the cause of their crucifyings of Christ who depart from it as for us we are crucifyed dead and buried with Christ by baptism Rom. 6. for we are baptized into his death and that but once because Christ dyed but once and yet once because Christ dyed once and that is more then any Rantized Priest in Christendome can say of himself for he is not so much as once baptized at all Review 3. It makes them count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing for if it be holy what need they repeat it if unholy how do they prophane it Re-review How far forth Anabaptism properly so called i. e the repetition of baptism without such warrantable ground as it was repeated upon Act. 19.5 doth saving the nonsense that is in that expression repeat the bloud of the Covenant and so count it an unholy thing I am not so much a friend to it as to gainsay but sure I am that A-no-baptism and such yours is doth count not only the bloud of the Covenant but also that holy ordinance of baptizing believers which is the token of it an unholy thing for if it be holy why do you neglect it if unholy in so saying oh how do you prophane it Review 4. It makes the Covenant of the Gospel worse then the legal this taking in all Children into the visible Church the Anabaptists excluding them making them no better than Turks and Pagans Re-review What again Review 5. It destroyes all the comforts that afflicted parents can have â—ver their deceased children the grounds of them being destroyed their right in the covenant and promises of Christ. Re-review What again Review 6. It unchristens the whole Church of God for many hundreds of years together and calls in question the truth of Christs promises of being present with his Church to the end and guiding it by his spirit into all truth Re-review What again what ore ore and ore again are you drawn so dry that you are fain to fill up to swell up your Review into the magnitude of a sheet with old ends and pieces and patches of things that were precedent or did these three Renegadoes fearing a storm run from their old ranks hither to secure themselves by crouding in amongst the rest of this rubbish stuff for every one of them have faced us once or twice a piece before page 6.7.12.13 neverthelesse sith I meet with them here again I le have a word or two with every of them now To the first I say thus if the legal covenant did take in all children into the visible Church as you say as indeed it did i. e. as well the children of unbelieving as of believing Jewes neither had the one of these a strawes more right to circumcision then the other then sith the Covenant of the Gospel is inlarged and communicated to both Jewes and gentiles between whom the partition wall is broken down and they both made one And sith now by the Priests own confession it stands in the same way to be administred among the Jewes and Gentiles as that legal Covenant did for a time among the Jewes only the Priest himself makes the covenant of the Gospel worse then the legal that taking in at least to the visible Church all children of that people to whom it extended i. e. the Jewes without any exception without any respect to the parents being godly or ungodly bâ—lievers or unbelievers the priests contrariwise under the Gospel Covenant which extends and belongs to the whole world i. e. both Jewes and Gentiles 2 Cor. 5.19 1 Iohn 2.2 and to all nations as well as one Mat. 28.18 Mark 16.15 Luke 24.47 excluding now the Major part yea almost all children by their doctrine viz. the children of unbelieving Gentiles of heathens Turks and Pagans and unbelieving Jewes too which for all their parents wickednesse and unbelief were wont to be received into the Church under the Law and this not onely from the visible Church neither for that were more tollerable of the two and can do them no hurt if it be all but also from the Kingdome of heaven and salvation it self in their cruel Charity before they have by actuall sinne deserved to be exempted And this I speak not as believing any infants in infancy to have right to entrance into the visible Church and fellowship thereof here on Earth though yet I believe all infants as well as some dying infants and before they have deserved exemption and damnation by actual rebellion to have according to the general declaration of Scripture right of entrance into the kingdome of heaven but that I may discover the unruliness of the Priest who wherein he judges others of streightning the Gospel condemnes himself who undertakes to make laws prescribe rules impose principles upon all men and yet breaks his own lawes varies from his own rules straggles from his own principles through blindness as much as any other whom he blames for it To the second thus if it be so indeed as you told us once before it is p. 7. and here tell us over again that we may know your mind in it that to deny baptism to infants before they dy doth ipso facto destroy all the comforts all the hopes that any parents can possibly have of the salvation of their infants that dy unbaptized and all the grounds of those hopes i. e. all those childrens right in the covenant and promises of Christ and consequently this necessarily followes doth subject them unavoidably unto eternal damnation Then first as I told you once or twice before so I tell you now again that 't is your selves and not we who are the men that say no baptism no salvation for say you there is no ground for parents to hope their children can be saved no though those parents be believers though those children believe also themselves and so both by birth and by their parents faith and their own faith too have right as you say the infants of Christians have in the Covenant and promises of Christ yet they must damn for all this if baptism be denyed them and if they dye without it their parents must mourne without hope of their Salvation This is your judgement of Charity concerning unbaptized infants even of never so believing parents having also the habit of faith in themselves for though parents believe and believe their children to have faith too and right to salvation yet deny them baptism and all the other notwithstanding there 's no hope of them the parents can upon no good ground be comforâ—ed concerning them but that they are damned T is you therefore that place such high and mighty necessity in the bare outward dispensation of the ordinance that are so for the ceremony that hold that the substance doth no good without it why else do you say that be there never so many grounds otherwise on which to hope infants salvation viz. their parents faith and their own faith and
we may see how these men wil needs have that signification that best serves their turnes whether proper or improper when the proper most fits them then the improper cannot be meant there when the proper makes against them the improper is pleaded for as none more usual then that thus the word houshold must include infants when baptism is spoken of but when the passover is spoken of then infants are excluded because else we shall argue from thence to their eating the supper as they from circumcision unto their baptism but this by the way that it may be noted how the men will have things their own way by hook or by crook not that I deny the word kingdomes to be taken properly for all the whole kingdome here yea I grant it but let us see what of that why even this if the whole kingdom be the Lords then infants must unavoidably be members of Christs Church and if we ask how comes this about he will tell you two wayes First as infants are all of the Kingdomes of this world taken for the whole kingdom Secondly as by the word kingdom of Christ is meant Christs church Now let us spell and put all together and it is thus much First by Kingdomes of this world is here meant the whole Kingdome of this world or Kingdome taken universally not for some part of it onely Secondly by Kingdomes of the Lord and his Christ is here meant Christs church onely Thirdly infants are a part of the Kingdomes of this world and so consequently of Christs church for the Kingdomes of this world are become the Kingdomes of the Lord and his Christ i. e. Christs church oh brave and plain Scripture proof for infant church-membership and baptism Let us examine what is true and what is false in this First as above I grant that here the Kingdomes of this world signifie the whole Kingdome as he pleads it but that here the Kingdome of the Lord and his Christ signifies Christs church I utterly deny it and am amazed that a reasonable man should affirm it and so consequently I deny that it appears from this place that infants are now members of Christs church But he brings reason for it such as t is and that shall be a little examined First if they say saith he that the Kindome of Christ is not here meant Christs church they speak against the constant phrase of Scripture which calls Christs Kingdome his Church et conversim Christ is King and saviour of the same society what is Christs Kingdom but his church To which I answer Christs Kingdome is the whole world as well as his church And Secondly that he is King and Saviour of all men in some sense as well as of that same society And Thirdly that it is not against the constant phrase of Scripture to say by Christs Kingdome here is not meant his church for though it is true by his Kingdome is sometimes exprest his church et retro by his church is meant his Kingdome in a special and restrictive sense yet not constantly there being many places where the word Kingdome of Christ is taken in a larger sense as signifying not the church but the whole world O bad 21 the Kingdome i. e. Monarchy of the whole earth shall be the Lords i. e. Christs so Dan. 7. the Kingdome i. e. Dominion Monarchy and greatness of the Kingdome under the whole heaven is given to the son of man and the Saints yea his Kingdom is over all he shall rule the Nations govern and judge the whole world in righteousnesse Oh saith Mr. Ba. the Kingdome of Christ is more large and more speciall but here it cannot be meant of his kingdom in the larger sense nor as he ruleth common societies and things for so saith he the Kingdomes of this world were ever the Lords and his Christs and it could not be said that they are now become so To which I answer First that in granting what he here does that Christs kingdome is taken sometimes in a larger sense then for the church he contradicts himself above where he saies it is the constant phrase of Scripture to call Christs Kingdome his church and what is Christs kingdome but his church Secondly whereas he saies the Kingdomes of this world were ever the Lords and his Christs in the larger sense as taken for his Government and Rule I grant de jure Christ hath been Lord of the whole earth a long time but de facto he is not King so as actually to reign over the whole earth as ere long he shall do i. e. at his appearing 2 Tim. 4.1 to this very day but in that indeed i. e. when he comes he shall be King Monarch over all the earth and rule with a rod of iron over the Nations and judge the world in righteousnesse together with his Saints who hath been judged in unrighteousnesse by the Nations and Rulers hitherto Zach. 14. Dan. 7. Act. 17. P 2. Rev. 2. then he shall be in point of execution as before by commission and really and actually as now intentionally King of Kings and Lord of Lords Rev. 19. but till then as yet a little while and his Kingdome comes to his hand and the Kingdomes of the world do thus become his for the work of recovery of his right is now very hot in fieri and will not be long before it be in facto esse till then he hath been an underling and other Lords besides him have had dominion over him in his and also over the whole earth which is his and over the Kingdomes of this world which de jure are his but specially that servus servorum dominus dominorum the Pope and CCClergy that are the whore that hath reigned in three divisions over the earth between whom and Christ the great justle now is in all christendome whether he or they that by permission have had it so long from Christ who onely hath the commission for it shall be King of Kings and Lord of Lords hitherto Christ hath reigned in the world as Charles the second hath reigned in England and no otherwise i. e. hath reigned in the hearts of a few of his friends and followers But I perceive the Gospel or good news of the Kingdome of Christ coming which is to be preached more had more before the end is yet a riddle to Mr. Ba. and though I hope it will be if seeing he will see yet t is not yet given him to know the mystery and manner of Christs Kindome Thirdly whereas he saies that the Kingdom taken in the larger sense i. e. for the world cannot be meant here but the church onely by this phrase the Kingdomes of the Lord and his Christ I strongly assert that of all places in Scripture the word Kingdomes of Christ cannot here be construed for the church that the church cannot be meant in that phrase but the Kingdomes in the largest sense i. e. the whole world and
not cotten at all with that for the subject of Circumcision which you all say though falsely is one and the same with that of Baptism was one of at least eight daies old and an Infant of one day only was not a warrantable subject thereof nor an infant of seven daies neither though likely to die before the eighth but as for you though your chief plea for your timely untimely rantizing Infants be grounded upon that timely dispensation of Circumcision yet as if you had a mind to proclaim your selves be-blinded so that you cannot walk by Christs Right rules nor your own wrong ones neither you take the liberty to out-stand or anticipate the eighth day at your pleasure hence the birth day is as warrantable with you as the eight yea in case of imminent danger of death in which case circumcision might not alter ti 's a learned question among some Infant-sprinklers whether the mid-wife may not sprinkle it before it s born i. e. while is hangs yet between the womb and the world but too soon is too soon in all conscience and again when it fits better with your plum-cake occasions the tenth twelfth or eight and twentyth day must be as acceptable to God as the eighth yea when it seems good to the wisdom of the Church i. e. the Clergy it may be deferred for no less than two or three hundred daies together witness the old Rubrik which saith that in old time baptism was not ministered but at two times in the year viz. at Easter and Whitsontide but that custome being grown out of use for many considerations I know not any but the Clergies good will and pleasure cannot now well be restored Thus you ride people to and fro as you lift and run manie miles from your own rules as well as Christs for if Circumcision be your Rule for the time of Baptisms administration keep punctually to the particular time of the eighth day as well as to the generall time of Infancy or else you may tell me the eighth day is a circumstance not to be regarded whilst I tell you 't is such a substance that Moses was like to be slain for overslipping it yet by your favour Sirs and by the same reason that you take an inch I 'le take an ell yea if you can acceptably go a fingers bredth besides the rule of Circumcision I may go an hundred furlongs and by the same Authoritie that you delay the Dispensation beyond the eighth to the tenth twelft or the hundreth day I may delay it unless belief withall the heart do ingage to it before to the ten thousandth day or more nor can you question me why do you thus Secondly whereas for my undertaking to rectifie you in your gross misapprehension and reduce you from the misconstruction I saw you make of my speech which leaves you without excuse in this rude recording you record me as recalling what I said I protest against that as another of your figments which you had need both to recant and repent of there was but one thing recalled all that day that I know of viz. that Iohn Baptist spake so soon as he came out of the womb that being rashly uttered by one in a Black coat was indeed as readily recalled as for my self what I said then I was so far from recalling that I 'le give you the advantage of saying the same over again hear therefore you deaf that you may understand bring me the children of three or four years old not instructed only for so the wickedst heathen may be but instructed to conversion and profession of faith not verbal onely for a Parret may be taught to prate but real as may seem at least and to desire baptism in Christs name yea more bring me the Infants of three or four daies old thus truly discipled and blame me for ever if I be not as forward to baptize them as your selves are to rantize them undiscipled This is the sense I then spake in the Lord knows my heart to whom I appeal ultimately to judge between us I have spoken it thus over again you have now my mind more fully among you mistake it not but take it dexterously and make your best on 't Report Next you relate and that most fictitiously that I having asserted circumcision to be a seal of the righteousness of saith to Abraham only and not to his posterity and being urged to shew any Scripture that did import a change in the signification and told that such a change must needs intimate that the same covenant was not made with Abrahams seed that was made with himself I was so foundered that though you ingaged to become Anabaptists if I did it yet I answered nothing that carried any sense or reason to the purpose Reply This I say is another of your your figments for first to let pass the Sophisticall terms you used whilst you askt how or when Circumcision ceased to be a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abrahams posterity as if I had granted that Circumcision was once a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abrahams posterity as well as himself and then was changed ceased left off to be so wheras I told you then that though 't was so to Abraham himself yet it never was so to them at all do also tel you now that when a man saies of a thing that it never was so it is but an illiterate kind of quere to ask him again when it ceased to be so Secondly confessing that I then affirmed and also still affirming the same viz. that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only and not to his posteritie I profess thirdly before the world appealing to your own consciences to witness that as it is most plain in the Scripture so I then made a most plain discoverie of it from the Scripture that there were other ends uses and significations of Circumcision to Abrahams own person though in some respects there were also the same then those for which it was dispensed to his seed and that notwithstanding many things which were promised to Abraham were promised to all his seed together with him yet there were somethings also promised to Abraham in the Covenant of Circumcision which his seed had no promise of at all as namely First That he should be the Father of all Believers This I am most certain I then instanc'd in and according to your then demand cleared by Scripture even that very Scripture which was then quoted by your selves Rom. 4.11 and repeating the whole verse whereof you for your own ends mentioned but a part I told you t was evident even thence that Abraham had one preheminence and priviledge that none of his posteritie had ever after him which he obtained of God by his preheminence in believing viz. the Fatherhood of the faithful of which eminent faith of his which was imputed to him for
onely excluding all other infants from it in doctrine though not all in practise which are no less then an hundred to one whereby not a moity onely but all save a small moity of infants in the world yea in the very Christian world in which the most by far are unbelievers are cut off at once from not the Church on earth onely but all share in the Kingdom of heaven also which of all these I say viz we he or you are most cruel and desperate and do most justly deserve the censure which you Priests put upon us p. 15. of your pamphlet of damning infants dying contrary to evident testimony of Scriptures and of damning innumerable innocents such as infants of infidels are whose right to the Kingdome of heaven our Saviour declared I propound it to be considered by your selves and all other men at leasure at present seeing this Argument of yours makes also more against then for you whose plea is for some infants against other if your Minor in it viz. that denial of baptism to infants destroyes all hope of their salvation were true as it is not and speaks for a necessity of baptizing all infants and not a few onely I 'le Syllogize it back upon you in much what your own terms and so pass hence to the other That opinion which destroyes all hopes of the salvation of many dying infants to one in the world yea in the very Christian world too is a most desperate ungodly uncharitable opinion But the opinion of you Priests who deny all hopes of salvation to those to whom baptism is deni'd and yet deny it doctrinally your selves to all unbelievers infants which are many to one in the Christian world and dispute for its dispensation to believers infants onely is such as destroyes all hope of the salvation of many dying infants to one as well in the Christian world as elsewhere Ergo the opinion of you Priests is a most cruel desperate ungodly uncharitable opinion Another fine fancie whereby you would fain juggle men into a belief that believers infants and these onely are to be baptized runs thus else say you the Gospel Covenant is worse then that under the law forasmuch as then litle infants were circumcised Now Sirs when I come to meddle with this Argument ore again I shall shew you plainly the imbecillity of it to prove the baptism of any infants at all and the melâ—ority of the Gospel-Covenant above that of the law though infants be not now baptized as Circumcised then at present I am to shew how if it would prove any thing it would prove the right of baptism to unbelievers infants to whom you deny it as well as to believers infants whose baptism onely you seem to plead by it I say suppositively that this is to make the Gospel-Covenant worse then that of the law to deny baptism to infants now sith they then admitted infants to Circumcision then the denial of it to believers infants which is your own opinion makes it worse then it was under the law as well as the denial of it to infants of believers for under the law the infants of unbelievers which were many to one believer among the Iews Is. 53.1 were both de jure and de facto circumcised as well as those of the believing Iews and so by your own rule ought the one to be baptized now as well as the other Again by the denial of baptism to the infants of unbelievers not onely a moity but the most of Christendome as in which are by far more unbelievers infants then others are cut off at once from baptism and membership I conclude therefore thus If that opinion which denies baptism to little children makes the Gospel-covenant worse then that under the law then the opinion of those Priests who deny baptism to all unbelievers infants whereby not a moity onely but most of the Christian world in which the most are unbelievers are cut off from being members of the Church makes the Gospel-Covenant worse then the law But though not veraciter yet secundum te O Presbiter that opinion which denies baptism to little children whereby a moity of the Christian world is so cut off makes the Gospel-Covenant worse then that under the law Ergo thy opinion which denieth baptism to all unbelievers infants whereby more then a moity of infants is so cut off makes it worse under the Gospel then under the law Another curious conceit whereby you undertake to clear the right of baptizing the infants of believing parents above others is the being and plain yea more plain appearing of the holy spirit to be in these children then in others or then in men whom we baptize that make profession which plain and sufficient appearance so you stile it p. 5 of the spirits being in these children is made say you many waies First by these infants faith Secondly by these infants holiness Thirdly by those Eulogies that are given to these children in Scriptures not inferiour to those of the best Saints Fourthly by that Scripture in special 2 Cor. 13. know you not that the Spirit that Christ you should have said is in you except ye be reprobates lastly and mainly by these childrens non-appearing not to have the spirit by these childrens not appearing to be evil by these infants not appearing by any actuall sin to have barr'd themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture by all which on pain and guilt of the breach of Christian charity whose rule is praesumere unumquenque bonum nisi constet de malo we are bound to believe that these infants of believing parents not of others have evidently enough the holy spirit Now Sirs the Lord help you to your eye-sight if it be his wlll for I le be bold to say these Seers are as blind as a beetle what ever they seem to themselves to see who by any thing at all that is here brought do discern the holy spirit to be in any infants but this which is to the present purpose may be more safely asserted that all this proves it not one jot more to be in the infants of believers then it proves it to be in unbelievers infants to whom you deny baptism as well as we in plea pretence and prate at least but not altogether in practise for verily these have as much promise of the spirit as the other those parents Acts 2. being yet unbelievers while Peter spake to them saying the promise is to you and your children yea these have as much capacity for the spirit as much manifestation of the spirit as much capacity to believe as much holyness as much Eulogie in Scripture for Christ commends not the infants of some parents above the infants of others but indefinitly the whole age of infancy alike as little appearance yet of being reprobates and so consequently as much appearance that Christ is in them as in the other
and supposing still that you speak of the right subject viz. infants of believing parents we will cast this your Enthusiasm into this Enthememe Disputation Little children of believing parents have faith Ergo little children of believing parents have the holy spirit Disproof First I deny your Consequence secondly your Antecedent as both stark false and that is as much as can well be false in an Enthememe First I shall be bold to tell you Sirs that your Argumentation from present faith to a present having the holy Spirit is most invalid and unconsonant to the Scripture for if by the holy Spirit you mean as you must else it serves not your turn at all to the proof of baptism the spirit in that special sense viz. the holy spirit of promise the consequenâ—e from faith to the having of it will not universally hold true for as much as faith not only must be in time before it unless God be better than his word and that he may be when he pleases and so he was Act. 10 44. where the spirit by Anticipation was given out before obedience at least in baptism which yet by promise cannot be expected till after it Ast. 2. 38. I say not only must be before it but also may be a pretty while without it this will be counted the mad mans mad Divinity with you I doubt not but I le clear it to the Dimmest Divine of you all yea see if the whole body of the Testament of Christ doth not tell you plainly that as faith must be before it in an ordinary way before we have warrant to expect it so it may for some while be without it and therefore cannot prove the holy spirit to be alwaies where it is for the spirit of promise is given after faith if given according to the promise and so long after it too now and then as is enough to make it undeniably appear that the having of faith is no proof of ones present having the holy spirit among sundry others let those Scriptures be seriously searcht into Ephes. 1.13 In whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise Act. 19.2 have ye received the holy spirit since ye believed they answered no also Act. 8.12 when they believed c. they were baptized c. but verse 16. the holy spirit was fallen upon none of them only they were baptized Act. 5.32 The holy spirit which God hath given to them that obey him yea the gift of the spirit though Gods ordinary way so limits not himself but that he may give it extraordinarily before Act. 10. yet is it neither promised nor as by promise to be expected but upon obedience in faith repentance turning to God baptism and prayer Pro. 1.23 Act. 2.38 Luke 11.15 Iohn 7.38.39 the places are so plain to the purpose that I 'le not disparage your judgement so much as like a fresh man to stand to frame formal Syllogisms to you out of them to conclude then as to your Consequence had you argued from the holy spirit in the special sence in which you take it to faith it might have past for me without correction but â—ith you began at the wrong end of your business I beseech you take it for a warning Sirs and begin again Secondly I deny your Antecedent which if your Consequence were never so true is most false for infants of believers have not faith if they have unbelievers infants for ought you make appear to the contrary have as much and so though that grieve and go against you and cannot be owned so kindly by you in opinion as it is in practise must de jure be baptized i. e. humano for Divino neither may as well as they but in truth as it will not appear by what you here bring to evince it by that faith is in either so I trust it will appear by what shall be said in disproof of your proofs that faith can possibly he in neither Disputation You prove infants of believing parents to have faith two waies as you say first by express texts of Scripture secondly Arguments of consequence Your express Scripture is Mat. 18.6 Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse say you they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence upon my confession and concession that in ver 2. and 4. is meant one in respect of age because it is said there he called to him a little child and who so humbleth himself as this little child you therfore argue that little ones in respect of age are meant in that 6 verse also Disproof Sirs let me ask you two questions first are you sure these are infants indeed Secondly are you sure they were infants of believers of whom Christ saies whoever offends one of these little ones that believe in me for my part if there were any probability that he spake of little ones literally taken at all as I know none there is yet I am sure there is none that they were the little ones of believers he then spake of in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers for t is not specified either one way or other and is most probable that the child he occasionally called to him might be some unbelievers child or other the number of believers where e're he came being few and not comparable to them that believed not but what e're that child was yet this is much more then probable that by the term these litâ—le ones in v. 6. he means not infants but his Disciples whom having first perswaded them to become such as that little one or as little children in such things as are generally found in them viz. plainness of spirit humbleness innocency freedome from malice in which respects David saies Psal. 131.2 my soul is as a weaned child from that Analogy that was and ought to be between little ones and them he here bespeaks as it was very ordinary for him to do under the title of these little ones besides the plurall number he speaks in implies he spake of such of whom there was a plurallity then present for saith he these little ones pointing as it were to more then one but there was but one little one then in the midst of them of whom when Christ speaks he speaks in the singular saying this little child as to the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in the third verse whence you argue that they were children in age spoken of by our Savior by which you seem much to strenghthen your selves in your Dabling of Infants foreheads I must tell you that of the two you more marre than make your matter by so much as mentioning of it in this case for first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though by some philosophicall or poeticall license it may possibly be used to signify Infantem some youngling of three or four years old as though beginning to prattle can scarcely
being fulfilled by all the natural seed of believers be they never so ungodly in their own persons must be faithful to fulfil his own part and their ungodliness non obstante make it good to them concerning their salvation which drives you oft to such a Dilemma in discourses that for your ears almost you dare not answer distinctly to us when we ask you what that Gospell promise is which is made as you say to believers infants and upon what terms it is made to them beyond the infants of unbelievers Babist We do not say that being born of believing parents only intitles persons to the Gospell promises but they are heirs thereof and of all the glory and priviledges and salvation held forth therein as they shall hereafter believe themselves also and live godly when they come to years and not otherwise Baptist. Yea say you so then pray how doth the promise of the Gospel appear to belong one jot more to believers children then to unbelievers for the believers child it seems by you now cannot by promise be saved upon his parents faith unless he believe also himself and then he may and what is this more then I can say to the full of all unbelievers children yea and as well of all unbelievers in the world for even the children of Turks and Pagans and all the children of all the men upon the face of the Earth shall be saved upon these terms viz. believing and obeying the Gospel themselves when they come to years whether their parents ever obeyed it yea or no where then is the preheminence of your believers seed above unbelievers if you go this way to work either therefore grant the one or else the other viz. either that believers children are heirs of salvation upon their fathers faith onely without their own or if you say not so but by their own faith t is that they must be saved then that the Gospel promise belongs not to believers children beyond other mens and that one mans seed hath no such birth-priviledge and preheminence as you dote of about anothers for unbelievers children may as well as they by promise be saved upon their own faith when they come to age without their Fathers Babist We can easily answer you to all this by distinguishing upon the promise thus The promise of the Gospel is either of salvation life remission of sins the holy spirit as the earnest and the inheritace it self to come or else of external priviledges only and participations of Ordinances as Baptism Churchmembership c. the promise of the eternal inheritance life and salvation we grant is not made much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith but upon our own personal belief and obedience but the promise of outward priviledges and of right to participation of ordinances as to be baptized and inchurcht this belongs to children upon their fathers faith so that believers children are children of the promise in this sense when others are not and in this last sense it is that Peter saies the promise is to you and to your Children c. i. e. you and yours have the priviledge of right to baptism Baptist. Then it seems you quit the former sense I pray therefore let us here no more of that till next time however but let me tell you one thing by the way concerning that first sense before I say ought to your second viz that if the promise of salvation belong to persons upon their own personal belief and obedience as undoubtedly it doth according to the whole tenor of the Scripture as to men at years and such onely then as very a figment of ours as you feign it to be t will put you to your shifts to find out what way dying infants are saved in unless you own another way then that which the Scripture tenders it to men in for the justification and salvation of infants viz. the presentment of the righteousness of Christ for them without belief in them or any other kind of obedience And sith in such sense as this only you own the Gospel promise to be made by Peter Act. 2. to believers infants viz. that they shall by right be admitted to outward priviledges as baptism and membership when others shall not I beseech you consider what a poor piece of promise is made by him and what a miserable comforter the Apostle is made by you in making as if this were all his meaning and all that he intends by that precious word of promise I suppose his drift was to support the Jewes now smitten down under sense of sin and the guilt of Christs blood which then lay upon them by propounding to them some ground of consolation but here is cold comfort in what he saith if that be all which you saie is the sense he speaks in he had spoke little to their purpose and as good he had said never a whit as never the better for this promise as you take it hath more matter of mourning in it then otherwise to say you shall be brought nearer to the Church but never the nearer to salvation thereby further then you do that which others doing that are further off the Church shall be saved so doing as well as you Sirs you had as good cut off the entail of that piece of promise which you intitle believers infants to us cut of the best part of the promise from them which yet you seem to entail as from their parents to them for this is not worth a rush without the other for abstract this great priviledge you seem to invest them with from that which you divest them of by this distinction and its worth little or nothing if not plainly worse than nothing without the other what better to be under a promise of being priviledged with and what priviledge at all to be admitted to this and yet to be no more nor upon any other terms under the promise of the inheritance it self then others such as were yet never at all signed to it Is it not rather a burden and a bondage for outward ordinances verily are part of the preceptory part of the Gospel and the precept in point of ordinances as well as in point of manners is part of the yoke and burden of Christ and of the hard sayings of his which flesh and blood brooks not to hear off for though the way of Christ is light and easie and not grievous where it is lessened by thoughts of the recompence of reward yet is it in it self a burden and a yoke and such a one too as considering the sufferings of all such as submit to own it well nigh wearies them that walk under it though under clearest title to the Kingdome for which they suffer much more may it be a misery and not a mercy to such who have a promise of being barely admitted to it but no more of life and salvation or at least upon no other terms then such as
persons which and no other are the terms inrighting therunto to any of these Gospel ordinances at all and all this will be seen most undoubtedly to be true by him that searches the Scripture which testifie no lesse and because this is the very Root and Knot in the state of this controversie the unfolding and laying open of which will discover the whole mystery of your mistakes in this point all which arise originally from your erring in it for Error minimus in principio fit major in medio maximus in sine pray have me excused both in that I have been hitherto so long and in case I be yet a little longer on this matter First then let it be considered that Abrahams own seed even that seed that were heirs with him by promise of the Earthly Canaan though born of his body now by Isaac and Iacob as truely though more remotely then of old of his body I say that was the greatest believer that ever was Christ only excepted and therefore must much more then any other believer if any believer at all could by his faith confer a right to Gospel priviledges upon his seed even these are not his seed in the Gospel account not his heirs according to this Gospel promise nor as barely born of his body to be baptized and enchurched and this I shall make plain unto you from many Scriptures the first whereof is Romans 9.6.7.8 In which I beseech you to observe how the Apostle there denies Abrahams own naturall children the name of Abrahams seed in the sence of the Gospel first mark how he magnifies them exceedingly and sets forth their dignity and preheminence above all other people under the name of Israelites as to whom pertained the adoption and the glory and the Covenants i. e. both Testaments the type and the antitype unto whom then pertained not only the giving of the law but also the promises for verily the several excellencies of both law and Gospel upon the several terms upon which both were established did in more special sence belong unto that people at that time then to any people under the Sun yea the first covenant and the promise thereof the Earthly Canaan and all the priviledges and ordinances signing it did pertain to them as the proper heirs therof by bare fleshly descent from Abraham Isaac and Iacob yea all that was theirs ipso facto as so born without more ado whether they were believers or not believers as to the Gospel and as for the Gospel covenant which is now belonging to them in common only with all other men in one respect it did principally pertain to them above all others till they lost their preheminence viz. not in respect of any right to it they had by birth whether they received it yea or no but in respect of the first tender therof which when it came in fuller force to be ratified to the world in the preaching of the Gospel was by special order and appointment from God in the first place to be tendered unto them nor was it carried at all to the Gentiles till these Jews had both slighted and rejected it when brought to them in the Ministery of Christ and Iohn in proof of which see in Mat. 10.5.6.7 where the Disciples sent forth to preach are forbidden to go in any waie of the Gentiles or to any save the lost sheep of the house of Israel yea they were the Children whose bred this was at that time and which till they loathed it was not to be given to the Doggs excepting a few Crummes of it I mean to the Gentiles who till the Partition Wall was broken down between them and the Iews by Christ crucified were accounted Doggs Common unclean sinners by nature in a certain ceremonial sense in reference to the Jewes who then by birth were holy in a ceremonial sence now vanisht then answering as opposite to that birth uncleanness of the Gentiles Mat. 15.24.25.26.27 see also Mat. 22.3 where the Iews are said to be first bidden to the wedding so Luke 24.46.47 where Christ commands that in their preaching the Gospel to all Nations they should first begin at Ierusalem and so we see they did after his ascension Act. 2. see also Act. 3.25.26 where the Jews are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Children of the Gospell Covenant in respect that unto them first God sent his son to bless them in which respect they are said Mat. 8.12 to be THE Children of the Kingdome i. e. the heavenly Kingdom which yet they were cast out into utter darkness from any enjoyment of for their non-acceptance of it so Act. 13.46 where Paul saies to the Jews that 't was necessary that the word of the gospel should be first spoken to them so Acts 28.28 't is said the salvation of God which the Iew rejected was from henceforth sent to the Gentiles Notwithstanding all which glory and preheminence of this people Israel whose were the fathers also and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Paul after he had shewed their high prerogatives above others comes with Alas and great sorrow of heart and much bewailing for their infidelity to exclude them even all of them save those few with whom the word of the Gospel took effect so as to gain them to believe notwithstanding the antient and legall title from the very name of Israelites and from standing Abrahams children now any longer for saith he as who should say the more is the pitty They are not all Israell that are of Israel i. e. all that are Israelites after the flesh are not the Gospel Israelites or Israelites in the Gospels account because few of them did receive it all that were Abrahams seed after the flesh and stood in his family i. e. the visâ—ble Church of old as being his seed cannot stand so now for belivers onely and such as are Christs by faith are counted for the seed that this is the meaning of those words is most evident by them that follows for saith he neither because they are the seed of Abraham i. e. his fleshly seed are they called children i. e his children thereupon as to his Gospel Covenant but in Isaac i. e. Christ in the Antitype shall thy seed be called that is saith he expounding himself and alluding to what was done Allegorically as in a figure as concerning Ishmael and Isaac in Abrahams family of old the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed the children of the flesh by which he means those that were born of Abrahams body by Isaac who now stands in reference to Christ as Ishmael did in the house of old in reference unto him these are not the children of God but the children of the promise such was Isaac in the legal typicall ceremonial and carnal account in relation to Ishmael for not Ishmael but he and his posterity were the promised seed which
not by being the fleshly posterity of a believer though it should be of believing Abraham himself for even his own fleshly were not his spiritual seed but onely as they believed with him but by bringing forth fruits of repentance doing his works treading in the steps of his faith you belike have found more wayes to the wood then one whereof when ones failes you in the fight you commonly take your flight by the other and with you there 's two wayes whereby persons nay which is a greater mystery whereby the same persons even believers infants in their very infancy may and do become Abrahams spiritual sons and heirs viz. first by their own walking in the steps of Abrahams faith i. e. believing themselves which though it be the true way of becoming Abrahams spirituall seed yet infants are not capable to walk in it Secondly by being the natural progeny of believing parents which though infants are capable of it yet is none of the way whereby to be canonized according to the sense of Scripture the Spirituall seed of Abraham But it seems the terms upon which persons become heirs with Abraham of Gospel-promises and stand in true title to Gospel-ordinances are not uniform but multiform in your imagination for those on which persons in the capacity of parents are priviledged with the title of Abrahams spiritual seed and title to Gospel-ordinances and enjoyments are their own believings not anothers but those on which others i. e. all that are in the capacity of children to those parents are thus highly priviledged are the believing of their parents whether they have any faith of their own yea or no and yet some count that the childs own faith which the parent professes for him But Genus et pro avos et quae non fecimus ipsi vix ea nostra voco Sirs what pretty intricate blind bo-beep Divinity is this of yours do the same priviledges and promises belong to the believing parents and their children and yet though exhibited to them both alike in one and the self same phrase and form of speech for saith Peter the promise is to you and your children and to them that are farre off yea even as many meaning of you and your children and of them that are far off as the Lord shall call do they belong upon such various and different grounds viz. to the parents upon their own faith to the children upon the parents faith my father then it seems what ere his fathers were must prove his pedegree from Abraham by his doing as Abraham did or else he can be no gospel-son nor share at all in any gospel-priviledges and immunities but if he were a believer I his son may prove mine at easier rates by farr viz. by going no further then the faith and faederation of my father But Sirs will this hold a triall think you by the word is there any such manglements as these to be found there is it to be found there that now under the gospel-Covenant since that outing of the old Covenant and that fleshly seed that were heirs of it and all the tipical pertinencies thereof the faith and faederation of fathers inrights and enrouls all their fleshly seed as Heirs with them of salvation without any evidence of their believing themselves then tell me why the fleshly seed of those great believers Abraham Isaac and Iacob stand excommunicated from all Gospel-priviledges participations of ordinances promises c. even from the beginnings of the Gospel Church and first administring of baptism to this very day will you plead your own right above theirs to stand his children in the Gospel-Church by saying we had holy men and believers to our fathers but their fathers believed not the Gospel therefore worthily are they cut off with them I reply thus were not Abraham Isaac and Iacob their fleshly fathers and though remote ones yet were they not their true fathers after the flesh still as much as ever did Iohn Mat. 3. and Christ Iohn 8. and Peter Acts 2. deny them a standing in the Gospel house and admission unto baptism and membership without repentance and belief in their own persons and doing the works of Abraham did they I say put such off from all Gospel-expectations and priviledges who offered themselves thereto with this plea viz. we have Abraham to our father and dare you admit such without faith or repentance for whom you can make no higher pretence then this viz. they are the children of believers me thinks if meer birth-priviledges and fleshly descent must carry it still without faith in the seed themselves are not the Iews infants to this day higher born then any Gentiles infants in the world whose parents are believers for they verily can say no less then this we are the natural issue of the father of all the faithfull yet may they not be own'd barely upon that account to gospel-ordinances and if the natural seed and that by Isaac and Iacob of Abraham himself the grand believer which seed could of old claim a room by right of birth from Abraham in the house of Moses cannot possibly carry it so high under Christ as by the same descent onely without faith in themselves to gain a standing in his house or so much as right to be stiled their own natural fathers children as to the Gospel I am amazed to see you Gentile believers to conferre upon your meer natural seed the name of Abrahams spiritual seed and denominate your semen carnis his semen fidei 〈◊〉 The Iews though the natural seed of Abraham yet cannot have the account of the spiritual seed nor any right to Gospel priviledges because they believe not themselves which if they did they should have right to the Gospel as well as we who believe but sith they abide in unbelief they are cut off from all share in these things Baptist. Then learn once I beseech you this lessen from your selves which you will not learn from Iohn Christ and Paul viz. that the ground of standing Abrahams spiritual seed sons and heirs and Church-members under the Gospel is not the the faith and faederation of the parents by vertue of which you plead your childrens right to baptism saying they have believers as the Jews once to Iohn pleaded theirs saying we have Abraham to our father but faith it self in the particular persons so standing for so many Jews heathens infidels children as are of the faith of Abraham i. e. not born of faithful parents but faithful themseves as he was are incorporated incovenanted inchurched as Abrahams seed and Evangelically blessed with faithful Abraham but till even believers children yea Abrahams own believe themselves the parents faith cannot now possibly ingraft them the time of faith or standing by faith alone in the house or visible Church of God being now come in the standing by any fleshly generation what soever is done away yea Abrahams own children the naturall branches that grow out of his loynes are
universals or to these individuals from indefinite declarations and verily take your Minor term little children which you so frequently Syllogize by indiscrimination not expressing what little children or else indefinitely and more restrictively for some only not naming which it s equally ridiculous to argue thus viz. The Scripture gives good report of little infants in general Therefore believers infants only have faith and the holy spirit and thereby right to baptism and not any other infants Or thus The Scripture speaks well of little infants indefinitely i. e. of some at least though not all and we know not which as having faith the spirit and right to baptism Therefore undoubtedly these little infants whom we baptize are well spoken of in that kind and must be baptized As t is to argue thus The Scripture declares that John Baptist had the holy spirit Eego all the infants of believing parents must be supposed to have it in infancy and may thereupon be baptized Yet these are but as it were the several streins which you dispute in which put all together into a bag and shuffle as much as you will that which comes out first wil be a sensless non sequitur do what you can But you offer concerning this that particular infant viz. a believers of whom I denied that if it were brought unto you together with a heathens the spirit could more appear to you to be in it than in the other you offer I say to make it appear that that infant should appear to have the holy spirit above the other for that was indeed the business I then put you to prove and this you do as well as those may be said to do who by mending make their mater worse than t was before whisest there is not a tittle to be found in your Argument which doth not as fully prove the holy spirit to be in all infants as in any at all on this wise it runs Disputation Da That which to doubt of is breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear ri But to doubt these little children have the holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity i Ergo that these little children have the Holy Ghost doth sufficiently appear The Minor is proved thus To doubt that these little children are such as the Scripture in generall hath declared them to be and that they have right to the kingdome of heaven c. is a breach of Christian charity whose rule is Praesumere unumquenque bonum nisi constet de malo the Apostle saying 1 Cor. 13.3.5 it thinketh no evil charity believeth all things especially since it cannot appear that those have by any actuall sin bard themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of litle infants declared in Scripturâ—s Ergo To doubt that they have the Holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity Disproof Besides the falsity of both the premises there 's no more at all concluded from them concerning any one infant then might if they were true indeed be as truly concluded from them concerning all First O the rottenness and infirmitie of the Major it is most manifestly fals for there are many things which to doubâ— of may be a breach of Christian charity which yet do not at present sufficiently appear To doubt that this or that particular infant will hereafter live holily and imbrace the Gospel may be a breach of Christian Charity whose rule is ever to hope the best till it sees the contrary and yet that this or that particular infant will live holily and imbrace the Gospel when he comes to age doth not yet so sufficiently appear but that as more plainly as things appear with you in infancie then at age by particular profession it may more sufficiently appear when they are grown up yea till then it appeareth not at all The Minor also is false for to doubt that this or that infant hath at present the holy spirit is no breach of Christian charity at all sith what hopes soever we may have of them as to the future yet at present there is no evidence that they have it nor yet any promise at all that it shall be given to them in infancy nor at years neither till they believe and obey the Gospel and as there is no promise of it to them in infancie so in meer infancy there is no such use of it to them as t is promised to be of unto believers neither doth it either quicken inlighten convince convert comfort or any other way officiate as a seal of redemption and remission of sins to such as have no sins as yet to be remitted Secondly if both these premises were as true as you suppose them yet would it follow no more from them nor from all you say toward the proof of either of them that believers infants have the holy spirit then it would that unbelâ—evers infants have it in the evincing of which I shall only transcribe your Syllogism and proof of the Minor and instead of your term these little children write little children of infidels and so leave you and all the world to judge whether your own Argument doth not as clearly conclude unbelievers infants to have the holy spirit as the infants of believers and so consequently that all have it if any at all as well as some That which to doubt of is a breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear But to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost is a breach of christian charity Ergo that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost doth sufficiently appear The Minor is thus proved To doubt that little children of infidels are such as che Scripture in generall hath declared them to be and that they have right to the kingdome of heaven c. is a breach of Christian Charity whose rule is presumere unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo The Apostle saying in 1 Cor. 13.3.5 it thinketh no evil Charity believeth all things it hopeth all things especially since it cannot appear that the little children of infidels have by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved any more then others to be exempted from the General state of little children declared in Scripture Ergo to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost is a breach of Christian Charity In which though both propositions be flatly false yet I call heaven and earth to witness whether all that you bring in proof of the Minor do not prove it as much breach of Christian charity to doubt that any infants as t is to doubt that believers infants have the holy spirit one infant having no more deserved ill by actual sin then another Thus all that ever you have done hitherto is utterly undone for the Argument you began upon and the basis of your building is that believers infants for their baptism only you plead denying the baptism of other infants as well as we have the holy spirit this
seal together with all your vain conversion and worship by tradition from your fathers yet you never learn'd it from our fathers in the word wherein shew me if you can from the beginning to the end save in Rom. 4.11 where in anosense sense viz. not to strengthen a weak faith but to honor great faith circumcision was set as Gods broad seal to confirm Abraham in his fatherhood any one of the four which you call Gods seals viz. either circumcision or the passeover baptism or the supper is call'd a seal by God himself Babist The formal term of a sign is no more to be found in Scripture to be given either to baptism or the supper then the term of a seal yet you grant it to be properly called a sign and so why may it not be called a seal though it be not so called in Scripture Baptist. Though the expresse denomination of a sign be not given in Scripture to either baptism or supper yet no lesse is sounded forth in sense and signification but the other term of seal as to these things is not consonant to the rule of faith for verily as no other is exprest so no more then one seal of the Gospel Covenant is so much as implied or hinted at in holy writ and that one seal is no other then the holy spirit by which those that believe are said to be sealed Eph. 1.13 Eph. 4.30 and howbeit God preacheth the Gospel to us outwardly by words oaths signes and visible resemblances viz. baptism and the supper and this in the ministration of men who may minister to us all these and set them close to our ears and to our eyes yet when he preaches it to us inwardly so fully and firmly as by seal he preaches it himself alone and though by a baptism yet a better baptism then that of water that is the holy spirit which though the sign may be set first to profest believers that are not so indeed secondly and this very visibly and openly to the view of others thirdly by men like our selves yet first is never set to any but believers in truth secondly and that secretly and indiscernably to any but themselves that are seald thirdly by none but God himself who onely sets that baptism close to the conscience within which baptism no man under heaven can administer what we set i. e. the sign may very easily be to a blank our ministration being liable to mistake but what Christ sets i. e. the seal that makes us most sure from himself that cannot possibly be misplaced for where and whensoever the spirit of God within is sent to bear witnesse and cry Abba i. e. father there and then God is a father indeed your own selves say that where the seal is that soul is sure at that time a real heir and from that time forth say you also for ever and so say I if that soul continue for ever cleaving to the Lord not quenching resisting or so grieving that holy spirit as to cause it to depart for ever for if so ther 's another tale told you from several Scriptures 1 Chron. 28.9 Heb. 6.4.5 Heb. 10 29. But if it be so as you say that Gods seal seals up none but such as are both true heirs by faith at present and must necessarily abide so for ever then first here 's an Argument ad hominem how ever i. e. an evidence to you out of your own mouthes that your baptism is none of Gods seal sâ—th it is set by you not onely to 1000s that after it fall from him but indeed to 1000s that never knew him their father nor never will I again therefore once more for all that I may not trouble my self with them when I meet them in other places protest against these your expressions of circumcision and baptism by the name of seals Gods seales of the Gospel Covenant c. first as none of mine wheresoever you are found fathering them on me as p. 6.7.14 Secondly as none of Gods expressions though I know not how many times ore viz. p. 4.6.7.8.13.14 you aver the ordinances to be Gods seals and father that very phrase on God himself who as he useth not such a phrase when he speaks of those foolish things as the world counts them 2 Cor. 1. which he chuses as his outward witnesses shews signs and love tokens from himself to us so he useth no such tools indeed as these Instrumental signes are when he ministreth himself for these he appoints men to minister in these are the instruments of the foolish sheapherds Zach. 11.15 even the outward instruments which God hath chosen for the under sheapheards to act by he uses none of these I say as his own seal and inward witnesse for that 's no lesse then the holy spirit which whattypes shews and signes of the Gospel Covenant soever there have bin outwardly both before and since the Gospel begun hath bin is and ever shall be the onely earnest that God hath given the only witnesse that him self hath us'd the onely seal that he hath set in any age whether before the law or under the law or under the Gospel Psal. 51.11.12 Eph. 1.13.4.30 2 Cor. 5.5 Rom. 8.15.23 So having removed the rubbish of rude expression with which your last argument was clouded and not a little over loaded as you delivered it I come now to consider it nakedly as it lies substantially enough compriz'd in these expressions viz. Vnder the Law circumcision was by Gods appointment dispensed to little infants Ergo under the Gospel baptism must be to infants also or else the Gospel Covenant is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham now then it was to his carnall seed under the law This is in short the plain sense and ordinary way of urging this argument By way of Answer to which let me be so bold first as to ask you this one question viz. why you stand so stâ—fly to have baptism dispens'd so strictly after the manner of circumcision and yet stray and vary your very selves from the fashion of that administration in a manner as much as any men in the world for verily though the way of circumcision be that you stickle for yet you stragle from it and as to the very subject it self vary from it as much as in any thing else if that be rhe rule after which men must baptize as you plead why then do ye not baptize for so they circumcised First onely males and no females Secondly all male servants upon the masters single faith as well as male children on the fathers Thirdly on the eighth day onely and neither sooner nor later nor one day before it nor behind it Fourthly by the hands of parents fathers Mrs. Mothers as well as by the hands of the Priesâ—s onely Fifthly any where viz at home or abroad in Inns or other places as occasion is but onely or for the most part in your great stone houses for this is both
come by faith and not of the way wherein infants have it and t is confest that faith in adultis in them that are capable to hear and understand is begotten by this means of hearing but not so in infants who cannot hear the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little infants to the bringing of them to the faith as he doth in men but without the outward hearing of the word he works saith in little children Baptist. This same that you now say fits us very well to you ward again when you say justification comes by faith for we grant that adultis to them that are capable to act faith justification comes by faith nor shall they by any means obtain it who are capable to believe and yet believe not but not so to infants who cannot believe the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants to the justification or bringing of them to salvation as he doth in men but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without obedience in baptism or faith either he saves them in nonage and farther that they cannot believe which is properly as I shewed before not onely to have but act faith in Christ your selves tell us saying they have not the use the second act the exercise the fruit of it and so do not believe and so must according to your sense of Scripture if the word speak of them be cast into the lake of fire Rev. 21.8 but further grant they could have faith in both the habit and act of it also yet can they not obey Christ in other things which are required necessarily to salvation in the word of the Gospel at least concomitanter et consecutivè as well as faith it self they cannot hear Christs voice in all things they cannot confess Christ before men nor to be come in the flesh they have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts of it they cannot deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Christ nor hate father and mother and life for him nor keep his commandments nor abide in his Doctrine and many such like things all which the Gospel saies as universally whosoever doth not as well as whosoever believes not cannot be his disciple Mat. 18. Luke 14. Is not Christs Gal. 5.24 hath not God 2 Iohn 9. is a lyar and shall not enter into the holy City 1 Iohn 2.4 Rev. 21.27.22.14.15 is a deceiver and an Antichrist 2 Iohn 7. shall be denyed by Christ yea punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Christ for non obedience to the Gospel 2 Thes. 1.6 so that if the Scriptures speaking of the waies and means of salvation be to be understood as the terms and conditions on which dying infants shall be saved as well as men and without which they must be damned then all dying infants must perish contrary to your sense of Mat. 18.14 who take the little ones there for infants for it s said there it is the will of my Father that not one of these little ones should perish put the case therefore that infants could believe yet their case would be little the better as to salvation so long as still they must be short of shewing their faith by other good works without which faith is not saving nor worth a straw for what would it profit if infants could go so far as to say they have faith and yet have not works can faith save them Iam. 2. 14.26 no its dead and helpless for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also Therefore the body of Scripture is to be understood as spoken concerning men and women and the means and way of their salvation and not of infants Babist Yea when the word speaks of works of holiness self denyal suffering mercy c. as the way to life which infants cannot do it excepts them from the doing thereof as no capable subject and not from the salvation nevertheless nor yet doth at except infants when it speaks of faith Baptist. Is not faith a work as well as repentance and the rest yea the main and principal work of the Law of Christ i. e. the Gospel Iohn 6.28.29 Secondly is it not as difficult a work for infants to believe in Christ as to obey Christs voice in other things and are they not still as uncapable a subject to do that as to do any more things that are required why then not exempted from that for the sake of their incapacity as well as from other things Thirdly if the spirit doth go extraordinary waies to work at all about the salvation of infants as you must confess he must and brings them to it without and besides the ordinary means he brings men by why will you tie and limit 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 be 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 be 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 â—ire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord c. it is to be understood as spoken of the waies wherein men
in Mr. Baxters own words then which I think there need no other if they be well weighed to convince a wise man that by Scripture rule no infants in infancy are to be baptized To which purpose he writteth thus p. 126.127 at large viz. First in the commission Mat. 28.19.20 Christ adjoineth baptizing immediately to discipling go disciple all nations baptizing them Secondly if any person be so impudent as to say It is not the meaning of Christ that baptizing should immediately without delay follow discipling they are confuted by the constant example of Scripture for there is no mention that I can find of any one person that was baptized long after their discipling or that ever the Apostles of Christ did delay the baptizing of disciples John 4.1.2 Iesus made and baptized more disciples then John See how making and baptizing disciples are conjoined Act. 2.38.41 the 3000 were presently baptized the same day that they were made disciples without staying till the morrow though one would think the number of 3000 might have excused the delay if they had taken longer time to do it in And some would think that their conversion being so sudden the Apostles would have waited for a trial of their sincerity but this is not the wisdome of God though it seem to aim at the purity of the Church Scripture tells us of another way Acts 8.1.2 the people of Samiaria when they believed were baptized without delay And v. 13.14 Simon Magus was presently baptized though yet not brought out of the gall of bitternesse or bond of iniquity and had no part or fellowship in that business yea the Samaritans were generally baptized by Philip before they had received the holy Ghost for he was yet fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus verse 16. So Acts 8.36.37.38 the Eunuch was baptized in his journey as they went without delaying one day or hour after he professed himself to be a disciple So was Paul baptized as soon as he rose from his blindnesse upon the words of Ananias Acts 9.18 So was Cornelius with his friends baptized immediately without delay the same day Lydia and her houshold were baptized without delay Acts 16.15 and the Iaylor the same hour of the night that he was discipled Acts 16.38 So the Corinthians Acts 18.8 and Ananias language to Paul repeated Acts 22.16 is plain and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized c. and of the houshold of Stephanus that Paul baptized it is implied too and it is most observable which is said in Iohn 3.26 of Iesus himself that he baptized by his disciples and all men came unto him where it is undeniable that Iesus baptized without delay even as fast as they came to him and professed themselves disciples and can we have a better example then the Lord Iesus himself And thus you see saith he that according to all the examples of baptism in the Scripture not to speak of Johns baptism there was no delaying no not a day usually but they were all baptized as soon as they were discipled Thus far are the very words of Mr. Baxter brought by him in proof of infant baptisme and here brought again by me in proof of the clear contrary viz. that according to all the examples of baptism in the Scripture not one infant was ever baptized in the primitive times but that all that ever were then baptized did first believe and were converted were first made disciples by the preaching of the Gospel to them and did first come and professe themselves disciples and thereupon were immediately admitted which things I dare say t will be out of doubt with all rational considerate impartial Christians that they were never performed by any infants and if not then whether all these examples do not clearly shew rather that no infants were then baptized then that any were or now ought to be a child of 7. years old at least may easily decide it notwithstanding so childish is Mr. Baxter as to set down this at large that he may thence make himself a clearer way as by the constant example and practise of the primitive time to prove your present practise of baptizing of infants which premises and conclusion viz. that men and women of old were baptized without delay so soon as ever they were converted to the faith and were discipled and professed themselves disciples therefore we must baptize the children of Christians in infancy or else our practise is utterly inconsistent with the rule of Christ and contrary to the practise of the primitive times and consequently a sinful practise are as sutable as Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam Iungere Si velit or as when Mulier formosa superne desinat in turpem piscem And howbeit Mr. Baxter in defence hereof tells us p. 128. they who baptize the children of Christians at age as the Anabaptists do cannot possibly do it when they are first discipled I am so amazed at that expression that I can hardly believe he minded what he said when he pend it nor do I think the man had his wits well about him when he wrote all the rest that follows in proof therof through out that whole chapter of his where the further he proceeds the more he abounds and sinks ore head and ears in absurdities contradicting himself and his own principles and overthrowing the very thing he there prosecutes the proof of for First so farre is it from being impossible to baptize believers children immediately after they are discipled if we forbear them till they come to years that indeed it is impossible that they should be discipled at all till then in such a way as all those were discipled in whom he hath produced as examples in this case for whatever conversion there seems to him to be of all or at least the most of the children of believers so timely that neither themselves nor others be can discipled when by the preaching of the Gospel they are brought over both to believe and to be willing to obey the Lord Jesus and do freely serâ—ously and as may seem to us sincerely professe their faith in him and their readiness to obey him and their repentance from those dead works and waies of the flesh they have formerly lived in unless he suppose it possible that these should live in sin and their desires to be baptized in the name of Christ for remission of their sins then I say they appear first to be discipled in foro hominum Ecclesiae for whatever they were before in foro Dei is nothing to us and then and not before to be baptized As for us therefore we have a steady rule to go by in the baptizing of persons according to which we still baptize them as of old they did when first discipled yea though they are persons whose parents were Church-members or in other meer relative only or reall discipleship yet they are first
should be baptized as neer as may be upon the time of their conversion and becoming disciples and if it have been then foâ—eslowd 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 hor 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 coâ—ed 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 Altobelogick 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 in church 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 be 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 them 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 clause or other exclusive of infants and conclusive onely of adult disciples besides Mr. Cotton confesses that the infants were not baptized with their parents and that the infants that were brought to Christ were not baptized at all for ought he knows nor their parents neither and here are all the Scriptures that declare how baptism was done then and to whom most of which are cited by Mr. Baxter himself from which you cannot possibly scrape so much as any old odd end of an example for such a businesse as your baptism As for us besides that plain precept we have in Mat. 28. even every whit of this is plain â—resident for our baptism and comes into our assistance against all your cavils O ye Priests for thus I argue viz. The baptism of men and women professing faith in the Lord Iesus confessing sins calling on the name of the Lord c. is a baptism yea all the baptism that the Scripture speaks of either in way of command or example But the baptism which we dispence is a baptism of men and women professing faith in our Lord Iesus confessing sins calling on the name of the Lord gladly receiving the word c. Ergo that baptism which we dispense is a baptism yea all the baptism the Scripture speaks of in way of either command or example Therefore Sâ—rs how hath Satan bewitched you that you cannot believe and obey the truth what will you onely think things and thrust your thoughts of them as oracles upon all others will you imagine and suppose and dream and dote and fancy and fain a baptism that the Scriptures and first Churches never knew and then father your figments upon the Scriptures and fasten them as the fashion which the whole world must be forct to follow and conform to Moreover I do not at present remember any one part of Scripture which your selves summon into your help in this case of infant baptism that doth not yield ammunition and much matter against you more then for you unlesse it be one or two used by your selves which one may as well with Skoggin untile the house to look for an hare as urge either pro or con about infants baptism so farre shall he be from finding in them any proof for that or the true baptism either as namely 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Thess. 4.13 There are but two places that I know of besides those I have already turned
that formed them will shew them no mercy and the lord Iesus shall come with flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not his Gospel and that because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved for this cause God shall send them strong delusions to believe lies that they all might be damned who had pleasure in unrighteousnesse c. who ere transgresseth and abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ hath not God every soul that heareth not the voice of that Prophet shall be destroyed with the mouth confession is made unto salvation and an hundred such like as speak of an necessity of good works as well as of faith viz. self-denyall taking up the cross and following Christ c. speak of and to infants in non age while they know not their right hand from their left But Sirs oh that you would once understand for then all your intricacies sottish and absurd assertions and disputes about infants would be ended and save you a world of perplexity that now you are in by the ignorance of it that the word was not written as the way and will of God concerning infants in infancy but concerning men and women in order to their salvation by Christ Iohn 6.39.40 And this Sirs is no other answer then you use to give us when we argue against infants believing thus viz. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word preached But infants cannot hear so as to know Christ by the word preached Ergo infants cannot believe You tell us true faith in Adultis can come no other way but by preaching but in Infantibus faith is begotten otherwise so you fancy but you have no Scripture for it as we have that faith comes no way but by hearing Babist But that Scripture Rom. 10. speaks only of the way of faiths comming to adult ones Baptist So say I of welnigh the whole body of Scripture it speaks of the way wherein men at years must expect to be justifyed and saved and not of infants for they may be saved without faith so when we plead with you against the baptizing of infants I mean such of you and such there be amongst you as are ashamed as well as some that are not to say that infants have faith we tell you the Scripture speaks only of baptism of persons confessing sin professing faith that faith and baptism use still to go together as he that believeth and is baptized the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized if thou believest with all thy heart c. therefore those that believe not may not be baptized you tell us again of these places and of all that ever we bring out of Scripture where baptism is mentioned that they speak of adult persons of whom t is confessed by you that faith and confession and profession is required in order to baptism but not of infants that cannot perform them So Pareus in Vrsin Cate. p. 384. 385. and also many others and your answer is very true and grants all that we desire for indeed all the places where ever baptism is mentioned throughout the Scripture do speak of it as in relation to grown persons and not to infants therefore because the Scripture is wholly silent in such a thing we dare not meddle to baptize infants but as we grant your answer to be true so I hope you will grant it to be as true in our present case for if some of you when we call for faith to a persons baptism or else deny that person to be baptized say thus viz. true no baptism without faith of such of whom faith is required and who are capable to act it i. e. of men at years but infanâ—s being uncapable to act faith and it being not required of them therfore they may be baptized without it which conclusion you make without book to for the word warrants you not to make it why may not we when you call so universally for faith to every ones salvation or else saying assuredly they are damned return the like viz true no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it and of whom it s required but infants being uncapable to act it and it being not required of them therefore they may be saved without it Babist This conclusion is spoken without book and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours â—s sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith as of baptism upon faith and as little of salvation without faith as it doth of baptism without it therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptized without faith as you have to assert they may be saved without it Baptist. No I shall leave you behind here for sith the Scripture speaks of the impossibility of infants believing and yet with all of their saluation as your selves confesse in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdome of heaven but no where at all of their baptism it shews that they may be saved without believing but shews not that they may be baptized without it besides to hold any of them to be damned before they have by actual sin debard themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty and breach of Christian charity with you who yet confesse that all of them have not faith p. 19. but to hold they need not to be baptized cannot bear the like construction sith t is acknowledged by them that deny their bapâ—ism and by them also who absurdly assert to the contradiction of themselves that the denyal of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless though they die unbaptized so that whether we who hold that to them all belongs the kindome of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptized before they die or you that hold no salvation to them without faith and yet hold that all of them have not nay that very few of them for how few are believers infants to others have faith whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all or at least innumerable infants dying contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture and sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdome of heaven and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by your selves which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate till he appear to be in a bad and by actual sin to bar himself and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is this that they have right to the kingdome let the most simple but honest Reader judge between us As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5.18 Rom. 11.7 who urges the last of them I know not for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or
of themselves is as seems by your selves a faith and practise against Reason why else doth reason object against it Indeed the Papists aâ—e so unreasonable in sundry articles of their faith that they hold some things not onely above but against Reason and that 's tâ—e worst that can be said of the most absurd and â—bominable 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 producere potest et logica eas 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 Vrsins 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. Vnlesse 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 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 gentle-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
of the voice of Christ and the spirit opening their ears so as to make them learn things as adult ones do that is a meer figmâ—nt of your own fancies besides if they had such an internal hearing as you dream of what were that to the matter in hand or to the answering the objection that is grounded upon the alledged Scripture which speaks not of an inward but an outward hearing the word of God preached as that by which faith is begotten and without which it cannot come out of which outward way and meanes if persons be brought to believe as usually as by it and so it must needs be if little infants believe by the understanding of ceâ—tain secret whisperings and teachings within the spirit would not have spoken of it as such an unpossible case as he doth in saying how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard and how hear without a Preacher But say you that is the usual means by which faith is begotten in adult ones but the spirit is not tyed to meanes though we are he works faith in little children without the outward hearing of the word Is it so Sirs that the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little children in the same cases wherein he works by means in men and women I wonder then that you whose opinion this is should be so forgetful as to teach quite contrary to your own tenet for verily of all the men that are I know none that limit the spirit and tie him to means in his dealings with little infants like unto your selves As for us we own this position fully and to a tittle viz. that what God acts at all for infants he acts without meanes as to their salvation but as for your selves you own and disclaim this by turnes according as it seems to serve your own turnes so far as to hold it helpes to hold up your monstrous odd opinion of infants faith which hath no footing at all in Scripture you inwardly entertain it and outwardly proclaim it for undoubted truth but when you find it makes against you then t is no other then a figment of the Anabaptists for when we tell you there is no right to baptism without faith but infants cannot believe because faith comes by hearing understandingly the word preached which infants cannot do then such of you as Rantize infants on such a sottish supposition as their having faith in themselves excuse the matter thus viz. The spirit is not tied to means nor to the outward way of hearing the word so but that though he begets men to faith that way and by that means yet he begets infants to believe without it and such of you as ashamed to assert that the infants themselves have faith do Rantize them on the fathers faith without their own excuse the matter thus viz. The spirit is not bound to admit infants to baptism in that same way wherein he admits men viz. the way of faith but admits infants to have right to it without that outward means of believing But when we tell you faith and baptism are the way wherein and the outward means by which the spirit justifies and saves men and women but without this outward way of faith and baptism he can and doth save dying infants and that the spirit is not tied to the same means of belief and baptism in the justifying and saving infants through Christ by which and which onely he saves men then you plainly disclaim what you proclaimd for truth before viz. the spirit is not tied to means in infants but works without them in infants though not in men and hold that he doth work by means among them so that there is no hope to be had by parents of the salvation of their infants out of the way of baptism and no justification of them on of the way of belief Thus you tie and unty confine and lose the spirit at your pleasure you give him leave for your own lusts sake either to approve of your baptism of children out of his own declared and onely approved way of faith or if it be needfull as some of you think it is for infants to believe in order to baptism then to beget faith without that outward means of hearing the word but though it is his own good will to justifie and save dying infants by Christ without the outward means of faith and baptism there he is limitted and cannot obtain your good will he must give way to you to baptize infants out of that ordinary way of faith wherein his will is that men shall be baptized but he may not save infants out of the ordinary way of faith and baptism wherein his will is that men by Christ shall be saved no not by any means in the world There 's but a matter of four gross false unsound and absurd assertions in this reasonless reply which I must intreat you to be ashamed of before I leave it The first is that old piece of sing song which is canted ore some three or four times before but would be rather recanted if you were not resolved on perseverance in perverseness wherein you tune it out as if faith in Christ and the faculty of understanding were both so con-naturally and con-necessarily in believers infants and them onely that we may as rationally and safely conclude neither to be in them as not both This blue vain of artificial non-sense keeps its course well nigh throughout this whole discourse of yours against reason so that every foot when reason alledges aâ—y thing that 's clearly conclusive against the being of belief in Christ in believers infants as namely their not knowing good and evil their giving no testimony of faith when at years without instruction nor upon instruction neither sometimes so much as the adult children of unbelievers their not having any faith at all for the most part witnesse your successelessenesse in your preachings to your parishes to beget it whereby it is evident that either they never yet had it when rantized or else have lost it if they had their non-inclinablenesse to believe caeteris paribus more then other peoples children their uncapablenesse to hear the word with understanding which is the only way and means whereby the word declares faith to be given and to be gotten you answer all along Cuckoo-like in one tone and that 's this viz. That by the same reason we may conclude against the faculty of understanding in them and against their having a reasonable soul as if it were full as clear and altogether as absurd to doubt that these infants have faith which yet your selves confesse you cannot presume what infants have and what have not as to doubt that they have the reasonable soul which is notoriously known to every Novice in very nature to be in all mankind by nature without exception and that so also as essentially to difference them from other creatures The second remaining and
which I dare say your memory is more tenacious of then of any other and I shall examine them as exactly as you you shall desire me Rantist First then let it be well considered what they say to the first thing This dousing over head and ears and under water saith Mr. Cook that you plead for as essential to baptism seems directly against the sixth Commandment and exposeth the person baptized to the danger of death For first suppose the party be fit for baptism as you account in the sharp winter as now believing professing c. he must immediately be taken to the River as your tenet seemes to hold and there plunged in over head and ears though he come forth covered with yâ—e But if he scape perishing with cold how can he scape being choaked and stiffled with the water if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin Secondly be kept under water to signifie his burial And Thirdly be taken up again as A. R. and you seem to reason But whatever be the danger of freezing or suffocation it seems this you hold the only baptism and therefore must not be swerved from p. 21. Thus he but more largely and plainly Mr. Baxter p. 134. That which is a plain breach of the sixth Commandement Thou shalt not kill is no Ordinance of God but a most haynous sin but the ordinary practise of baptizing by dipping over head in cold water as necessary is a plain breach of the sixt Commandment therefore And Mr. Craddock in his book of Gospel liberty shewes the Magistrate ought to restrain it to save the lives of his Subjects c. that it is flat Murder and no better being ordinarily and generally practised is undenyable to any understanding man for that which directly tendeth to overthrow mens lives being willfully done is plain Murder but the ordinary or general dipping of people over head in cold water doth tend directly to the overthrow of their health and lives and therefore it is murder here several answers are made saith Mr Baxter some vain some vile First Mr. T. saith that many are appointed the use of bathing as a remedy against diseases To which I reply saith he 1. though he be no Physitian yet his own reason should tell him t is no universal remedy 2. Few diseases have cold baths appointed them I have cause saith he to know a little more then every one in this and I dare say that in Cities like London and amongst Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up and Antient people and weak people and shop keepers especially women that take but little of the cold air the dipping them in the cold weather in cold water in the course of nature would kill hundreds and thousands of them either suddenly or by casting them into some Chronicle disease I know not what trick a covetous Land lord can find out to get his tenants â—â— dy apace that he may have new fines and heriots likelier then to encourage such Preachers that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists I wish that this devise saith be not it that countenanceth these men and covetous Phisitians me thinks saith he should not be much against them Catarrhes and obstructions which are the two great fountains of most mortall diseases in mans body could scarce have a more notable means to produce them where they are not or to increase them where they are Apoplexies Lethargies Palsies and all comatous diseases would be promoted by it so would Cephalalgies Hemicranies Phâ—hiseâ— debility of the stomach Crudities and almost all Feavers Dissenteries Diarraeas Colicks Illiack passions Convulsions Spasmes Tremors c. all Hepatick Splenetick Pulmoniack persons and Hipocrandriacks would soon have enough of it in a word saith he it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world that are burthensome and to ranken Church yards But Mr. T. will salve all this for he saith that there is no necessity that it be in cold water To which I reply saith he 1. But then he forsaketh the generality of his partners in this opinion so much as we can learn who usually baptize in Rivers and ponds 2. And his warm bath would be very dangerous also 3. Where should this bath be prepared if in private it will scarce be a solemn engaging act if in the meeting place of the Church then 1. It will take no small room and require no small stir to have a bathiag place and water to dipp people over head 2. And if they do not run home quickly before they are well ingaged the hot bath will be turned to a cold one to them and make them repent this badge of repentance except they will have all things ready and be â—rought to bed also in the Church before the people 3. And it will be long ere Mr. T. can clear out of his reading Antiquity what Church had such a bathing place in it but me thinks they that call for Scripture for infant baptism should also bring Scripture for their baptizing in warm water but some say they may stay till the heat of summer when the water will be warm To which I reply saith he where is your Scripture for that I have proved the constant rule and Example of Scripture is clean contrary and requires that men be baptized when they are first made disciples and not stay till summer But some desperately conclude that if it be Gods way he will save our lives how probable soever the danger may seem I answer saith he that this is to begg the question nay I have shewed and am shewing that it is not Gods way God hath appointed no ordinances contrary to his great morall commands 2. God must not be tempted this was the devils trick to have drawn Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting God to have cast himself into danger of death 3. So you might have said to the disciples that if it were Gods command to keep the Sabbath then they might not rub the ears of Corn for God could sustain them without 4. If it were a duty yet when it is inconsistent with a greater duty it is at that time a sin for it is alwaies a sin to prefer a lesser duty before a greater for the duty of self preservation is a morall naturall duty and baptizing is but positive c. God hath not appointed ordinances in his Church that will destroy men except they be preserved by Miracles for then it were a tying himself to a constant working of Miracles c. So that I conclude saith Mr. Baxter if Murder be a sin then dipping over head in cold water in England is a sin and if those that would make it mens religion to murder themselves and urge it on their consciences as their duty are not to be suffered in a Common-Wealth any more then High way Murderers then judge how these Anabaptists that teach the necessity of such dipping are to be suffered Thus you
been said all them but an indefinit expression signifying some onely not all whereby he bewrayed his too little acquaintance with one received rule among the Rationallists viz. that an indefinite proposition or expression in a necessary matter is equivalent ever to an universal howbeit my reply to him then was not so but on this wise viz. that if we must take them but indefinitely only for some and not all the persons or things before spoken of unlesse that particle all be added to it then we had consequently no clear command from Matth. 28.19 20. to baptize all that are discipled and converted to the faith for by the pronoun them that is there used also we must not mean all them but some of them onely in the nations that are discipled because it s not said all them but meerly them but I intreated him from his conscience to tell me whether he did think that when Christ saies Go teach all nations baptizing them teaching them he meant that they should baptize all them or but some of them only in the nations that were discipled his return was that if there were not other places that did more clearly prove it that Christ commanded that all should be baptized then Matth 28. he could not see it fully commanded there and being desired to assign any place wherein Christ did more universally command baptism then there he directs us to Luke 7.30 where it s said the Pharisees rejected the Counsel of God against themselves in not being baptized whence he gathered that baptism was the Councel and consequently the commandement of God to all men because they are here reproved for rejecting it which if it be a sound Argument to prove baptism to be the command of God to all men because the pharisees in particular for the Pharisees is but a particular expression indigitating one single sort of men among all the rest and not so much as an indefinit much lesse an universal because I say the Pharisees in particular are reproved for refusing to obey it how much better may we collect that both baptism and laying on of hands with prayer for the spirit are commanded by God to all men because we find all those save Simon witnesse his giving them his holy spirit recorded as most highly approved of God that at any time did reject neither but silently submit themselves both Those passages between that my beloved friend and my self I could not conscientiously neglect to set down least I should seem to love any man more then the truth for the sake of which principally and partly for his also and theirs he walks with whom I love in truth as far as they love the truth I write this that he reviewing here his own empty evasions may more evidently discern himself to be mistaken in many things then he may be capable to do in a discourse by word of mouth and that they remembring how they in proof of baptism it self to be Christs command to all believers are necessitated to use such cloudy inferences and deductions as those above may excuse us more then many if not most of that party do if in proof of laying on of hands to be the duty of all baptized believers we take the like liberty to our selves in order to their satisfaction to use more clear inferences and deductions then those out of Scripture and out of Heb. 6.2 it self as t will appear that we do to reason it self rightly acted in comparing of Scripture with Scripture which I for my part refer the enquirers unto as the surest rule to try the spirits by and to try all inferences or deductions by because the best of men are liable to mistakes and sure enough to fall into them if ceasing to exercise their reason in deducing inferring and gathering one thing out of another they will receive nothing for truth though otherwise never so plain even to common sense and reason unlesse they find it in so many words in Scripture as t is by us exprest in and this is all that I shall trouble my self to say in reference to the seventh and eighth questions of the late Enquirers with the grounds thereof which are laid down in these words And now further to prove the Minor of the forecited syllogism in some other particulars of it that remain unproved viz. that laying on of hands was not only taught and practised dispenst and submitted to ownd and observed among all baptized believers in the primitive times but all this as by command from God I argue thus viz. Either by command from God or without it But neither without nor against command from God Ergo by it the consequence of the first proposition is most clear for whatever Gospel administration was never commanded by God to be dispensed is practised if practised at all as a tradition of men and without nay against Gods command whose command it is that no man shall presume to teach for doctrines of his the traditions or commandments of men the Minor is as clear that the Apostles did not teach for doctrines of Christ any traditions of their own for as Paul who was one of them that practised laying on of hands saies of himself 1. Cor. 11.23 that he received from Christ that which he delivered unto the Church at Corinth so may we say on the behalf of all the rest as concerning what doctrines they delivered and dispensations they practised to the Churches for surely as Christ the great and immediate messenger from the father could do nothing of himself was not to do his own will but the will of his father which sent him nor to speak or do any thing but as the father gave him commandement confessing that even his doctrine was not his own but his that sent him so they that were the great and immediate messengers from Christ might speak and do nothing in things pertaining to him but as God by him gave commandements unto them neither were any doctrines they delivered among the Churches their own nor any other then the doctrines of Christ whereupon though as Christs doctrine and commandements are called his because he preacht and gave them from God and yet were not his own but the fathers so theirs are called the doctrine and commandements of the Apostles as they had them immediately from him yet are they not their own but the doctrine and comman-of Christ and had they done any thing more then they had order for from him who from him were to give order to the Churches either in the point of laying on of hands or any thing else they would surely have heard harshly from him for it been reproved by the spirit in the word but as to this service of prayer and laying on of hands on all baptized believers in many places he is recorded as approving of them in all they did Moreover that laying on of hands was taught and practised not of their own heads
it 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 then every ordinary body to shew for their non-obedience to that dispised dispensation some of them that are baptized under prayer and imposition of hands in order to their obtaining the spirit of promise some not having faith in the thing whether that baptism with the spirit Peter speaks of Act. 2.39 and Iohn baptist Mat. 3.11 doth belong to them or no though there promised to all that are and shall be repenting and believing baptized in water even as many as the Lord shall call whereupon the fourth principle of Christs doctrine will not down with them but when they come to that lesson in Christs ABC they must skip it and take forth and because it likes them not turn ore a new leaf to the doctrine of the supper and Church fellowship before they are prefecty past their primmer to all which confused pro and con congregations and mongrill kind of ministry and people that speak half in the language of Canaan and half of Ashdod I le here say no more but this viz. si eo quo caepistis pede perrexeritis c. proceeding as you begin and thriving to the hight of your principle throw the nations the body of Christendom which was once an uniform and more lately a triforme may in time become that which I judge also it must become for some small season before the end viz. a monstrous multiform and at last an omniform beast indeed But now as to the question whether these two for I must scarce speak of these severally but very succinctly and as it were together are of right and according to the mind and word of Christ to continue to the end in proof hereof viz. that they are I shall refer the Ranter and the rest if any other besides him do deny it but to two Scriptures which prove each of these respectively and remove some few more of such exceptions as are made against the present practise of both these two and the other two parts of Christs outward worship and service I have already spoke to and so put a period to this discourse The first is 1 Cor. 11.26 for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew or shew ye for the word may be read imperatively as well as indicatively the Lords death till he come in which words t is so clearly supposed that the ordinance of the supper is not according to Christs will to cease till the next appearing of Christ that it were to suppose a man to be void of sense and reason to undertake to make it more evident to him by framing any formall argument from the place The Second is Heb. 10.25 not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another while it s called to day and so much the more by how much you see the day approaching where it is also most clear and undeniable that t is the mind of Christ that the Saints should keep together in one body in assemblies and fellowships one with another and that his sheep should not live in such a stragling state and condition such single fellowship between God and themselves onely as is now pleaded for by many that fall off from following or frequenting any societies at all and forsake such truly constituted Churches as they were once added to which argues apparently that as we say of sheep when they keep not with the flock but are found squotting up and down here and there by themselves alone and aloof from their fellows that some ill disease and deadly distemper is growing upon them but that they should keep together in flocks every sheep following the footsteps of the flock which name of flock is that by which Christ often denominates his sheep as Luke 12.32 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 to shew that he expects to find them in flocks and fellowships at his coming Ranterist Till he come is no other then till his coming into men by his spirit or in such full measures and manifestations of his spirit into mens hearts that they may be able to live up with him in spirit so as no more to need such lower helps from outward administrations such carnal ordinances such visible representations of Christ to the bodily eyes such legal rites and meer bodily exercises as baptism and fellowship together in breaking of bread are These things were used indeed and ordained as milk for babes in that meer nonage and infancy of the Church when Christ was known as a child as it were but now we are to know Christ as a man grown in us risen up in us aad to have fellowship with him more immediately and intimately in spirit and not in such external and meer fleshly formes we are to live higher then on such low weak empty elements and beggarly rudiments as these which were used and imposed for a time to resemble Christ to us from without but must be left when once Christ the substance that was set forth by those shadows is come into us Christ is now in the Saints the hope of glory Col. 1.27 So Heb. 6.1.2 leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on to perfection not laying again c. you see we must mind higher matters leaving these which were as a dark glasse or shadowy dispensation through which the Church once did see Christ and knew him after the flesh but now face to face 1 Cor. 13.12 and henceforth know we him so no more 2 Cor. 5.16 when I was a child saies Paul I spake as a child and did as a child and thought as a child but when I became a man I put away childish things 1 Cor. 13.11 every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousnesse for he is a babe but strong meat belongeth to them that are full of growth who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil Heb. 5.14 that which is perfect is now come and therefore what is imperfect and in part only as ordinances are must be done away and as for gathering of congregations peoples assembling together in the Church bodies to preach pray break bread to build up one ano in the faith search the Scripture c. t was a way of God for mens edification till Christ the morning star shined to which men did well to take heed as unto a light that shined in a dark place but now the day dawnes and the day starre arises in mens hearts yea the day breaks and
immediately under the Popes supremacy were priviledged so far as to stand exempted from the reach of the civill law and to save themselves the trouble of being hanged when they had deserved it as much as other men by a businesse called the benefit of the Clergy i. e. the immunity of the Clergy from the civil law some relikes of which benefit the Clergy once had and still hath in some places seem to me to remain in our civil Courts wherein we see in some capital crimes the malefactour si legat ut Clericus if he can but read like a Clerk or Clergy man he escapes execution when else he should have died without remedy which favour is also called the benefit of the Clergy yet we desire that no manner of men may have exemption from the course of civil Justice yea if we whom they call Anabaptists do any thing at any time worthy of death by the civil law rightly regulated we refuse not to die but as we desire that others should so are we willing our selves in civil matters to stand at Caesars i. e. the civil Magistrates judgement seat where we ought to be judged in such cases and thus did Paul when accused by the Priests as a Pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition meerly for preaching the Gospel To the Jews saith he have I done no wrong nor yet against Caesar have I offended c. therfore no man may deliver me to them I appeal unto Caesar Act. 24.5.12.13 14.20.25 8.11 where we see that in case of civil injury charged upon him as committed by him he appeals to Cesar to judge though Cesar was a heathen and he a Christian and not of Cesars Religion which he had been a mad man in doing had the question been simply about the right Religion yea when any question a roâ—e in the Church about Religion as in the point of circumcision Act. 15. the Apostles Elders and brethren considered of it among themselves consulting the mind of the spirit in the word and had they not agreed it they would not have referred it nor had any not conformed to their determination in that point would they have complained of them to Cesar and as Paul would not stand at Cesars judgement seat in Religious as he desired to do in civil so Cesars Deputies would not meddle at all as Magistrates in Religious cases for when the Jews set Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio deputy of Aâ—haia and complained saying This fellow perswadeth men to worship God contrary to the law Gallio said if it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdnesse O ye Iews reason would that I should bear with you but if it be a question of words and names of your law look ye to it for I will be a judâ—e of no such matters and he drave them from the judgement seat as who should say we are set to keep civil peace and right among you but not at all to determine you in your worships Oh therfore that the Magistracy would consider it that they are set not to force men to submit all to one worship nor yet forcibly to suppresse either Heresie or truth but to prevent tumultuousness about either If Demetrius and the craftsmen of like occupation who make shrines for Diana have a matter of wrong against any let the civill law be open and let them plead each other there but if the enquiry be concerning other matters as namely setting at nought their craft prophaning the Temples of their Goddesse and destroying their false worships by plain preaching of truth what 's Heredox what Orthodox in worship c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let that be determined in a lawfull Assembly i. e. as the word is in the Greek insome lawful Church congregation or select meeting for that purpose Last of all though the Lord prohibit the standing of Idolators c. in the Church 2 Cor. 6. Rev. 2. yet he himself who could presently root them out if t were his mind permits not onely true but also false worshippers Hereticks c. to have a being in the world and therefore me thinks Gods Vicegerent should not be against it It is according to the will of God himself permitting not approving them that heresies do arise but its according to his good will approving and in his woâ—d appointing that they shall stand in the world when risen further then they can be annihilated by the word And as the Scripture shewes how far he himself tolerates them so the Divines themselves as shy as they are of having them tollerated do Give these good Reasons of Gods suffering of Hereticks 1 For the discovering of the sound that Gold and Silver may be known from hay and slubvle that by the Devills sitting of us the good corn may be discerned from chaff it is the Apostles Reason 1 Cor. 11.19 that they which are approved may be known for who they are that with the weapons of the Churches warfare are valiant for the truth indurers of hardship as good Souldiers of Christ c. would not appear if there were no Hereticks False worshippers Antichristians Truth treaders c. to try them true love to Christs truth can never be seen if never tryed nor tryed if truth never opposed hated hunted and that to death too sometimes by the fierce wrath and cruel malice of its enemies 2. That truth may be discussed and fetcht out as fire from the concussions oâ— flint and steel Truth had not been fetcht half so far out of the dark nor from under that Popish Smoother of traditions at this time as it is had not the CCClergy so hotly hunted it and so fiercely clasht against all that came out to clear it If there had not been an Hereticall CCClergy crying out Heresie against all truth the world had never heard so much of it in these latter daies as now it hath and I verily perswade my self that as the day breakes and the shadowes fly away the way of truth in the hearts of the Just and in the eyes of the of the world by how much the CCClergy calls Heresie upon it shall shine more and more still to the perfect day if Luther and Calvin had not been and that so fiercely flung at by Popish Priests because they preached against indulgencies and selling pardons for money and against the Lordlines of the Popish Hirrachy they had not heard so much against them but that they might have sold more pardons then they have done since and the 2 latter litters of Spiritual lords that qua CCClergy came out of the Popes loins the two PPriesthoods of the Protestant party might have lorded it longer like their father who will never be dead as long as they are alive had they not been as iron and steel against truth and true worshippers whom God makes as hard as flint against their faces that by their concussions against it he may the more fully fetch it forth the
the trade of preaching you cannot set up possibly to any good purpose thus Featley p. 101. prophecy quoth he is an extraordinary gift of the holy spirit preaching a special faculty acquired by many years study and Mr. Evans in his Sermon to the Lords my Lords quoth he we know you would have a learned Ministry but it is impossible for learning ever to flourish without maintenance you may as well set carpenters to build without tooles as send forth Ministers without their parchments we plead not my Lords for our backs and for our bellies but for good books and furnisht brains there are some that will seduce upon cheaper tearms but there must be honest provision made that every Minister may have a good library or elâ—e the Land is like to have but an ignorant Ministry and a perishing people again my Lords we know you would have a gracious people to fear God honour the King and obey your honours but it is sufficiently known that a base Ministry can never do good upon the people the generall pride of man is such that poverty is enough to bring a man into contempt c. As if because the pride of man specially of great men is so great that the poor mean Ministers of Christ are subject to be despised by them therefore they must have a kind of pompous Priesthood that may delight their daintines and fit their vain fancies and haughty humors what the Lords of the earth would have I know not so well as themselves I believe they would have a learned Ministry to lean to and live at ease on and a people to fear God as far as themselves do among whom the fear of God hath been taught still after the precepts of the men called CCClergy and to honour the King and obey their Honours but this I know and therefore t is but flattery not to say foolery to tickle them up with talk of their great zeal of the Gospel as their fawning Chaplains do that few or none of their Honours are effectually called to Christ or have ever yet honoured him so far as to honour own and acknowledge his truth in that primitive purity wherein t was at first given out partly because the CCClergy claws them too much into odd conceits and with untempred morter dawbs them into a belief of an Omnia bene in that easie gaudy gospel they sow as a pillow under their elbowes and partly because not many of these mighty and nobles ones will stoop when t is discovered to them to that plainness and simplicity that is in Christ 2 Cor. 11.3 to that foolishness of mechanick preaching that basenesse of baptizing that streightway of self-denying that needlesse work of Scripture searching with their own eyes that weak nothing of Christs choosing by which to confound and bring to nought in the end the prudence of the Scribes and wisemen of this world whom they wonder after so the great King of Kings and Lord of Lords Christ Jesus was not over-seen and yet he chose such base things and sent forth such a poor base Ministry of illiterate mechanicks to preach his Gospel at the first beginning of it too which surely he would not have done if it were his own mind that the contempt of his ministry which by their poverty illiteracy and outward basenesse is apt to arise in the hearts of the proud should be prevented by putting the outward pomp of much earthly riches and that low literature of this foolishly wise world upon them Mean while I am not against a Ministers having learning let a man have as much as he will on 't so he use it as a telent to serve the truth with when once he he hath found and owned it but against that necessity of outward learning to the Ministry of Christ so as to say as the Priesthood doth that ordinarily a man cannot be a Minister of Christ without it for verily the spirit which onely makes a Minister blows where it lists and doth for ought I see bestow it self now as of old it did more frequently upon poor Mechanicks and illiterate Artizans then learned Scribes and Schoolmen Nor am I against a Ministers having a library and looking into other books if he have a mind to it and have money enough of his own to buy them so be he do not lose himself therein as the CCClergy in all ages have done from his serious study and sincere search of the plain Scripture it self but I am far from desiring that poor people should be charged to fill and furnish Ministers studies with books and their brains with notions out of other Authors that are no more to be heeded then themselves further then they speak according to the word nor shall I ever acknowledge such a necessity as you plead that men must needs busie their braines about abundance of other mens writings or else cannot but be ignorant Ministers of the Gospel sith the Scriptures themselves are of themselves if the CCClergy could once consider it or one could possibly beat it into their braines profitable for all things and able to make Ministers and people wise enough to salvation and to make a man of God perfect and throughly furnisht unto all good works but that they do not store their hearts as they should do with study of them onely or at least mainly as the primitive Ministers of the Gospel did and the purest Ministers of it now do 2 Tim. 3.14.15.16 I wonder what our Clergy men would do to preach the Gospel if there were no other books extant but the very bible they would surely either cease from being Ministers any more at all or else make better Ministers then they are I do not speak this to excite men to make such a bone fire of all books but the bible as Dr. Featley saies Iohn Matthias made p. 165. and yet by the Clergies leave I dare not say as Dr. Featly there saies that t were better all those who in his sense are obstinate Sectaries for many such are pretious Saints were burnt at a stake then that such a bone fire were made for I know no absolute necessity to the salvation of men of the being of any book in the world but the bible which as it was once alsufficient to make men wise to salvation without looking into any other and before there were many other besides it so I know not sith we have them in such plainness as now we have maugre all the malice of the Pope and Clergy who would once have made a bone fire of the Scriptures why it is not as alsufficient as heretofore whilst yet there was no more Gospel Scripture then in self but I speak it to excite the CCClergy for whom I have great sorrow of heart to see their miserable neglect of wretched ignorance in the Scriptures to give more attendance to the reading of them as which are alsufficient and onely necessary to a Minister if there were
illuminated Tradesmen Christ the Carpenter Peter the Fisherman Paul the Tentmaker Aquilla and his wife Priscilla from which kind of poor folks and babes to whom it seems good in gods fight to preach the plain Gospel and reveal by his word and spirit what he hides from wise men when they will not see this prudent PPPriesthood if he were not proud might learn more truth and Gospel purity then ever was taught him by his Grand-father the Pope or any of those Clerical Councells or Ghostly fathers which he consults more with then with Christ and Scriptures The Reason of all his obstinacy against tradesmens teachings is this he knows that his trade of teaching for hire and divining for money Must fall if tradesmen begin once to turn divines and to teach truth for nothing ye know that by this craft quoth he Act. 19.25 c. we have our wealth moreover ye see and hear c. he is well aware and so are we that if he lose the lives of persecution for conscience and sprinkling of infants Iachin Boaz the two main pillars grand Supporters of his kingdom his Temple will quickly rend in to more pieces then 3 PPPs from the top to the very bottom and all his matchlesse magnitude and numberlesse priestly Prerogatives drop directly to the ground viz. his Lieutenantship to the prince of this World his Lordship over the heritage his headship over the Church his dominion over the faith his title to the tenth of every mans estate his merchandize of slaves bodies and souls of men his leave to trample the holy city and slay at pleasure the truth tellers that torment him his rich revenues dignity glory power seat and great Authority together with all the priviledges profits liberties immunities thereunto belonging All this his royalty must fail if he give ground but a little and would have failed ere this time If he had a face could blush at his own abominable blindnesse or ingenuity to confesse himself hurt or own the plain truth while his lungs will serve him in reply or Amor sui constrain him to cry heresie against the truth therefore this Diotrêphes that loves to have the preheminence over all for ever because he hath had it for a while receiveth not truth but prates against it in the pulpit and elsewhere with malicious words and though he contradict himself ever and anon in his own Sermons and discourses yet if he say any thing at all he thinks it much when wisemen weighing it find it little to the purpose Tertullian thus describes Hermogenes Loquacitatem facundiam existimaret Impudentiam constantiam deputaret c. so he when he bumbasts the pulpit and slashes the Saint Schismaticks in their absence before his people supposes he hath spoken with no small grace when t is for want of grace that he did it and that when he is most audacious against all reformation as at Rome and even that he hath sometimes sworn himself and others to as here in England when he finds it more crosse to his credit then he thought of when he undertook for t he counts them fickle unconstant that change their minds and mend their manners and himself only stable and constant to the CCChristian Religion Hence it is that the effects of Disputation with him have been not onely fâ—ustrate but dangerous dangerous I say to him no otherwise then as it overturned his Kingdome that the truth of Christ might take place but to them that disputed with him in this respect as it hath been no lesse then their pretious lives were worth once to oppose or open their mouths against him witnes Wickliff Hus Ierome of Prague and all the executions done in Queen Maries daies upon such as durst dispute against the Pope or meddle against the mass and those done in Queen Elizabeths upon Barrow Greenwood and Penry who were hang'd by Episcopal malice for professing against them and the Common-prayer which now well nigh all England hath renounc't as a corruption and what should have been done upon such as disputed against or depraved the Presbyterian directory is well known for that Clergy hath shew'd themselves so much in their Fathers colours that ere long all England will renounce both it and them and in this respect it hath been also frustrate as to peoples conviction for truths witnesses to dispute never so clearly against him for as much as he hath still stopt their mouths with the stake prison or gallows and kept his own wide open against them in the pulpit when he hath secured them from all capacity of storming him there for The common sort are apt to think those have the victory that live to speast last and that their CClergies cause is never wrackt by the cause of Christ as long as one is left alive that can speak a word in that against the other And by how much error takes with our corrupt nature more then truth by so much there is more danger of its spreading where the Roots i. e. the self love vain glory ambition covetousnesse pride Lordlines universality and cruelty of the CCClergy who are plants that our heavenly father never planted Stocks from whom stemes out a stench from whom abomination branches it self out to the corrupting therof in al quarters of the Earth Rev. 11.18.17 5.19.2 are not plucked up and rooted out for from the Priest and the Prophet profanness heresie hath gone out into all the world and spread it self like a leprosie or some raging canker and for the most part such is the resolvednesse of the CCClergy to bind the people still to a blind obedience to their blind guidance of them beside the word that Disputations with them if not carefully I mean clearly and also coolly proceeded in with love to their persons and almost without zeal against their evils which yet we must not abate them an ace of for all their anger pacem cum hominibus cum vitiis bellum they Raise more evil spirits of wrath and divellishnesse in them then we can lay because they see them raise more good spirits of doubts and earnest enquiries after truth in the people who before were wont to take their ware on trust without trial then then they can lay again while they live by all the shifts and subtleties they can devise for when once people are resolved to believe things to be heresie by hearsay no more but to fancy them according as they find them in the word and to see into the plainness of speech that is in the Scripture with their own eyes they see so much disproportion between the national Church wayes and those of the primitive Churches of the Gospel that they commonly resolve not to see at all adventures through the unclear eyes of CCClergy men any more This makes them fret and fume and fain and fiddle hither and thither which way to fasten their Heretical opinions further if it be possible on them in whom they they
Church and Schismaticks in the Church c. wherewith you astonish the vulgar but I protest this day before God and men not onely against him against whom you are Protestants also but against your selves also his Schismatical sons who own his ordinations and still walk in some of his ordinances viz. Rantism Parochial posture c. as those that are little lesse ignorant then he and his good sons of both the true Church and true peace thereof whilst the truth to which she should submit is not regarded by you and the very things that make a true visible Church and are de esse and constitutive of it so that abstract them and you null it viz. true matter i. e. believers baptized and true form i. e. free and not forced fellowship both which are so in the Churches of England Scotland Italy France and Spain are not onely wanting but also trodden under your feet Fourthly the peaceable way wherein we propagate these opinions were you as sure they are erroneous as I am that you 'l once find them to be truth will yet excuse and acquit us from all guilt of disturbing the peace of either the world or your Church which is the world in reference to the true one and unlesse you can say the Gospel of peace which where ere it comes occasions dissentions is the cause of them as in no wise it is but mens lusts rather that rage and take on against it you cannot say our Gospel is for it propounds them to the world in no other way then that and that way was no other then bare propounding them and as Christ and his disciples did not judge them here though they will judge them most severely hereafter who reject their words by the power of the Magistrate by the civil sword by nailing to pillories cutting off ears slitting noses whippings â—ines confiscations prisons bonds banishments fightings fire and fagot the bloody wayes whereby BBBabilon hath edified it self to that height of abomination the Arguments whereby the CCClergy were wont to convert Hereticks quickly from all error to dust and ashes so if any man hear our words and reject them well may we rebuke him sharply as they also did but we judge him not in that way whereby the Tribe of Levi that hath levied war for his lusts sake against the whole earth hath bereft all men of peace neverthelesse the words that we speak to him being those that Christ and his disciples have spoken in the world the same will judge him at the last day Secondly why sith it must needs be supposed there be many Godly men among the Ministers of the Nations though the most of them be wicked yet I do not except and exempt them when I inveigh so heavily against the CCClergy or why I do not rather forbear and spare to speak so broad at all and so generally as I do against that generation as an evill one for the sake of those good ones that are among them To which I say First that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 godly men properly are those onely that worship God aright i. e. according to his own will and institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which well weighed might possibly put the best men among you to your trumps to make good your title to that title and denomination of godly by Scripture record sith while you stand among the rest even you as well as the worst do preach and practise for doctrines of Christ some traditions of man if you had no more enjoined you by them on whom you wait for your instructions then barely the sprinkling of infants by which you make void what in you is the true baptism of Christ. Yet not denying but that there is a sprinkling of honest hearts quorum meliori luto finxit praecordia Titan whom the sun of righteousnesse as he lightens every man that cometh into the world hath hatcht up into a higher predicament of Godlinesse then their fellowees who are drawn up into some higher streins of devotion then the rest I adde further Secondly what are these littles to the lump what is the gleaning to the vintage here and there one good man to the whole corrupt crue of them that like Locusts and Caterpillars have spread themselves together with the smoak of errors over the earth in three several swarms or armies can some scores of well meaning Priests give the denomination of an holy PPriesthood godly Ministry to those legions of them that lie in wickednesse you may as well say there 's a million of Saints among the men of the world therefore reprove not the world for their sakes such as these who out of meer simple honestly rather then sinful sophistry and mystical iniquity do stand and act and argue against the true way as they do are Rarae aves very few to the multitude of humanists and sensual ones and subtle subverters of the Gospel which yet they would seem to be Ministers of for their own ends by whom they are commonly so hated too so far as they have any more strictnesse and sincerity then ordinary that they are among the other of their brethren as I was for querying after truth while I stood among them as owles and bats baited by other birds which few good grapes were they better then they are cannot denominate the whole vintage as una hirundo non facit ver BBBabilon is BBBabilon still and SSSodom is SSSodom and must be called so though Lot live in it and he called out of it too unlesse he mean mean to perish with it Thirdly those good men that are there the mores the pitty that they are so ought not to be suffered nor spared but spoke to the rather themselves and that very roundly too for being and abiding in a bad way and not the way it self and those many bad men that are in it scape declaring against as bad because of them there must be down-right dealing with upright men when they are in a wrong way and that indeed is the most upright dealing with them of all yea Sirs you that are upon the Account of these times for godly Ministers let me say this to you for verily I have sorrow of heart for some of you of my old acquaintance my own flesh and blood for whose sakes fâ—esh in me would fain be silent as knowing flesh in you would fain be let a lone but I must urge you to be serious in seeing how unsafely you satisfie your selves in your present fellowship with a carnal Clergy what make you among the prophane Ministry of the Nations that hath in all ages sate with such weight upon them as to sink them into a gulf of error so that all truth almost is heresie with them now and under hazard of being smoothered as soon as it peepes out from under that veil of traditions that hath covered it what make you keeping a Court of guard among the Babilonians to help to hold them in
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 Mediaâ—or 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 nor 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 in 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 groundlessly 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 Christs also and the children of God and heirs with him of the world according to the Gospell Promise Rom. 4.12 13. Gal. 3.16 1 Cor. 3.21.22.23 Non datur
tertium semen Abrahae two seeds of Abraham the Scripture mentions but a third sort cannot be assigned all and only those that descend from his loines as the Midianites and others by Keturah the Ishmaelites by Hagar the Edomites and Israelites by Sarah which last only were the holy seed and children of promise in reference to the Hagarens in a type and sole heirs of the typical Canaan all these I say were the first sort all believers of what nation soever are the second sort but the natural seed of believers are neither of the one nor of the other As for the children of the Proselites i. e. Iews not by birth but profession which by way of exception against this may possibly pop into some of your minds I utterly deny them as so born to be any seed of Abraham at all or heirs of either inheritance unless they believed also though their parents believing might be his spiritual seed and heirs of the heavenly inheritance and if you ask why then was every male among the infants of Proselites circumcised I answer not upon any such account as their being Abrahams seed or heirs with him of either this or that but meerly as they were Males in the house of one that was a Jew at least by devotion though a stranger as to fleshly relation that being the express command of God for the time then being and during the standing of that Covenant of circumcision the like to which if you had for infant-baptism the controversie were at an end between us that every man child in every family throughout all generations whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger that was noâ— of Abrahams flesh should be circumcised Gen. 17. 12. for there was but one Law and ordinance for the stranger or Proselite Iew and him that was a Iew by birth concerning circumcision and the Passeover Numb 9.14 upon this same and no other account very many viz. forreign man-servants in every family of any Iew were by appointment to be circumcised meerly as being males of the family though neither born of Abraham nor believing with him nor any way at all his seed nor yet heirs with him of either Canaan which injunction and order of God concerning that old covenant ordinance of circumcision or the Passeover either to which the Supper answers more lively than baptism to the other if we might at all regard what was done then as a Rule for us now who so shall produce as the Pattern or infer any thing from as the instution of God according to which we are to act in the New Testament ordinances of Baptism and the Supper and yet not act according to them neither but abominably besides them both as the Priest-hood doth baptizing as not at all but rantizing so not at all after the manner of circumcision viz. not males only not on the eighth day only but any other when they may as well upon that not servants also upon the Masters faith as well as the Children upon the parents and as for the Supper denying it utterly to infants that might then eat the Passeover I avouch them to be not a little besides their natural but much more besides their spiritual intellectualls Let this then satisfy as to any conceit that any may have as that the Proselites seed were the children of Abraham and heirs with him because circumcised viz. that though all Abrahams seed that were heirs with him were circumcised yet all that were circumcised were not thereby proved to be Abrahams seed nor heirs with him of either promise and though his fleshly seed Israel the heir especially and his spirituall seed also i. e. believing Jewes and Proselites were both thereupon to come under that dispensation and that as heirs too severally of the two severall promises viz. the typifying and typified Canaan yet many past under circumcision upon that forenamed account only of being males in the house that were neither Abrahams seed after the flesh nor after the faith as Servants and the seed of Proselite Masters Fathers not appearing yet to believe with them for even such were to be circumcised under the law though by your leave not such to be by the like reason baptized under the Gospell for as there is no command for such a matter so if there had the Servants of the Eunuch himself only turning Christian must have been as t is known they were not baptized together with him besides if baptism must be like to circumcision in its subject then not only he that is not yet apparently an heir but he also that is apparently not an heir by faith must be baptized aswell as Abrahams sonne Ishmael and his servant Eleazer and all the other males of his house were circumcised who were all well enough known to Abraham to be none of the heirs of that land of Canaan whereof circumcision was given to him and his seed in Isaac in token of their inheriting of it at that very time when he circumcised them I demand therefore yet once again what seed of Abraham your infants are in that thereupon you undertake as so to baptize them you tell us in your Review pag. 14. They are Semen fidei the children of his faith his spiritual seed I am ashamed to hear you say so which way do they come to be in that minority his spiritual seed sith believers only are so you seem to tell us they are so by believing themselves for so Zachaeus say you by believing was made the Son of Abraham as who should say Zachaeus became as infants do the spiritual seed of Abraham by believing which word believing is as much as not having only but acting faith which to act not others only but your selves who sillyly assert them to have faith do somewhat more sensibly p. 8. confess them to be uncapable Others tell us and even your selves too sometimes and in effect in that very same page that they are semen fidei or the seed of Abrahams faith upon another account viz. as their parents are believers for the promise is say you though that is no Scripture phrase at all in that place whence you quote it viz. Act 2.39 to believers and their seed and if the adversaries say that the Iewes were Semen carnis and had right by the promise so these say you concerning the seed of believers are semen fidei and the promise is to them which words The Promise The Promise The Promise you will scrible down twenty times in one Treatise before you will sit down once and search out seriously what it is or once shew distinctly what it is you mean by it So then howbeit with Iohn baptist Mat. 3. with Christ Iohn 8. Luke 19.8 9. with Paul Rom. 4.13.9 6 8. Gal. 3.7.9 there is but one way of becoming Abrahams spiritual seed or the children of his faith so as thereupon to be signed by baptism as heirs with him of the Gospel-promise and this is