and stark madâ—… thus I say I might answer and cut off your arguing for analogy and a small portion of the element in baptism as well as in the supper between which there is not fully the same reason But verily I am of your mind that a refreshment of the soul by the fulnesse of Christ is very fit to be resembled and represented by the quantity of the elements as well as by the elements in the supper also and yet am I not of your mind that so little as you ordinarily use is so very fit as you dream it is to represent it but of the mind rather that as you are in your baptism viz. not out of your element as you should be if you were baptized in truth by submersion or putting clear under water but out in your element rather i. e. in the measure of your water which is not adaequate to the true manner of washing so you are also in the supper too poor in your provision of elements for that which is the true and full purport of that sacred service you have got together many littles to prove that so little element as you use both in baptism and supper may do as well if not better then more all which are very little to the purpose a little may signifie as well as much saies Mr. Baxter a clod of earth a pepper corn but what then we are to signifie with resemblance or else a sacrament is no sacrament saith Austin but saies Mr. Cook a little may resemble the washing and the refreshing of the soul may well be resembled by a sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking a little bread and wine in circumcision a little skinne was cut off what then First it was as much as God required to be cut off Secondly it was so much as made it circumcision Thirdly as much as truly and clearly resembled the circumcision of the heart which is signified but such is not for all Mr. Cooks conceit that little water you sprinkle nor yet that little becad and wine you distribute it is neither so much as represents clearly the things signified which are not onely the clearing of the soul by Christs dainties in the supper which should be resembled by eating and drinking it but some more chearing and refreshing of the body then that which is commonly in your communions But alas the burial and resurrection of Christ in baptism should be resembled by submersion and emersion and therefore to answer Mr. Cook in the words of Mr. Cook the outward elements of water bread and wine are for spirritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things but what I wonder if there be not as I am sure in Rantism there is not the truth of baptism the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace so far then it seemes it must be and that is enough to confute Mr. Cooks Rantism for it represents not the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it yet so little is the quantity that you use not of water onely in the one but of bread and wine also in the other ordinarily nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing content with all in my heart that it be not too much on this hand provided that it be not too litle one the other so but that it may reach to resemble the things signified for the whole vertue of baptism lying in signification per ablutionem i.e. per submersionem per sepelitionem in aquâ and the vertue of the supper much what in signification per recreationem per representationem plenitudinis non multum interest quantum quisque abluatur modo obruatur submergatur sepeliatur nec quantum quisque comedat modo comedendo repleatur To conclude Sirs you are too short in that point of the outward element in the supper as well as baptilm in the Church of Corinth there was so much bread and wine that if some hungred others were drunken as neither of these should have been so the latter could not have been but that the use then was to have more abundance of the elements then you have in your parish passeovers wherein the people are past over with so poor a pittance that all may in likelihood be hungry enough but none at all very easily drunken such niggardly ships and sups not at Rome onely where the Priests expounding Christ as speaking to themselves when of the wine saying drink ye all this and not to the people saying drink ye all of this do impropriate the liquor wholly to themselves but in England also do the priests supp I should say dine for it is done at noon dayes with them their poor patient dependant people at the Lords table There 's one thing among Mr. Baxters bedrow which I had almost quite past over without any answer which if I had you would have said it is like I willingly forgat it Christ told Peter saith he that the washing of his foet was enough to clense all Mr. Blake gives us a touch here too through the persons of a popish party p. 10. of Peters mind saith he not to be washed in oâ—… part onely which say some from the same place also viz. Iohn 13. 9. 10. is as sufficient as the washof the whole As if that Scripture even therefore because it speaks of washing doth speak of this ordinance of baptism either it doth Sirs in your opinion or it doth not if not to what purpose do
the truth yet many that are baptized do run out to very vise opinions and practises no better then their principles and stop not there indeed as he saies but go much further and degenerate into wayes of wickednesse more abominable then ever in former time and of these Ranters Mr. Copp is none of the least attainers whom Mr. Ba. p. 148. hath very well set forth in his colours for I believe God in Iustice hath given him up and many other besides him to more notoriousnesse of error and enormity then ever any that profest godlinesse But what then shall we impute that fault to his being baptized I trow not for howbeit Mâ—… Ba. so imagines yet it was because he honoured not the truth when he had owned it nor walked in Christ after he had received him in which case how often God gives over to strong delusions is evident not only by the word which declares that when men like not to retain God in their knowledge he oft gives them over unto vile affection But also by sad experience in the world in these last times wherein 2 Pet. 2. 1. 1 Tim. 4 1. and the 2. 3. 1. doctrines of divels are rise among them that once owned the faith yet the faith not a whit in fault for all that but departure from the saith before expressed And that the fall of these men is into worse then ever before it is no argument against but rather for the way they newly fall from the sensuality of such as separate themselves from the true Churches in the later times i. e. congregational after these are once separated from the false ones i. e. the nationall being prophesied of 2 Pet. 2. Iude 19. of old that it should be greater then that of all beastly men that were before them besides corruptio op imi pessima the higher the rise into reformation the more desperate the fall into deformation of those that reform and prove deformed again that greater depth of hell therefore men fall into that fall from us proves the hight of our Churches to be neerer heaven then that of yours for if after they have escaped c. 2 Pet. 2. 20. 21. 22. when Cop was in his standing in the Church of England I remember very well for I knew him better then then ever since he had some bounds from conscience to his corruption but having been once inlightned higher then Mr. Baxter ever was yet in the will and way of God and tasted of the heavenly gift and made a partaker of the holy spirit and obeyed the truth as it is in Jesus and yet fallen away his conscience is feard with a hot iron and I have small hope of his renewing against by repentance who thus denies the Lord that bought him and cruçifies the Lord afresh and is twice dead pluckt up by the Roots a raging wave of the sea foaming out his own shame But what is all this to those that yet walk in truth of baptism more then to warn them that they depart not from it as he hath done lest they come into the same condemnation with him doth it prove baptism to be the cause of that grosness that often followes when a person is baptized in no wise for his non abiding in the love of the truth and that doctrine of Christ gives God occasion to give over to the height of wickednesse I appeal therefore to the conscience of Mr. Baxter 1. Whether the Pope may not by as good consequence charge all these errors that are upon Protestanism saying Thus the Protestants stop not there but run out further from Episcopacy to Presbytery and to Independency and so to Anabaptism and so to all it is true Protestanism is occasioâ—… or causa sine qua non for such as sit still in the smoak of the Popes Traditions are not acquainted with the new found fancies of the Ranter But Protestanism is not the true cause 2 Whether Mr. Ba. be so well aware as he should be what time of day it is when Peter and Iude point out these things so plainly and yet he wonders at them as a Mystery 3. Whether the few owning and the few abiding in the true way of baptism doth not prove it to be the streit and narrow way that leads to life which few find 4. Whether he think we lay not to heart their misery and madnesse that run off from us as well as he and strive not to warn and watch over them as much as he and if so why he blames us more then himself that do what we can so many run to ruin besides some he names were never baptized though neer it as Mr. Saltmarsh 5. Whether it be just to load them that still stick to the truth with the blame of all their blasphemies that go off from it Tâ—…s true the way of truth will be evil spoken of by the Priest by reason of the madnesse of the false Prophet 2 Pet. 2. 2. but that is ought let every reasonable man examine The Rantizer renounces his sprinkling and is baptized in truth and after renounces that and runs on to be a Ranter and then all is reckoned to his baptism poor truth may say quum remini obtrudi potest itur ad me every one shifts it off from himself and truth must carry the scandal and baptism bear the burden of all the Priest and his people are they by whom the false Prophet and his people they by reason of whom the way we walk in is evil spoken of but vae illis per quos vae illis presertim propter quos veritatis via blaspemabitur quam optimum esset utrisque si nati non fuissent Mat. 18. 7. 26. 14. 2 Pet. 2. 2. What force therefore is in this Argument to conclude against the truth of our way yea what absurdity is in all Mr. Baxters Arguments against us you see in all which he sits beside the cushion yea and indeed the whole bulk of them is nothing but a thing full of emptinesse Rantist I would fain see you answer that book as nothing as it is I believe it is more then ever will be answered by any to any purpose Baptist. First there is a great part of his book needs no answering from us being such an absurd aberration from what we hold and practise in contradistinction to him to other things which he undertakes to disprove though we and who doth not do join with him fully in them and do hold as he does as namely almost all those 7 or 8 Arguments from page 125. to page 138. wherein he spends himself mostly in declaring against judgements and practises that are no more ours nor any ones else that I know of more then his own for who holds Christians children quâ Christians children i. e. without their own personal profession of faith and Christianity in which case heathens children may be baptized also are to be baptized when they come to years any more
then the children of heathens Again who holds or practises such a thing as naked dipping of women and maids not I nor any man breathing under heaven I imagin nor will any wise man be coxcombd into the belief of it that t is our practice I hope because Mr. Ba. disputes against it as ours yet these are the main matters argl'd against well nigh in all those pages yea if he prove the baptism of Christians children at years ordinarily to be against rule t is fully sufficient against the Anabaptists faith he if we had not a word more against them the man feigns adversaries to himself and finds himself work with them and takes on and layes about him like a Thatcher and fights and fences against his foes when he hath none at all about him Secondly much if not more then a third part of it viz. from p. 262. to p. 286. consists almost universally in a particular private publike prate to Mr. Tombs in vindication of himself from Mr. Tombs's valedictory vindication of himself from Mr. Baxs abuses of him which tedious mixt blattering recrimination and red-argumentation if any save Mr. Tombs himself whom it so personally relates to shall trouble himself with from better employment and the world with any more reply to then the Lord rebuke him he hath more time then wisdom profitably to improve it Thirdly much if not much more then a third part of the residue viz. from p. 289. to 338. he spends in division with other divines for pleading and practising baptism to infants from other grounds and principles and to other ends and purposes then himself doth as namely from Tradition and yet in order to baptismal regeneration as Mr Bedford who is fain to fly to tradition for proof of infant baptism and yet holds that baptism doth really as an instrumental efficient cause confer and effect the grace of regeneration of nature on infants which Mr Bedford Dr. Burges Dr. Ward together with Mr. Baxter himself and I know not how many more Divines in the meandrous multitudinous mist of whose pro and con opinions a man may sooner loose himself then find the truth are all ore the tops of the boots in dissentaneous discourses about a businesse called baptismal regeneration the quiddity quantity and commodity of which non ens of which nonsense as to infants is so curiously pryed into and learnedly inquired after by them that it is not for every ordinary body that hath no more learning then Peter and Iohn had who never Scholasticallized the plain Gospel out of the reach of plain men and poor folks as our Rabbies now adaies do to come within a mile or two of their meaning some divining on this wise some on that some one thing some another some that baptism is instituted to work the first grace in infants i. e. habitual but not in men in whom the first grace is prerequired as Mr. Bedford some thwarting that by this reason that baptism cannot have two different uses to men and infants and yet saying with all that it may be for some ends to the Aged for which it is not to infants as Mr. Baxter some saying that baptism is a Physical some a Metaphysical some a Hiperphysical instrument to convey real grace into infants the spirit working it in them thereby naturally or rather supernaturally as Mr. Bedford who holds that it really conveyes grace on all infants elect or non elect and Dr. Burges who yet differs and subdivides from him holding that it conveyes grace on the elect infants only and not on the non-elect some that baptism is onely a moral instrument and the spirit neither a Physical nor Hyperphysical but a moral Agent in baptism signifying and so working on the souls sealing and conveying no real grace but relative grace i. e. right to the real as Mr. Baxter who saith that real true grace and change of mind is to go before baptism as a condition both in the institution and every example of baptism through all the bible therefore not to be conveyed in it this Mr. Baxter proveth by the institution Math. 28. 18. Mark 16. and by the examples of the Iewes Samaritans the Eunuch Paul Lydia the Iaylor the Corinthians who all did gladly receive the word repent and believe and then and thereupon only were baptized p. 300. and because all this is exclusive of infants who have no faith nor grace for to the utter confutation of the Ashford Disputers who say infants in their infancy have faith and the spirit of grace and that apparently enough the Scripture making it plainly appear concerning them Mr. Baxter professeth that it is utterly unknown to any man on earth and unrevealed in the word whether God give infants any inherent spiritual grace or not p 301. Therefore to salve his baptism of infants that have not that grace and faith in them that is prerequired to be in persons to be baptized as a condition he very goodly tells us that by grace and faith being prerequired as a condition he means either in the party or another for him so then though infants have no faith in themselves yet o mirandum they have faith in the loines i. e. in the hearts of their parents and so are to be baptized they are buryed in the dipping of the Ministers hand saith Featley and believe by the faith of their Parents saith Mr. Baxter Thus oh how these men who more stink of the Schooles then skill in the Scriptures are at variance about their own inventions bending their brains some one way some another to botch up their businesse of infant-baptism and yet as fast as one builds up another of them saves us a labour and razes and pulls down to our hands oh what stoch what stuff what stirs what strife what stickling what striking flatly against each others principles what a ditty what a do is here among them as if the Divines were all mad so let all the fraternity of divines be divided o God and fall out ever about their own falsities till they find thy truth and never let them agree better among themselves on what account to baptize infants till they ashamed of themselves and people ashamed of waiting on the Seers for determination of what is truth be all driven to confesse as blessed be thy name Mr. Baxter doth already p. 301. That they find it a hard controversie to prove infant baptism it is so dark in the Scripture much more a hard task to prove different uses of it to men and infants as needs they must if they prove it to be of use to infants for it signifies not at all to them as it does to men and so to conclude to the freeing of themselves from that puzzle and perplexity and fire of contention that now they fry in for their hatred of that one onely plain way of truth that leades to piece that verily t is not thy will that any infant at all should be baptized
no end Therefore I le hint but a few among which this shall be the first If the standing upon the root Abraham i. e. the family or visible Church of God since Christ be by faith in the person onely so standing and not by faith in the parent as of old then infants cannot now stand therein But so t is Therefore the other The consequence is cleared by the consideration of the incapacity of infants to believe faith being assent to something propounded to us faith comming by hearing and hearing by the word Rom. 10. so that who so thinks it possible for infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere when it is said how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard is wretchedly inconsiderate The Minor is evident out of Rom. 11. where it is said the very natural branches of Abrahams body that did on that account meerly as the fleshly seed of that father of the faithfull stand in the olive tree the visible Church before time yet now could stand no longer on that old account why were they not the seed of Abraham still that stood without faith in the old visible Church to the very end of it yes but they believed not in their own persons therefore could not stand in this house but were cast out of their own olive their own father Abrahams family i. e. the visible Church now Christ came in because of unbelief and thou saith Paul to the Gentile standest how by fleshly descent no that standing is gone from such as come of Abrahams himself therefore is not to thee nor to thine but by faith i. e. personal and not parentall A Second this If all they that are baptized into one visible body under the Gospell are made in the supper to drink into one spirit then infants who cannot drink into one spirit with the body secundum te may not be baptized into that visible body But this is true 1 Cor. 12. 13. Therefore that So Col. 2. 19. All the body is knit together and by joints and bands hath nourishment ministred and increaseth by that which every joint and member supplieth Eph. 4. 16. But infants are not capable to have Spirituall nourishment Minstired and to grow in grace as all the body ought to do at least and this in the use of the Supper If you say they are capable of spiritual nourishment I say as capable I think as of the spiritual birth for where there 's a birth there 's a growth but then me thinks they should be as capable of the supper which is the Sacrament of spirituall nourishment being capable of that as being capable of spiritual birth they are of baptism the outward Sacrament of the same But Mr. Bax. denies that page 114. 115. among other reasons for this because though capable to be washed yet not to eat bread and drink wine in their first infancy Oh strange they may have it then as they can eat and drink A third is this If no infants were baptized and added to the first Gospell visible Church then surely they had no right so to be for the Apostles would not do them that wrong as not to add them that had right But this is true Therefore that The Minor is plain out of Acts 2. where to the 120. men and women that without infants continued in fellowship Acts 1. there were added 3000. more in one day and not one infant among them but as many onely as gladly received the word nor more nor lesse for else Luke couzens us in his history and continued after their baptism in fellowship in breaking bread and prayers which no infants did and yet it is well nigh infallible that those 3000 had some infants belonging to some of them which would have been added with their parents if the promise is to you and to your children and them a far off even as many as the Lord shall call would bear the sense divines drawes it to Yea Master Cotton himself conceives that no infants were baptized at that time and when else either these or any other were neither I nor any one else ever found since they began to read Christs Testament with their eyes open Yea Peter commanded no more to be baptized but the same persons whom he speaks to also to repent which me thinks he should have done saying be baptized every one of you and baptize your children also if any such thing had been intended and Christians infants were to have been seperated out of the world and called to be saints and baptized as Mr. B. believes they are to be but not I. For what saies Paul in his Epistle to the Romans chapter 1. I suppose he wrote not to infants yet to all the called Saints to all that be in Rome called to be saints So in 1 Cor. 14. the 23. If the whole Church come together and all speak with tongues and all Prophe-y So 26. Every one of you hath a Psalm So 31. Ye may all prophecy one by ons that all may be ediâ—…yed He writes and so surely he seems to me to do all his Epistles to the whole church and speaks to the whole body yet I cannot conceive that to any infants who are uncapable to be edifyed and comforted Yea 1 Cor. 12. 25. 16. The Members of the visible body of Christ ought to have the same care one for another so that if one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it if one be honoured all rejoice with it This cannot infants do Therefore surely are not of this visible body of Christ. Another Argument which Master Baxter himself mentions and slights as simply supposing that it excludes infants from salvation is that of Mr. Tombs viz. That the onely way now appointed by Christ to make visible church Members is by teaching the persons themselves and that none else must be Members of the visible Church but those that have learnt as infants have not This Argument is of great weight and receives as trifling an answer from Mr. Bâ—…or â—…or saith he then it will much more follow that they are not or at least that we may not judge them to be of the invisible Church at all i. e. to be such as so dying shall be saved The contrary to which and inconsequence of which I have shewed above and shall shew more by and by Secondly saith he If they may argue from Matth. the 28. 20. that none but those that are taught are true Disciples and are to be baptized why may they not as well Argue from Mark the 16. chap. 16. verse who ever believeth not shall be damned that all infants are certainly damned To which I say first I am one who argues from Maâ—…h 28. that none but such as are taught are disciples and to be baptized for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is teach ye or make ye disciples by teaching or cauâ—…e to learn then which I testify to Mr. Bâ—… face that there is no other way whereby
we can make disciples of Christ persons being properly called disciples of disco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn and I blush at that bald stuff wherewith he strives and streines his wits till he becomes ridiculous to make the denomination of disciple appear to be due to infants p. 23. as namely Because they are taken into Christs school and Kingdome i. e. his visible Church whereas t is before persons are taken into this School that they are disciples therefore not by it also because they are not lesse docible then some bruits as if some brutes are so docible as to deserve the name of disciples of Christ therfore much more infants because Mothers Nurses teach them by gesture action and voice partly and dishearten and take them off from vices and if not at first to know Christ yet if any of the duty of a rationall creature it is somewhat somewhat indeed but nothing to purpose for as if mothers could take them off from vices in such meer nonage wherein you baptize them as or if they could learn them any of a natural creatures duty so young as at eight or nine daies old as if to learn the duty of a rational creature which many a man learns but no infants could denominate disciples of Christ because Christ can teach them immediately by his spirit if they can learn nothing of their parents by action and voice from which Christ can teach them to denominate believers infants disciples of Christ before we have any evidence that he does teach them any more then other infants that must be no disciples when Christ can teach these as well as those I cannot conceive the foppery of it it is so great because when a Philosopher was hired to teach a man and his children those were children disciples of that Philosopher as if ever any wise man did hire another wise man to teach him and his nine daies old infants because infants can so quickly learn to know father and mother and what they mean in their speeches and actions as if so quickly as you baptize them and lastly as if this will be an accurate account for baptizing of infants and accepted as an answer of Christs commission who there bids us teach or make persons disciples to plead thâ—…s viz. Lord we could not teach infants nor make them thy disciples by teaching yet seeing they could quickly learn to know father and mother we supposed upon this and several such like reasons that the name disciple of Christ was their due and so that t was our duty to baptize them Moreover Adhominem as he saies of the word holy p. 82. So I of the term disciple whose constant meaning is one that hath learnt as Mat. 11. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Iohn 6. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one that hath learned we shall have better defence before the Iudgement seat of Christ for taking the term disciple in that sense as the Scripture uses it in scores of times viz. for persons learnt or taught then they that take it for indocible infants a sense the Scripture never uses it in at all but a hundred times otherwise to say nothing of Iohn 8. 31. Luke 14. 26. 33. where Christ saies if we do what I am sure infants do not we are and if we do not what infants cannot do we cannot be his disciples Secondly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is teach them i. e. the Gospel so none are here bid to be baptized but the very same individual persons that are bid also to be taught first baptizing them and after teaching them again whom those persons in the Nations whom they have taught onely and not their infants for we may as well say the men that they never taught as them since Christ hath in precepto conjoined teaching or our discipling and baptizing together and infants cannot by our teaching of them be discipled visibly The argument in its true form is this viz. What Christ hath conjoined i. e. in his commission for baptizing that man must not separate i. e. in his practise But Christ hath conjoined our discipling persons and baptizing them in his commission for baptizing as a standing course to the end of the world as Mat. 28. 19. 200. shews Erg no man must separate these two in his practise If Dr. Featley were alive to answer this he would happily say t is no Topical but a Sophistical Syllogism for when A. R. makes much what the like from Mar. 16. 16. viz. What God hath joined together no man ought to separate But faith and baptism God hath joined together Acts 8. 37. Ergo faith and baptism none ought to separate He saies there 's a double falacy in it viz. homonimiae or ambiguity in the premises i e. in the termes joined together for it may be meant saith he either in precepto and that no man denyeth or insubejcto the subject i. e. so as to say that all that are baptized have faith and none have faith but the baptized and in this sense it is apparently false saith he whereupon to prevent Dr. Featleys followers from charging the above syllogism with that fallacy I have exprest in what sense I mean it viz. in precepto in which sense the premisses are granted to be true by the Dr. himself and therefore I know noâ—… why they should be denied by Mr. Ba. or any else and then the coâ—…lusion must be true but saith Dr. Feat there is a fallacy called ignoratio elenchâ—… in the conclusion i. e. it concludes not the thing in question but that which is not denied by us for they that are for baptizing of infants do not separate faith and baptism for they baptize children into their fathers faith saith he Secondly they believe that infants of believers receive some hidden grace of faith in time of their baptizing his followers say before baptism p. 3. of their pamphlet oh how contrary are they each to other therefore are to be baptized but Mr. Ba. will say none of all this I hope for he is against Baptismal regeneration nor will he charge the syllogism with sophistry I hope but deny either the Major or the Minor either of which if he do he answers his own grand argument against the seekers p. 341 where word for word saving a term or two put in here for explication this very syllogism is his own or else he will grant both these and consequently the conclusion to be true and then why will he dispense baptism to persons i. e. infants before they so much as seem to believe But it may be that which is a good syllogism when used by himself will be meer sophism with him too when urged by us Secondly the reason why we may not argue that all infants are damned from Mark 16. 16. though they believe not is this viz. because that place speaks of persons at years onely to whom the Gospel is preached and not
FOr as much as I have been several times sollicited by several persons both by word of mouth and otherwiseâ—… to give out unto them the grounds ends and arguments in writing of my continuance in the practise of water baptism and other ordinances of Christ as laying on of hands prayer breaking of bread church fâ—…llowship c. according as the Churches of Christ in the primitive ages of the Gospel did and for that I find it an easelesse and well nigh an endlesse businesse to write the same things in private letters about one particular subject to every of those particular persons that may successively desire it I have therefore thought good being called to the presse by sundry challenges of the Priesthood and more specially by not only the publication of that abusive pamphlet concerning the Ashford-disputation for infant-infant-baptism but also their professed expectation that I should give some answer or give the cause to insert here this ensuing account of my own reasons for the right of our remaining in the use of ordinances till the return of Christ and animadversions of what little reason the Ranter hath to run from them and redeem himself from that bondage which he deems to be in the observation of them before the time appointed much more to run beyond the bounds of modesty and all good manners also as not all but many if not most of those do first or last who despise any of the ord nances of the Lord Jesus and herein as I shall be plain using no other form method and order then what the Lord gives into me as I write so I must be brief the foregoing part of this volume having risen already unawares to a far greater magnitude then was meant to the whole when I first cast the bulk of it in my mind and there remaining also something yet to speak and I know not well how much to the Priests concerning themselves in way of return to the last piece of that pedobaptistical pamphlet which was pu forth by who knowes or rather by who knows not whom in order to the plainer disquisition of the truth in this question viz. whether the ordinances of Christ that were in use of old are of right to be practised still as there are foâ—… services then in use the necessary use of which is now denied viz. baptism in water laying on of hands breaking of bread â—…d church-fellowship so I shall addresse my self to prove the practise of these four severally to stand even de jure till the second coming of Christ which is yet to come And because baptism in water though most strenuously denyed by many to be so much as lawfull to be either dispensed or submitted to and by many even of those that have submitted to it to be necessary or any other then a matter of indifferency is yet the first in order to be practised and that without or before which we are not once to meddle with the other I therfore propound it as the first in order to be proved and in order to the proof of at least the lawfulnesse thereof against such as say its siâ—…ful for this will be included in the other I shall by the help of God prove a necessity of it against such as judge it needlesse or superfluous and by several Scriptures shew it to be such a service the present performance of which is so far from being sinful that it is no lesse then sin and rebellion against Christ himself to leave it unperformed The Scripture which I shall most directly make use of to this purpose and lay as the very basis and foundation of this businesse and make as a certain cardinal 〈◊〉 from whence to argue and whether to reduce all the rest which I shall more collaterally handle is Mat. 28. 18. 16. 20. All power is given c. in which place these things chiefly are observable as subservient to the proof of the point in hand First we find Christ pleading that absolute power which was given him by the father to be the Soveraign Lord and Supream lawgiver to the whole world thorowout all nations and generations of it from thenceforth even to the end in these words viz. All power is given unto mâ—… both in heaven and in earth i. e I am he to whom this prerogative is granted to give out to all men what laws and rules they shall be guided and governd by what wayes they must walk in in order to that eternal salvation which as a Priest I have purchased them to by my own blood if ever they mean to attain it I am that Prophet which the Lord hath raised up unto all people now instead of Moses who was the faithful giver out of Gods will mind or Testament to Israel of old whose voice all must now hearken to in all things what ever I say unto them and whoever harkneth noâ—… to me shall be cut off from among the people behold God hath given me for a wiâ—…nesse to the people a leader and commander unto the people Secondly After he had thus shewed his authority and commission from God to be the only Lawgiver whereby to summon the sons of men to so much the stricter attention to him he next begins to act according thereunto to act like him self to make out his mind to his disciples concerning them and all men most expressely and plainly about this matter of waterbaptism and to give order to them both when and to whom both in what time and to what subjects they should dispense it and likewise both how and for how long he would have the nations as by command from himself commissionating his disciples so to teach them to practise the same dispensation of water baptism in the two following verses Going out therefore teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy spirit teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you alwaies even to the end of the world Where note first in general three things First That he gives order to his disciples to teach the nations and baptize them in water in his name ver 19. going out teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father son and holy spirit Secondly that whatever order is given out by Christ to his disciples concerning this businesse of water baptism as to the order of its administration and the term of its continuance the very same and no other doth Christen join his disciples to give out to the disciples that should be successively in all nations to be observed as his will concerning them v. 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Thirdly that what ever he gives out as his will concerning both them and the disciples in the nations that they should make he gives out as his standing will and Testament to them and their standing duty to him in all ages of the world as well as
were then and there converted to be baptized in water but also assert it to be beyond the power of the persons themselves or any other to forbid it to be dispensed to them or to 〈◊〉 them a dispensation to forbear it for when he queries who can he means no man can forbid water why these should not be baptized for an Interrogation affirmative concludes negatively whereupon nemine prohibente he commanded them and what he commanded them was no lesse then their duty and the positive will of God concerning them for it s said to Cornelius v. 6. that Peter should tell him what he ought to do and also no lesse then what he was commissionated from Christ to impose upon them or else Peter deluded them to whom he spake for v. 39. he calls it the word of God sent to Israel and v. 33. they expected to hear not what he should please but what was commanded him of God he commanded them I say nemine contradicente in the Lords name to be baptized which Peter had no power to have done had it been by the Lord himself left a d libitum unto them yea had it been a thing so needlesse of such liberty and such no-necessity as many make it now adaies I would by Peters leave had I been there and been one of those that were so flatly commanded have interposed and forbid their baptism or at least my own unlesse my flesh had had more mind to it then it had when I used it and have pleaded as our Genteeâ—… spiritualists do against us in this wise against Peter viz. you are much mistaken Peter in this matter you go about to urge it as an absolute duty and matter of necessity for us to be baptized in water but alas it s no such matter t is but an external dispensation that may be done indeed if any be not satisfyed without it but else may full as well be let alone we have the most substantiall baptism already even that of the spirit in which case the other is but meer superfluâ—…ty to be used afterward you cannot make it such an absolute command from God to us as you seem to do and therefore whereas you ask who can forbid even I can forbid why I should not be baptized as by positive precept from Christ seeing I have received the holy spâ—…it as well as you Thus verily might one have cavilled against Peters command then as the Raâ—…ter cavils against Peters command now which is not out of date nor hath lost any of â—…s validity sure with lying so long unpractised if baptism in water were such an indifferent thing as t is now made by the new Spirituallists who little consider but I assure them wise men will weigh it well though they do not how little their Logick and Peters are like one another whereby it may be gathered what contrary spirits he and they speak by for whereas he reasons thus viz. these men have received the spirit and have the most substantial baptism already as well as those that are baptized in water therefore who can forbid water why or give any good reason to the contrary why these should not be baptized and accordingly commanded them so to be They contrarywiâ—…e reason thus Viz. These men have the spirit the most substantial baptism already as well as those that are baptized in water Therefore who can command it as necessary or give any sound reason why these should be baptized in water and accordingly forbid them so to be But whether it be right in the sight of God to obey them foolishly forbidding it as needlesse at best but indifferency or obey God by the mouth of Peter commanding it universally to all men as their duty judge ye T is clear therefore out of all these places that water baptism is so far from being sinfull that t is more then lawfull more then indifferent yea a matter of duty and necessity and such as it would become meâ—… to submit to as well as Christ who needed it not as we do if there wâ—…re no other end nor use of it then to fulfill all the righteousnesse of his law the least of whose commandements whoever shall break and teach men so i. e. that they need not keep them the same shall be least in the kingdom of heaven but who so shall do and teach the same shall be great in the kingdom of heaven and to whom he that is faithful though but in a little is faithful in much and he that is unfaithful in but a little is unfaithful in too much specially if that little be left us in way of command in his word as his positive will concerning us and noâ—… as a matter of such indifferency as that it may without sin on either side be done or not dore which we please for such things onely and indeed are indifferent of which we may by the word say as Paul saies of meats and marriage viz. one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs one man esteemeth one day above another another man esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind so seek not a wife yet if thou marry thou hast not sinned but so we cannot say nor do the Apostles speak concerning baptism viz. one man believeth that having the spirit he may but needs not be baptized another who is weak must needs be baptized let every one do as they see good or are satisfied in this case if they be baptized they have not sinned and if they never be baptized they have not sinned c. nay both Christ and they speak here in way of peremptory determination of all persons to one point for whereas if baptism were a matter thus left to our minds Christ must have said to his disciples go teach all nations every creature baptizing as many of those you make disciples onely as judge it needful as have a mind to it not teaching them to observe that outward rite any further then they please and Ananias to Paul and Peter to those he preacht to Act. 2. Act. 10. must have said repent and believe remission of sins and call on the name of the Lord and if any of you be so mindeed you may be baptized in water in token of Christs death burial and resurrection but those that seem to themselves to be as well without it may forbear we have no power either to forbid it or force them to it but they say clean otherwise viz. Go teach all Nations baptizing them teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you and now why 〈◊〉 arise and be baptized 〈◊〉 away thy sins c. repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus c. who can forbid water why these i. e. all these should not be baptized c. all which if it do not import and expresse water baptism to be every ones duty and not
such a glorious and profitable end and purpose to themward as this viz. that they waiting on him in that his own way might as not onely they did but all others shall that wait on him in the same in sincerity according to their faith or else its possible that we may fail of it as they also might and did in his measure manner and time receive his holy spirit Now I say as these were the ends grounds and reasons why among baptized believers this of laying on of hands was observed then so there are the same ends grounds and reasons why the same service should be observed now For first we have it manifested as sufficiently to our Reason and understanding unlesse we will darken the councell of God to our selves by a number of needless queries superfluous scruples and words without knowledge either expressely or by infallible inferences and undeceivable deductions in the word to be an urepealed undisannulled dispensation and part and principle of Christs doctrine will and Testament as they had and as baptism it self which the Enquirers walk still in the practise of is manifested so to be Secondly we are also as much required and have as much reason as they to manifest our selves to be lovers of Christ to be his disciples servants and friends by our readinesse to do whatsoever he hath commanded Thirdly we are in as much liablenesse as they to be the least in the kingdome of heaven if we break one of the least of Christ commandements and teach men so i e. that they may do so too and as much capablenesse of being greatest in the kingdom of heaven if we do the least of Christs commandements and teach men so i. e. that they must do so too Fourthly we have as much need of the holy spirit now as they had to perform the same good offices for us as he did for them viz. to comfort and support under sufferings to lust against our flesh to lead us into all truth to bring to our remembrance the things that were spoken by Christ which many men would fain have to be forgotten to help to mortifie the deeds of our bodies to seal us up to the day of redemption to reveal unto us that we may rejoice therein the things which are freely given us of God which are the same he gives to them and to gift us likewise with such gifts as he not as we shall please for beggers must not be chusers for fellowship in the body that we may be an habitation of God through the spirit and to gift some also even such as he pleases for the work of the ministry and the edifying of the body in the several offices he hath given to it for the service of it and the truth viz. messengers elders deacons c. for all this he did for them Fifthly we are as much under the promise of the same holy spirit of promise a being baptized believers as they were b for the promise of it was to them that were far off as well as to them that were nigh whether in respect of time or place and therefore to us yea and to all men on the same terms on which it was tendred to them c all that repent and are baptized all that turn at Christs reproof all that believe all that ask the father for it all that obey him to the worlds end have on these terms a promise of the holy spirit as well as all the baptized believers of the primitive times and why the baptized believers of these times should have all these ends grounds and reasons why and in order to which laying on of hands with prayer was dispenst on all baptized believers then continuing till now and yet that dispensation cease and not continue in its use and that they should have the promise of the same spirit and yet not be bound to wait on God and seek it in the same way is a very riddle to me I confesse there may be through the unbelief of baptized believers who will not take Gods word in his word but say shew us a sign that we may see and believe shew us such visible gifts shew us miracles the gift of healing and in particular that gift of tongues which thou gavest to baptized believers in the primitive times in this way of prayer and laying on of hands and we will submit to it and believe it to be thy will and command to us now else not I say for their unbeliefs sake that obey not and their too too great defect in faith that do draw neer to God in prayer and laying on of hands there may be and that justly and I think is a cessation of Gods giving out such measures and full manifestations of his spirit as else he would yet some gifts he gives now and that there is warrant to expect by any promise thereof some particular gifts that God for signs of confirmation of the Gospel doctrine to be from heaven in the first giving of it out and removing the old testament gave in the primitive times as miracles tongues this I deny but that he gives not the gift of the spirit and the graces of it which was the thing mainly promised and not so much in plurali the gifts of it as men count gifts distinct from the fruits of it Gal. 5. temperance love joy peace c. as if these were not the spirits gifts much more that the promise of the self same spirit it self though it appear not in every individual gift that we out of curiosity desire to see doth not cease to us and that there is no cessation of that outward administration of laying on of hands with prayer on baptized believers which Christ then was sought to in for the fulfilling of his promise this I dare and do still affirm and testifie neithâ—…r do I judge any man is capable by the word to give any sound reason why it should cease it being a principle of the doctrine of Christ till all the principles of the whole foundation spoken of Eph. 2. 20. Heb. 6. 1. 2. on which the visible Church is to be built and all ordinances do cease also together with it at Christs next appearing Thus having sufficiently proved the Minor of the forenamed argument in each particular of it in which as neerly as I could well croud them together are coucht as many if not all such particulars as are needful to be proved to the evincing of the continuance of this doctrine and dispensation of laying on of hands to the end I shall hasten to an end both of this subject and of this system also but because I find some things put in by way of positive exception and objection against this truth from the mouthes of some as well as something by way of query from the pens of others who also in that way have appeared against it so newly at the the presse viz. the late Enquirers above-named a
your selves when you speak plurally of it in your fifth question had he meant more kinds of imposition of hands then one for though hands be the plurall number yet laying on which is the phrase you speak to or else you speak nihil ad Rhombum is a substantive of the singular number both in the English and in the Greek and suppose the spirit had spoken plurally of more imposioâ—…s of hands then one must that that was Act. 8. 17-19 6. on baptized believers be ever the more excluded or the more incuded rather in all likelyhood among the rest and because the Apostle does not speak particularly enough nor distinguish nor expresse plainly enough what he means by shewing the end purpose and event of the imposition here spoken of therefore belike he meant that no body should ever own this principle at all but the truth is he speaks of no more impositions then one Therefore to conclude with the Enquiâ—…ers question propounded thus to themselves we desire to know what safety it is for any man to conclude that question to be worthy of an answer that is so falsely grounded as this of the Enquirers is and to conclude that Heb. 6. 2. is meant of more layings on of hands when it expresly speaks but of one And so deâ—… Friends whom I love too well to spare speaking plainly to you in a case whâ—…rein upon occasion of your putting on too too rashly in print little lesse then against it a precious truth of Christ lyes at stake between us since you are pleased to urge and importuâ—…e us so earnestly at the close of your questionâ—… by the opportunity that you have thereby put into our hands to justify our practise viz. laying on of hands upon all baptized believers as we love the glory of God and the promoting of that which we so highly esteem and hold to be truth as we will declare our love to the truth by countenancing men who diligently make search after iâ—… as we tender the union and communion of the Churches c. that we would discharge our duty and try if we could make it appear by the word of God which I confesse with you is able to instruct us in all things and therefore though much might be said from the constant practise of the Churches in and boâ—…dering upon the primitive times to the further clearing up of the truth in this point yea men far better studied that way then I am who yet see sufficiently to my satisfaction â—…ell us that all Antiquity teacheth laying on of hands after baptism yea and some that never practised neither it nor true baptism yet I wave â—…ll such Arguments aâ—… of no weight without the word Since also you promise us that if we so do then you shall acknowledg the truth thereof to the glory of God and your own shame in being ignorant so long and speedily imbrace it if God so assist you by his word professing you will to that purpose expect our faithfull care to be expessed with chearfullnesse without making delaies in a matter of so great importance which may unite and establish us in one mind hereupon I could not in conscience but take so much notice of your questions they meeting me also just in the mouth whilest I was musing to say some little but not a quarter so much as here is to evince the noncessation of this service as well as that of baptism as to give this transient answer as I travel along being bound also as you hint to me to give to every one that asketh it a reason of the hope that 's in me with meeknesse and fear so desiring the Lords blessing upon it towards you and upon you in your examination of it and as you have light your execution according to it that such excaecation as the Ranter who is run out of the reach of reason hath by little and little queried himself into may never overtake you I remain both yours and every ones servant for Christs sake Thus much concerning the continuation of that practise of laying on of hands now as to the present use of the ordinances of breaking of bread and church-fellowship I shal speak but briefly to that forasmuch as these are services the continuance of which to the end is denied doctrinally by none for ought I know but the Ranter that is run up above all saving that the Rigid Piesbyterians though in words they own the supper yet in works do deny it for many if not most of them live in the neglect of that administration of the supper in their parishes some four some five some six seven eight years without any use of it at all as if there were no such matter as that now in being for others I mean a certain mixt sort of Independents that are rife in these dayes they own and practise it and Church fellowship too more then enough unlesse more orderly in respect of that Antecedency to these of all the principles of the doctrine of Christ which ought to be now as it was in the primitive times which times they pretend to reform by taking in Omnium generum an Omnigatherum of persons men and women whom they take to be believers into fellowship in one visible body in breaking of bread and prayers some whereof having renounced their Rantism as null are truly baptized some as yet but meerly Rantized yet supposing themselves sufficiently baptized because of that which can be of no use to them as a sign for they remember it not some hanging in the air between both not satisfied whether they were truly baptized in infancy yea or no some doubting whether any water baptism at all be needful to be used in these times some convinc't that they ought to be baptized but not yet finding any Administrator that fits their fancies some resolved to be baptized but Christ who expects it from them must wait their leasure none reproving their procrastination nor saying to them as Ananias to Paul and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord or as Peter to the Iews repent and be baptized Some resolving never to be baptized but roundly renouncing all water baptism as nothing concerning them yet leaving them at liberty to act according to their light that have a mind to submit to it and who see it their duty as if the plain word of Christ in this point of baptism were such a nose of wax as might be moulded and metamorphosed into any model according to every mans mind and temper or quite canceld disanuld melted into no word of Christ at all at every mans haughty humour that is loath to debase himself so far as to submission to it as if my Lord and my Lady and Sir such a one had more dispensation from Christ thenevery ordinary body to shew for their non-obedience to that dispised dispensation some of them that are baptized under prayer
was the way and outward meanes of salvation but not in this respect as it was rained on nullum simile currit Quatuor Fourthly which washings purgings sprinklings of Christs blood and clean water typified of old and foreshadowed by the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hysop wherewith Moses and the high priests after him sprinkled the old Israel so that they were typically and ceremonially counted holy and clean thereupon in a fleshly sense onely are all expressions spoken not with such allusion to baptism as Mr. Cook imagines nor are so neer a kin to it as he laies claim to for if they are all to be resembled and respected by us in our baptism as things some way or other signified to us therein yet are they not at all the main or principall things or such as are immediately or primarily but onely remotely and secondarily signified to us therein and so not necessarily to be either all or at all so much resembled as something else But the death burial and resurrection of Christ which is the rise and root the originall and meritorious cause of all the rest being that which though you would shut it out altogether from its interest and right of being represented in baptism of all the rest is mainly and most immediately signified and primarily to be eyed and respected and all the rest but consequently and through that therefore its necessary that this should be resembled most lively that it may take the deeper impression upon us Yea these matters of Christs death burial and resurrection are such cardinall things to be considered as quibus non mediantibus without the mediation of which we cannot conceive clearly nor lay claim to any of the other as ours For as in the supper remotely heaven it self and all spirituall excellencies are signified to us to be ours yet all the things signified cannot be represented to the eye but onely such as are the more immediate significations of it and are the rise and proper cause of all the rest viz. Christ crucified and our feeding on him by faith theseare and are to be lively set forth unto us and resembled before our eyes in bread and wine broken and powred out and received and applied to us but not all the fruits of his death and our faith even so it is likewise in baptism and indeed the main signification in both is Christs person crucified dead buried and raised and that is to be resembled in both and other things viz. the benefits of his death as remission of sins and purging c. to be consequentially gathered from that neither can nor are nor need all those to be resembled But as for Mr. Coâ—…k he pleads stifly to have all these resembled viz. washing purging powring sprinkling of the spirit and blood of Christ but excludes the main thing altogether viz. Christs death and resurrection which are the very rise and ground of all those And yet if he will needs have all those to be resembled are they not as much and much more resembled by dipping and plunging a person in water then by powring and sprinkling a little water upon him and is not swilling under water a more effectuall way of washing and clensing then sprinkling which though it be a Diminutive way of wetting yet in truth is no way of washing at all If therefore he will have washing and such a washing as well deserves the name of clensing to be resembled in baptism can he have even that done in a better way then by dipping or dousing for verily plunging is a washing and a more eminent way of washing and purifying and so more lively resembling ablutioneâ—… peccatorum the purging away our sinnes by the blood of Christ then aspersion or bare infusion either of which without some after rubbing is a way of washing and clensing seldome used by men or women unlesse it be among slatternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them and I am sure there 's no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling which is any ingredient to your dispensation for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed not on but off and so as that is no washing so if it were I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of baptism Besides both sprinkling and powring are vertualy implied in plunging and burying in water but these are not at all supposed in the other every lesser wetting being contained and included in the greater not so the greater in the lesse Fiftly which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. daies under water answerable to Christs 3 daies buriall if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death burial and resurrection is so fond that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile currit quatuor no similitude answers in all things besides t is the truth and substance of the thing not the circumstance or quantity of time of abode which is to be respected here for a burial is as true a burial when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element wherein he is buried as if he abode 3. daies and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water as if one continued under altogether and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive then if one lay till he were altogether dead Sixthly and lastly which assertion of his uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body is so much the more favouring of either ignorance or forgetfulnesse in him or both by how much one of the very Scriptures that are quoted by himself as speaking in reference to baptism doth require it for its said Heb. 10. 22. let us draw neer with a true heart c. and having our bodies washed with pure water which clause if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is requires not a sprinkling but a washing and that 's more then your sprinkling is and this too not of the face only which is the only part you sprinkle but of our bodies which word whether we shall take properly to signifie the whole body indeed or run to figurative acceptations when we need not and take the body by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part to signifie so small a part as the face only I need not wish a wise man to determine for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies Rantist But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must before I believe or receive it that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all that 's the thing I wait to see proved for let Mr. Cook make what
suppositions and grants he will of a resemblance yet I see no reason at all to urge a necessity of such a thing nor will I speak so much as ex hypothesi if there must be for none need be for ought I know What I hope there are an hundred signes of things which have not any analogy at all with those things they signifie Baptist. Having thus blown away the strange mist whereby Mr. Cook endeavoured to thicken the air so that men might not discern clearly the true intent of those Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. nor the truth at all in this point of total dipping I come now in answer to his and your and Mr. Blakes flat denial of any word or warrant for any representation and also to his demand p. 27. to shew how we gather from reason and your own authors and those very Sciptures you oppose the diping of the whole man over the head and under the water and that a similitude of Christs death burial and rising again to be represented by dipping into the water is signified there But first I must tell you I observe you know not greatly what to say among you against our urgings of a resemblance of Christs death and burial and resurrection from these Scriptures for some of you stand it out as much as you well can that there is not to be any representation of a death and resurrection as Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook both do the Dr. keeping at such a distance from it that to fence it farr enough from him he denies any such thing to be so much as signified Mr. Cook yielding that that very thing among others is signified and that the spiritual grace or thing signified is to be represented too only you must excuse him as to that piece of the spiritual grace all the rest but that he will give way to have resembled but fearing least it can hardly be so cleerly evaded but that t wil needs be proved against them that a death burial and resurrection must be represented they fall a proving it that there may be and is a death burial and resurrection reselmbled in their way of sprinkling and infusion as much if not more then in our way of dipping but either of them shift for themselves in severall wayes the Drs way wherein he proves there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in the manner of baptism as it is administred in the Church of England is this though the child be not dipped in water himself saith he yet the minister dippeth his hand in water und plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant where note that the Doctor doth conceive that though sprinkling may serve to represent a death and resurrection as well as our dipping yet it is upon this absurd account viz. in that there is a certain dipping accompanies their sprinkling whereby that resemblance is made viz. the divping the hand of the Administrator but Mr. Cook though he be not so gross as to imagine with the Dr. that the burying of the ministers hand will serve instead of burying the persons body which is if any burial be at all to be buried in baptism yet he is as grosse in his conception another way while he goes about to prove sprinkling or infusion it self to resemble a death burial and resurrection as sufficiently as dipping and this too by such a coined Chymaera such a crude and im mature imagination as is ridiculous viz. of the old worlds being drowned and buried by no more then sprinkling and the fall of rain for verily neither was the rain a resemblance of a death burial and resurrection or any thing like thereto nor yet was it the rain but the overflowing of waters by reason of the rain that drowned them and though that orewhelming was a lively emblem of death and burial as baptism is to be yet there was nothing that resembled a resurrection as in baptisme there must be sith they never rose from under it any more This crooked come off therefore of Mr. Cooks is farre more ridiculous then rational and yet I know more men of his mind in this particular I mean so far as to agree to it with lesse ado then he doth that a death burial and resurrection is to be resembled in baptism and yet to think that the sprinkling or casting water upon the party doth sufficiently make that resemblance but I testify to him that this his way is his foily and theirs also that apptove his sayings and I advise both him and them that adhere to him to be heartily ashamed of two opinions of his so equally odd and absurd that I can scarce tell well which of thetwo are more absurd then the other The one is his supposition that the spiritual grace to be represented and resembled in the manner of administration of that ordinance of baptism is sprinkling besprinkling with the blood of Christ whence in order thereto he as unworthily argues that baptism must be dispensed by sprinkling which indeed nullifies it from being baptism if he consider the inconsistency that is proved to be between them The other is the thing in hand viz. his supposition that sprinkling may well not only signify but resemble a death burial and resurrection as well as dipping and is as well required for so he hints p. 19. to be used in this Sacrament as the other If those who own these things and whose own they are will not be ashamed of them for my part I am for to think that the wisdome of the spirit that in condescension to our dull capacities did leave visible signs to be not only true remembrances but also lively resemblances of spiritual things should order things so unsuitably to sense as to require and appoint maters utterly unlike one another and between which there is no Analogy at all to answer one the other by way of resemblance viz. such a thing as ranâ—…sm to resemble a death burial and resurrection which are to be and are truly resembled all in true baptism i. e. in dipping or appoint such an ordinance as baptism which in plain English is dipping to resemble rantism only or sprinkling with Christs blood is no lesse the absurdity in the abstract But as for you your self you are it seems of Mr. Blakes mind i. e. resolved to own no necessity at all of any resemblance of any thing not of any ceremony to be in the sign of baptism representing the things signifyed in it I shall therefore shew that as in true baptism i. e. dipping there is deâ—…to and that Mr Blâ—…ke confesses so there ought to be deâ—…re a proportion and resemblance of the death and resurrection of Christ and of ours with him in that ordinance whereas therefore you say that all signes do not represent the thing signified thereby t is true who questions that but t will not therefore follow but that there are some signs that both do and may and by institution must not
but suppose I say that there be at any time full five thousand newly believing in so short a time as one day if they could not be baptized all in one day they must necessarily they might lawfully for ought I know stay till the next but yet 3000 we read were baptized in one day neither is it such an impossible thing as you who stumble at every straw are slugg'd by every rub and look on duty with such difficulty as if a Lyon were in the way would seem to make it for 5000 to be baptized in one day Multorum manibus Grande levatur Opus Multorum manibus Grande levatur Onus Many hands of them that have love to Christ may both lessen and lighten that service and suffering that is sustained for him and make but then some performances and such I perceive it is to you tenderlings that make provision for the flesh to fullfill it in the ease thereof to dipp many or be dipped your selves in cold water or weather possible easie and pleasant and how many hands there might be at work at once at the dipping of the 3000 besides the hands of the 12. who as occasion was made use of others to dispense the ordinance it being an inferiour work to their preaching see Act. the 9. Act. 10. 1 Cor. 1. may be conjectured when the number of disciples were a hundred and twenty where if there were but forty dispensers with what ease might they baptize a 100 a piece and do themselves no more wrong neither with abiding in the water knee deep or a little more for half an hour together then he that stands deeper for almost a day together and washes many a hundred sheep as I have known some do and that not by plunging onely but longer padling with each of them by farre then need be in onely dipping persons and so letting them go again besides when once 3000 were baptized how many hands there were ready to baptize not 5000 onely but 5 times 5000 if occasion were and that quickly too is evident to any rational man that reckons it for it is a work which when it is once ready to be done is done in lesser time then I have seen taken up by the Parish Priest in his dropping and crossings and other font fidlings about an infants face and if you suppose it may ask so much hand for so many persons in so short a time as one day to make themselves ready for such a work I hope the same time that serves one to undresse and dresse in which may be some a quarter or at most not above half an hour may as easily serve ten thousand for as if all set at once to sweep every one his own door a whole City may be clensed in an instant so every one that is willing addressing himself to the work a thousand may be ready as soon as one And as for that other conceit of Mr. Blake which Mr. Simpson transcribes out of his book into his own letter in these words viz. that Paul when he was baptized by Ananias was not in case by reason of his weaknesse to be plunged in water over head and ears as he was not by reason of his stripes to have gone in a deep river or pond when he baptized the Iaylor it is as wisdomlesse as any of the rest for what if he were taken out of the stocks in the inner prison had such stripes that his convert was fain to wash them was he therefore so unfit or was it such a strange adventure as Mr. Blake proclaimes it to wade in the water for such a work as the dipping a few persons could that water that toucht his legs while he waded be more mischievous to him then the water that washed the blood of his stripes and when he was baptized himself what though he had fasted three daies from food in that sudden extasie of his mind which time its like he spent in fasting and prayer to the Lord for behold he prayeth saith the text yet I trow as dainty of danger as our Clergy men are that dare dip their fingers but not their feet in cold water for Christ that voluntary keeping under of his body did rather fit then unfit him for burial with Christ in baptism which his proud flesh would else not have stoopt to Surely Sirs you are men that make so much of every little for Christs sake that Crosses and diseases your flesh that you will hardly ever commend your selves as the ministers of Christ did of old 2 Cor. 6. 5. 6. c. 2 Cor. 11. 26. 27. in much patience in afflictions yea in necessities in stripes and imprisonments in tumults in crossings in labours in perils of waters in wearinesse in painfulnesse in watchings often in hunger and in thirst in fastings often in cold and nakednesse in indurance of hardship as good souldiers of Christ 2 Tim. 2. which sith you decline with all the might you can rather then expose your selves freely to for truths sake therefore the Lord have mercy upon your persons your ministeriall capacity will be cashiered Rantist Well what if it was so in the primitive times that total dipping was the custome must it therefore needs be so now will it follow that we must follow their fashion in that particular there may be sundry reasons whereupon they might baptize in such a manner then and yet no reason at all why we should tie our selves to the same Baptist. If it was so what do you speak suppositively of it still nay verily I hope you will not be so obstinate as to deny for all your gainsaying it hitherto but that it was so then for sure enough it was otherwise then in that way of sprinkling or powring nose dripping or face dipping either which are in use amongst you and keep it out at swords point as long as you can yet you will be forct to yield to it in the end when you consider that your own parâ—…y are fain to flag so far in this case as to confesse it for not onely Tilenus reacheth us that heretofore submersion was the way of baptizing rather then aspersion but Dr. Featley also furnishes us as I have shewed above with as much as we desire and if it be once granted as it is in a manner already by not a few if not all but Mr. Blake why else do they trouble themselves and the world to render reasons why it might be by submersion in the primitive ages and places of baptizing but not so now I know no reason worth a rush on which we can be held excused from baptizing by submersion as they did Rantist T is true it is confest by some and if it were granted by all that baptism was then by dipping it were not so material to your cause nor would you get so much ground by it sith both such as flatly agree to it and such as see not cause to agree to it so fully as some do