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
of believers only are to be baptized Sirs what if a man were minded in jest to become a fool so far in order to the convicting you of folly as to maintain against you who deny it that not believers infants onely but those of unbelievers also must be baptized and should argue this ab exemplo might he not as Dr. Featly saies to us in another case kill you with your own Dudgen dagger for seriously Sirs as far as that example is of force it overturns your turn who use it in the thing in order to which you alledge it and overthrows you clearly in your question as you state it and in your tenet of a right to baptism for only believers infants exemplifying rather if the example were to be heeded the baptizing not of such infants only as are born of believing parents which we are against but such as are born of unbelieving parents also whose baptism your selves are against as well as we Ad hominem therefore I conclude and ab exemplo on behalf of unbelievers infants as your selves do from the same head on behalf of believers infants only thus viz. To hold that the universal Church or Christian world hath erred in so necessary a matter as baptism for so many hundred years is little less than damnable blasphemy But to hold it an error to baptize the infants that are born of unbelieving parents is to hold that the universal Church or Christian world which hath baptized in suo genere such as well as others hath so long erred in so necessary a matter as baptism Ergo to hold it an error to baptise the infants that are born of unbelieving parents is little less then damnable blasphemy Another Argument whereby you strive to evince your opinion viz. the baptism of believers infants above other infants and to evade ours viz. the denial of baptism to them both alike as desperate and ungodly is drawn from the danger of their damnation if it be denied them and the destructiveness of that denyal to all that hope that else may be had of their salvation which if it be of force doth it not cry out as loud against your desperate and ungodly cruelty on behalf of those millions of innocents of infidells dying infants to whom in opinion and doctrinally you deny baptism as well as we as it doth on behalf of believers infants who are no more innocent then the other to whom we deny it also for if it be such a business as not we but you and the rest of the right Romish Priests seem to make it the denial of which de jure facta damnes so down-rightly the infants dying without it that there 's no hope to be had of their salvation so you say or else my shallow noddle cannot reach the profoundity of your purpose in pettering out that pure pious piece of sense which with this Argument of yours is stuffed pag. 13. then it s high time as high a degree of charity as you would be thought to have towards a few infants viz. one of a hundred for scarely so many are true believers infants to the rest to plead for the baptism of unbelievers infants too and stand up in the cause of those innumerable poor babes that cannot speak a word for themselves against your Cruelties who deny baptism to them and deny all hope of their salvation to whom they so dying it is deni'd yea verily Sirs perswade us to that once and make us believe that popish trumpery that the deniall of baptism to any infants doth so much as doctrinally damn them and then I 'le plead for baptizing of infants in a larger way then you who confine it to believers infants onely viz. for the baptism of all babes and sucklings in the world and that least they die and so be damn'd before it be dispensed to them so soon as they are well out of the womb so far are we from that cruelty to infants which you commonly though not properly charge upon us tha if we thought as you think but Sirs mistake us not for we have good ground to act more charity then your selves do to all dying infants could we think I say that their salvation did so depend upon their baptism that their damnation would be the issue of denying it we durst not be so desperately cruell as your selves nor limit it to some one infant of an hundred know Sirs we are tender in our construction of the condition of all that die in such minority as you sprinkle in before they have known or done either good or evil and are well assured there 's no damnation to such of what parents soever descended and as little need of your Rantism to their salvation but for you who are so seemingly compassionate and charitable to a few how churlish are you to a hundred to one whilst your cruel doctrine excepting such as are born of believers onely curses all the rest unavoidably to hell you talk much of your own charity to infants and our cruelty but truly Sirs I dare tell you that your tender mercies to that age of infancy are meer cruelty so long as in your childish dotage on some you send so many packing to perdition and as unchristian as our cruelty is it hath more tender mercy in it to the whole infancy of the world then all your Christian charity doth yet amount to for as you prescribe it p. 5. 't is our rule indeed but not your own presumere unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo to presume and hope well even the best things and things that accompany salvation of all infants as well as some specially since it cannot appear that any of them have yet by any actual sin bard themselves or deserv'd to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is a right to the Kingdome of heaven but your Christian charity hath not carried you out so farre yet as to hope and presume well of infidels infants unbelievers infants or any unrantized infants though it cannot appear that any of these have by any actuall sinne more barr'd themselves then the other or more deserved to be exempted from that general state of little children declar'd in Scripture then the infants of the best believers in the world Whether therefore we who though we baptize no infants at all nor see warrant in the word so to do yet believe and that not ungroundedly nor as being more merciful then God shews himself to be to them the salvation of all that die in infancy or one who imagining as sillily as your selves that no baptism no salvation should thereupon for pitty dispute against you limiters of Gods grace for the baptizing of all infants in the world or your selves who supposing the same i. e. no hope to be had of their salvation to whom baptism is denied have yet no more pitty in you then to dispute for the baptism of believers infants
to believe witness not my self only who am of little credit with you but Mr. Cotton also none of the least of your Champions that appear for infant baptism whose very words p. 48.49 of his Way of the Churches in New England these are viz. It is not the seed of faith nor faith it self that knitteth a man to this or that visible Church but an holy profession of the faith and professed subjection to the Gospell of Christ in their communion Be ashamed therefore of such a monstrous position that persons not appearing to believe in Christ can conclude no more against their faith in Christ then against their reasonable souls Determination The seed of faith sown after discovers it self when the season comes Detection Yet so audacious are you that whilest it is but in the seed at most by your own confession as in infancy to attempt a discovery of it to all the world to be in these infants viz. of believers and not in those viz. of infidels before the season Determination The testimony of Scripture concerning their faith and the proofs taken from thence are equivalent to the best testimony and profession of any man concerning his own faith Detection O Sapientia as if the Scripture did as punctually personally and particularly testify concerning this and that individual infant which you sprinkle that it doth believe and those infants that you deny to sprinkle that they do not believe as men at years do to us by their words and works that they do or do not believe Secondly there is but one testimony of Scripture alledged by your selves where you say it s asserted of infants that they do believe viz. Mat. 18.6 and that as I have shewed First speaks not of little ones in your sense but of little ones in Christs sense viz. believes indeed and his disciples whom he stiles little ones also a little above Matth. 10.42 a place where we read not that any infant was among them Secondly that Scripture testifies of those of whomsoever it speaks in actu secundo that they do believe and so to do your selves yield is impossible for infants therefore it cannot be meant of them Thirdly if it did speak of little ones properly so called so as to say they do believe yet that they were believers and not unbelievers infants is a thing which a wise man may fumble himself 55 times over and become a fool before he once find it so to be Fourthly 't were but a Prosopopeia however Determination If it be further askt how faith is bread in them it is answered by the holy spirit whose waies are inscrutable who ties not himself to means works where he will and how quo magistro quam cito discitur quod docet saith Cyprian Detection And yet you scrue so farr into the inscrutable waies of the spirit in this matter as though he works where he will and how both to bind and bar him and to determine both where he doth and must work faith and where he doth not and must not viz. in believers infants not in infants of infidels else why do you refuse to baptize the one upon non-appearance of faith and yet plead for the baptism of the other as in whom it appears to you so clearly that by argument you say you make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason that they have faith then the profession of any one particular person that ever I baptized can make it appear of himself for thus you peremptorily conclude p 5. and then as prettily unconclude it all ore again p. 18. saying unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit of faith what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us there can be no conclusion made why also do you say the promise is to believers and all their seed which is as much as to say God is bound upon his word and covenant unto these children not unto others and therefore must be as good as his word for I hope you all agree that God will not lie p. 14. though I confesse p 18. you unsay all this ore again and grant that he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor bard from working it in any of the children of infidels O fine whifles Determination If it be inquired how faith can be said to be in them without their consent the answer is as well as originall sin to which they never consented and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam to condemnation Detection That original sin is in infants so far as it is in them without their consent I do not deny it being a matter more imputative as I have shewed above then inhaesive and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam was to condemnation is an undoubted truth which makes me believe otherwise then once I did viz. that whatsoever befel whomsoever meerly by Adams sin is as universally as well in respect of the subject made miserable thereby viz. whole mankind as of the misery befalling that subject by the coming of the Second Adam taken away for which tenet I could give more proof then you can easily disprove were it not besides the Argument I am in hand with but that faith is in any persons without the consent of those in whom it is is a lesson that I shall never consent to learn while mine eies are open I have found many Divines defining faith by the very term of an assent or consent unto the things promised preacht profered or propounded to us to believe and making assent or consent such a necessary ingredient to the very essence being or nature of faith that faith cannot be faith without it thus Mr. Baxter your fiercest fellow-fendent of infants baptism the very essence of faith saith he p. 98. lyeth in assenting that Christ is king and saviour and consenting that he be so to us Yea he denies them to have any true faith who do not thus assent and consent but of all the faiths that ever I have heard or read of and of all the kinds of believing that ever were broacht in the brains of men I never yet heard of a believing of things whether one will or no I mean a real believing and not such a feigned forced faith as that of those who must say they believe as the Church believes when happily they know not what that is nor did I ever hear of believing without assenting to the things believed since I was born till I met with this figment of yours nor ever shall again I am perswaded while the world stands from any men but such as having uttered one absurdity are resolved rather then to recant it to uphold it with an 100 worse then it self Determination It is further added that there is no other way revealed for the salvation of little infants but by justification and that by faith that way of the
faith themselves which are never seen in infants are seen and examined which is as much as to say that when the acts are seen and examined as they may be in men then a judgement of science may be past on them do you not say that the discovery of the habit of faith to be in infants is made onely a posteriore i. e. onely by their future professings and personal actings of it which is as much as to say when children come once to act faith then it may appear and be known that faith is in them but tell then or in their infancy it cannot appear to be in them do you not say it cannot be certainly presumed what children have faith what have not the working of the spirit being not known to us and the spirit himself not bound to work faith in all the children of Christian parents nor barrd from working it in any children of infidels and that there can be no conclusion made of this thing which infants have faith which have not which is as much as to say that though it may be more certainly concluded presumed and judged concerning men at years who have and who have not faith yet the same doth not appear concerning infants in infancy are not these your own sayings but a few lines above and yet for all that have you so soon forgot your selves as to unsay it all again in this page where you ingage to make it appear concerning the particular children which are brought to be baptized that they have faith and to determine that in charity we are bound to judge faith to be in believers infants as much as we are bound in charity to judge it to be in the believing parents themselves that make profession and such judgement is as due to one of these as to the other were there ever such contradictions as these committed to paper before But le ts us examine your reason why we are to judge faith to be in these infants as we are to judge it to be in any that make profession you say because the Scripture hath so amply declared the good will of Christ to them which is Tanta mount to any ones single profession of himself I answer that the Scripture declares the good will of Christ to little children in general without exception and not to one more then another but what 's this to prove any of them to have faith much more what is it to the proving and making it appear that this and that particular infant hath faith which is the matter now in hand when other infants have it not or to prove believers infants to have it exclusively of the infants of unbelievers yet you say this declaration of Scripture which your selves confesse p. 5. declares concerning infants in general proves this or that single infant in contradistinction to others to have faith as sufficiently as any ones single profession proves it concerning his single self Nay this report of Scripture makes it appear say you most sottishly p. 5. that infants have faith more then the particular profession of any whom we admit to baptism can make it appear of himself and yet to go round again a posteriore onely i. e. by profession of it onely the discovery of the habit of faith is made O curious criss-crosse The second reason you here give why a charitable judgement concerning their faith is due to these particular infants and not others i. e. infants of believers and not unbelievers is this viz. Because you say we know nothing against any particular infants why they should be accepted from such a judgement To which I answer Do you know any thing against the particular infant of an heathen if this be a reason upon which we are to judge any infants in particular to have faith because we know nothing against any particular t is a reason upon which we are in charity to judge all particular infants in the world to have faith as well as any yea the infants of infidels as well as Christians for who knoweth any thing more against the infant of an infidell in his infanny whereby he should be excepted from our charitable opinion of him then he knows against the infant of a Christian especially that I may to your confutation conclude against you in your own words p. 5.6 since it cannot appear that one of these more then the other hath by any actual sin barred himself and deserved to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in the Scripture viz. that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them So having run through and repelled that rout of responsives that would not be ruled by reason I come now to enter skirmish with your Scare-crow for verily what follows is no other then a false Alarum a sound of words a number of Iackets and Breeches stuft with stubble and bombasted into the shape of men in arms to fright fools at a distance Review We shall only present to the Christian Reader those horrid sins this wretched error of the Anabaptists involves men in and so forbear to be further troublesome it may be the sight will make many tremble and forsake their tents and not suffer them to be so frolick about the hole of the Asp or play with the Leviathan and walk upon the ridge of those Alps whose Praecipice is so fearfull Re-Review Bona verba quaeso and not thunder without lightning Review 1. It makes them deny their first faith with their baptism for there is but one faith saith the Apostle and one baptism Eph. 4.5 Re-review Aliâs it makes them first confesse and visibly professe that one faith and own that one baptism which what ever they did in words in works they denyed till now and makes them renounce that none faith and none baptism which they had in infancy for if they had faith while they were infants how can they deny it in your opinion who deny any falling from faith but if they had none in infancy then how can you deny but that they had none and so they deny none at all Review 2. It makes them crucify Christ again for we are baptized inâ—o Christs death and therefore but once because Christ dâ—ed but once Re-review It makes them crucify Christ often ore and ore again indeed i. e. in the Supper where in a figure they break his body and shed his blood an orderly fellowship and communion in which service they are ingaged to and enter upon after the example of those Acts 2.42 immediately after baptism Other crucifying Christ I know none among them that is caused by their doctrine but that of those who after they are inlightned in it and have tasted the good word of God c. do after that fall away again and such indeed crucify to themselves the sonne of God afresh and put him to open shame Heb. 6.4 but I hope the truth among none but Reasonlesse persons shall bear the blame and be made
clear of it self that men famous even of your own way that have not thrust their fingers too far into the fire of this controversie concerning the primitive form of baptizing as these men have done and therefore will on in what they have once asserted and get thorow by hook or crook rather then recede with that shame I should say honour which is the right of every recantant when he sees he hath misreckoned do not onely confesse but also teach us the very same that we stand for Witnesse Tilenus who tells us that Immersio usitatior olim fuerit praesertim in Iudea et aliis regionibus c. p. 886. dipping yea totall dipping for in the very line before he defines the right of baptism to be tripple Immersio in aquam mora sub aqua emersio ex aqua plunging into the water abode under it resurrection out of it was rather used heretofore specially in Judea and other warmer countries then sprinkling Yea Dr. Featley that is as it were the fronteer or fileleader in doing all the disgrace he could to dipping did yet find occasion to acknowledge little lesse p. 69. notwithstanding saith he I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the River and that such baptism of men i. e. in rivers specially in the hotter climates hath been is and may lawfully be used though I confesse he gives this a pull in again and very cleanly contradicts himself in the very next words saying that there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging but onely of washing in the River O grosse First as if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie onely to wash in some other way and not at all to wash by dipping Secondly as if ever any things or persons that are washed in Rivers are washed ordinarily otherwise then by dipping or plunging Thirdly as if he could properly be said to be washed in a river that was never in it but was onely scrubd a little by the side of it Or Fourthly as if wise persons would go into a river for no more then a little fourbishing their faces Rantist You talk of in the river and into the River but you heed not what Mr. Baxter saies in the present section that you are desired to speak to he tells you the word into is not to be taken as if either John and Christ or Philip and the Eunuch were at all in the water or descended into it but unto it onely it being below in the bottoms and the countrey being montanous in which respect they might well be said to go down into it Mr. Cook also and Mr. Blake do both very elegantly answer your observation in that particular Mr. C. thus to A. R. viz. your collection from Philips going down into the water with the Eunuch therefore they used dipping is as vain must they not go down to the water where it was if they would use it would the water have come up to them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping of the same stamp is your inference from Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 from Christs ascending from the water for as Christ was pleased to be baptized with water so he was pleased to go where the water was viz. in the channel where there was a descent and from which there was an ascent so that he must go down to and come up from the water Nay rather your conceit is here confuted for if our blessed Saviour had been plunged of John into the water then it would rather have been said that John cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water but it is onely implyed that Christ went down to the water and came up again from it Mr. Blake thus to Mr. Blackwood viz. for your criticism of the ascending and descending if you compare Acts 24.1.25.1 also with your places quoted you will see it nothing for your purpose those phrases are used when men go to a place or from a place when they neither ascend upwards neither descend downwards Bishop Usher will furnish you with ten severall Scriptures where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Apostles is used for no descent from a higher place to a lower but onely a removing from place to place though in this place we may believe there was some ascent and descent waters being lower places and when they went to the place of waters the channell in which the waters had their current they may be fitly said to go into the water howsoever one or two examples serve not your purpose but a General concurrence of all examples We have examples giving full evidence of a different practise and nothing can be concluded from those examples Baptist. O the wondrous wayes of wretchednesse if not of wilful wilinesse that the wits of these men work in whereby to wave of the way of God from taking place among them how do they strive to keep it off as it were at staves end not yielding it an inch lest it should get an ell one brings one kind of furniture wherewith to fight it another another yet altogether are but a bullrush a flag that shewes like sword and Rapier but will scarce hold a push if put to it to the purpose Mr. Blake he fetches furniture from Bishop Vsher that saies there are ten Scriptures in the acts where the words ascend and descend expresse no more then removing from one place to another of which if those he alledges be two of the ten or supernumerary it matters not for if there were 10000 it would do him no right and truth no wrong in this place where it is believed by every of the three both himself and his two Colleagues that here was going up and down from higher places to lower therefore he may set that cypher some where else or send it home again to the book whence he had it and where perhaps it was of use for here it stands void and serves for nothing And as for their joint sneaping the words they went down into the water and came out of the water into such a short sense as may serve your own curtaild and cloudy conceptions of the matter and exclude our construction that is most clear and congruous perverting and mincing it thus viz. that they went down to the water i. e. the channel where the water was to which there was a descent and ascended from the water or if it be allowed to be read as t is most properly rendred by the Translators into the water yet the meaning of that word into must be no other then unto I admire how men of such professed piety can convince their consciences to content with such home-spun coverings such greivous glosses pittiful put ofs as they do in this case I profess they might almost as good say that the heard of Swine that Mat. 8.32 are said to run down into the Sea did but run down to the Sea and no
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
were you baptized saies he if at least you have not so much as heard of it as who should say who baptized you I wonder and did not so much as instruct you about the spirit nor laying on their hands pray for you that you might receive the spirit this plainly shewes that by right they should all about the time of their baptism in water have heard of the holy spirit and in what way it was to have been expected by them even that of laying on of hands none of all which they having so much as heard of as yet Paul therefore after some words of fuller information to them and such other passages as fell out thereupon laid his hands on them verse 6. in order to their receiving the holy spirit These Scriptures what they are to others I know not are to me a cleer and safe conduct into the belief of this truth that the doctrine of laying on of hands with prayer in order to receiving the holy spirit both was in the primitive times and was to be preached to all baptized believers as that which was no lesse then their duty to own and submit to have dispensed to them And as it was so universally taught and preached so was it as universally in those times practised dispensed submitted to ownd and observed in all the churches and among all baptized believers even men and women without exception This is evident out of the four forenamed places viz. in the first of which it is not only expresse that they i. e. all that Jewish Church had been taught this principle among the rest but also that it had been practically owned and observed among them as well as all the rest for as it s said there of all the principles together that these Jewes had need to be taught them again so that they should not now lay them again but go on to perfection which shews that as these principles had been all preacht to them all so all these Jewes or Hebrews did once lay them all as a foundation at their first beginning to be a Church and therfore this of laying on of hands among the rest In the second we read that Paul laid his hands on all the baptized believers that he found at Ephesus being then no more in number then about 12. speaking as it were by way of blame and reproof of those by whom they were baptized that this was not also done by them at their baptism in order to their receiving the holy spirit much more in that they were not so much as informed that there was a holy spirit to be expected by them ver 32.3 which may serve also as an Argument to them that say as some of the inquirers do that the reproof of the omission of any service doth evince that that service ought to have been performed and as an answer also to the fourth question of the abovenamed enquirers with the ground thereof which is this viz. In the third place we find it most expressely asserted that Peter and Iohn prayed for them that they might receive the holy spirit and laid their hands on them i. e. all those men and women for that 's the only substantive to this pronoun them in that place of whom it s said before that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus which word only they were baptized intimates to us thus much also viz. that though they had submitted so far as to baptism yet they had not practised all that was to be practised by them but that some other service was yet behind which ought to be performed towards them viz. that of laying on of hands In the fourth it s asserted also most plainly that all the three thousand believers that were baptized did gladly receive the word i. e. the word that Peter preacht to them who exhorted them with many other words then those that are there specified viz. repentance and baptism and that they continued in the Apostles doctrine of which word and doctrine if we may judge the word or doctrine of Christ the Apostles to be one and the same laying on of hands was part as well as faith repentance baptism resurrection and judgement Heb. 6.1.2 besides if the word and doctrine of Christ that was preacht and practised at Jerusalem was the self same word and doctrine that was after preacht and practised at Samaria then we may safely gather that whatever was preacht and practised by them at Samaria had been preacht and practised by them at Ierusalem before from whence they came immediately to Samaria where its easie to be discerned by any but such as will bend their brains to multiply impertinencies and to make bluâ—ies to themselves and others in businesses that are beyond doubt to impartial inquirers that they laid hands praying for them that they might receive the holy spirit on all those believers there that were baptized whether men or women without exception if we may as warrantably understand the men and women that are said to be baptized v. 12. to be the same persons that are said to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus v. 16. and the same persons that are denoted by that pronoun them v. 14.15.16 as I am sure we cannot warrantably because not congruously do otherwise for who else can be meant all along but the very same and not some of them onely but even all the same even the men and women that are related above to be baptized for whereas its said ver 12. when they believed they were baptized both men and women and v. 16. that the holy spirit was fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized must not they and them there be taken for all those that are said to be baptized above and so consequently when it is said ver 15. that they prayed for them and ver 17. that they laid their hands on them doth not them denote out the very same Yet this cannot be digested for truth with some of the inquirers for t was asserted as his opinion the rest assenting to it by their silence by one of those with whom we had some discourse at Ely house Maâ—ch 27. 1653. whether the same be the sense of all those that sent him I know not that Peter and Iohn did not with prayer lay hands on all the baptized believers at Samaria but on the men only and not on the women And whereas in proof of the contrary I asserted that the pronoun them in v. 14.15.16.17 doth relate to not the men onely but the men and women even all those that are said to be baptized as the adaequate substantive with which it did agree t was answered by him to this purpose a pretty put off I confesse but nothing to the purpose viz. that the Scripture had expressions both particular indefinite and universal that the word them here as t was not a particular so t was not an universal for then it would have
as if we feared to answer you so positively whether those things viz. Infants Iustification without faith and their freedome from that which not so much in Scripture language as by an Epithite of mens own coining is called originall sin be heresie or no I answer no as to the first though Iustification of Infants by works is the Heresie of a Romish Clergy whether by works we mean the work of faith Ioh. 6.29 or any other yet Iustification of Infants without that work of faith or any other work either of their parents or their own is the truth as it is in Iesus and such sound Doctrine as notwithstanding your outcries of gross popery and I know not what upon it you will never with right reason refute while you breath as for the other of those things viz. infants not having originall sin two questions may be askt concerning this viz. whether they have it secondly whether they ever had it if you ask whether they ever had any I answer that as to hold dying infants to be damned unless they believe which is your doctrine is as to the poor little ones at least that cannot believe somewhat too damnable a Heresie so to say that infants never had the sin of Adam so much as imputed to them how farr forth it may possibly be to a person in whom yet is no inherent corruption is seen in Christ who had the imputation of sin to him though none in him is for ought I have ever found yet to the contrarie nor a truth but if your quere be whether infants have any guilt as from Adams sin abiding on them after birth I reply that as in order of nature Infants must stand guilty by the first Adams sin before they can be said to be justified by the righteousness of the second so in order of time I believe them universally to be no sooner guilty as from Adam then clear'd by Christ which Tenet he that tryes it will find it I perswade my self so farre from meriting to be cried out on for Heresie as it is at random by the Clergy that it rather comes as nigh to truth as 4 pence to a groat but such a Bug-bear makes the Priest of what ere suits not with his wonted imagination that almost all is damnable that differs from him and what ere he meets out of the Kings high-way or sees Sectarizing from the common Rode of his own Cloudy conception and Clericall Cassicall Convocationall Canonicall constitution he draws at it presently as a thief that comes to Rob him commits it to prison and condemns it all to be hang'd for Heresie before he hears it Report You relate that after that none did propound any more questions Reply As if all men had been so astonished at your understanding and answers as they were at Christs that none durst open their mouthes before you any more that day yet some would with the help of Christ have ventured to have told the truth in your presence but to your praise be it spoken as you speak below of your selves you would not let them Report So say you the Congregation was again dismist Reply An argument of your itching after an end and being well nigh betwatled to be gone if the people had not been more forward to quere after truth then the Priest was willing to Answer for all his liberty granted in the seventh Article and his pretended forwardness to resolve page 27. where disswading men from going to seducers you advise them as from God to ask the Priest and if others had not been more free to both then the Preachers were either to Preach or hear As for what follows 't is not so much a model of mis-reports and mis-representations as thus farre of your Account is for the most part as of true reports and representations of some few more of the Ministers mis-apprehensions mis-affections and mis-actions under a colour of acting for the truth Report You say that your Respondent hindred their departure by making an unseasonable motion viz. that they would hear him preach Reply Emphatically even to a scoff that they would hear him preach alià s Sirs give Account in an intire discourse and this too after his offer to hear any of you first if you would but you would not of what he held and why which was the very business he profest to come thither for more then to dispute aliâs to shew upon what grounds he invaded the practise of the Church of England Scotland Rome c. in her infant sprinkling which say you in words in the fifth Article he ought to have done but here in your deeds and denial of it that he ought not Do you think that all save such as have eyes and see not discern not your dawbing your double-dealing and your Egypt-like requiring men to make brick allowing no straw delaâ—ing that 't is our Duty to shew our grounds yet prohibiting our discharge of it pressing people to prove all things yet not abiding they should hear all thâ—ngs tesâ—ing your Respondent that in reason he should have been opponent yet yielding him no opportunity on that day to urge so much as one argument though he offere'd it much less yielding to be responsible to him on the next magnifying preaching as much as any yet withstanding it more then all and making it an unseasonable motion almost at any time save when time comes by course to make mention of it as if any time were unseasonable for that which is strictly to be attended at all times by Christs Ministers both in season and out of season also 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Report This required some time to debate Reply As well it might being a matter of weighty concernment on both hands viz. of consequence too advantagious to truth as well as dangerous to your falshoods besides the more time was taken up in debating against it so much the less time if it fortuned to be cast that way that it must be done would be left to do it in Report The Ministers opposing it Reply And lying in the manger having no mind to hear themselves nor yet that those should who had a mind to it having the key of knowledge the keys and power of that place yet neither abiding there nor abiding that others should abide there to so precious a purpose which is so much to their commendation that men must needs see them to be not like Christs Ministers for if they had they would have rejoiced in Christs being preached whether in pretence or in truth of envy or good will well knowing all should have tended to the furtherance of the Gospel Phil. 1.15 16 17 18 Ob. And if they object that preaching of error will hinder it Ans. I say that publishing whether of error or truth gives that advantage of trying all things which as it is that duty men cannot do unless they hear all so that which they might not do by any means in ages above when the
reproving and in case of non-amendment rejecting disowning but if your Church and its Ministery be like each other I find not your Church so forward to call us to this Account of our faith for you her Ministery do utterly refuse to accept when we offer it how often have we been an hundred times more ready to give reasons of our way then you Church-men whom she trusts are to receive them but if we durst not give Account to Christ for what we do we durst not give Account for it to your selves Assure him to our consciences to be what you here assert him to be viz. the Patron of Paedo-baptism but this from Mar. 10. nor act 2. nor 1. Cor. 10. nor from any other portion of his Testament nor from his patronizing Paedo-circumcision you cannot much less can you of Paedo-rantism which is your way and then we are so sensible of our future appearance before his Iudgement Seat and have gain'd so much self denial for his sake since we practised Pisto-baptism that we shall as readily lay it down I hope as we took it up Report After the Ministers were retired diverse Gentlemen and others who had been present at the Disputation thanked the Ministers expressed the satisfaction they had received assuring them that many were confirmed by their means and the resolution of the Ministers who were Auditors was that they would faithfully in their several congregations declare their sence of it and oppose the growth of Anabaptism in their respective flocks Reply Here followes the Story of what event and success your meeting had among your selves and you great friends after you were hous'd of its powerfull influence upon you Ministers and your Maecenasses when you met together at your Randezvous which was on this wise you had their gratulatorie expressions of their own satisfactions and assurances of many ones confirmation by your means and this reciprocally raised you Ministers into joint incouragements ingagements and resolutions to declare your sense of this happy efficacy and acceptation your indeavors had among them and to stickle more stifly then ever against Anabaptism in your respective flocks where you usually winne all because you plaie with none there but your selves and that you do with such earnestness and zeal that for fear men should come to Anabaptism i. e. a second Baptism you stave them off at a distance and what in you lies forbid them to own a first thus while they doted on your Doo-little Disputation and plaistered it ore with their applause you in requital agreed to new White-lime and daub ore their Babylonish Idol baby-sprinkling with your untempered Morter Sirs I half wonder at one thing for which whether more happâ—ly or unhappily it befalls you I wot not yet I however rather more pitty then envy you viz. that who ere carries the thing yet you still carry the thank and who e're is at loss in your holy warres against us Hereticks yet your selves take upon you still to be Triumphant you give the satisfactions the confirmations for which you have gratulations from the great ones as if the good issue of things did run only and alway on your side I find it so in all verball Accounts and also in those printed Accounts that are extant of your doings and disputations with them of this way called Anabaptism viz. Dr Featly's Account of his Disputation with them in South-wark and this of your own also with us at Ashford and another of Mr Baxters with Mr Tombes at Bewdley pend all as is supposed by the Opponents themselves who whip them if they have not more wit and less grace then to disgrace themselves too much whilst they continue Clergy-men And now I name Dr. Featly the man whom in the next page you turn us over to for more furniture in this point I cannot but note by the way how finely you Featlifie throughout your whole Account as well as here as if there were a certain Transmigration of Dr. Featly's spirit into that person that was the inditer of your Account for as most of the Arguments are found in not to say fetcht and filcht out of Featly's fardell so how many things in yours are after the very Image of his Account as if one had been the plat-form of the other Dr. Featly pens and prints forth his disputation under the title of a True Relation of what passed and how properly I appeal to all men so do you Dr. Featly saies it was the clamors of the Adversaries awakn'd his or else it had slept securely by him in a whole skin so say you the disgraces the Adversaries loaded your disputation with rakt it out of those ashes in which else it was designed to be smothred Dr. Featly be-Asses us Anabaptists and so do you both us and your selves too as is shew'd above Dr. Featly makes as if none of that sect ever troubl'd him any more after that so ye that after your handling of the enquirer none did propound any more questions as if you had stopt the mouths of all Dr. Featly relates that the dippers were dipt and plung'd ore head and ears in disputation with him so you that your Respondent was extremely foundred answer'd nothing in the least measure satisfactory or that caâ—ried any shew of sense or reason to the purpose Dr. Featly relates the issue of his as to himself to be great thanks so ye how you were thank'd and as you from divers Gentlemen so he from the Knights Ladies and Gentlemen of which rank few stoop so low as to the plainness of the Gospel but neither of you from the poor of this World that are rich in faith and heirs of that Kingdome which God hath promised to them that love him into which few Knights Ladies and Gentlemen except more of them repent believe and obey the Gospel then mostly do shall ever enter thus you flaunt it over the little flock over this sect which is every where spoken against as baffled non plust worsted by you still but Sirs we can give loosers leave to talk you tell of gratulations satisfactions confirmations of people in your wayes by your means but how comes it to pass that there are so many Churches the true Church i. â— those you call Anabaptists may say in her heart after her long widow-hood as Isa. 49.21 who hath begotten me these seeing I have lost my children and who hath brought up these behold I was left alone these where have they been thy people crumble from thee apace O PPPriest for all thy satisfactions and are captivated some more to Christ and some more to the Devill then ever before while they served thee thy Divinity O Divine is as the blood of a dead man it hath no life in 't thy Common stock and store of Religion thou hast treasur'd up to thy self out of this Author and that out of Harmonies of Confessions Councels c. grows stale and begins to stink before the Scriptures in a word gray-hairs
are no more capable of the use of any ordinance then the other He tells us these by birth are of the houshold of God of the Citizens of the Saints t is much he said not fellow Citizens in Pauls phrase Eph. 2. sure t was because he bethought himself of their uncapableness of fellowship for all their membership He tells us that these are orderly admitted i. e. by baptism then which Scripture knows no other admission for no sooner do we read of a convert saith he but we presently hear of his baptism whereas of all the converts in Christendom that sit under the ministry of the Pope Prelate and Presbyter I never knew one in all my daies baptized after their coversion of him by preaching till being converted from them to the Truth as it is in Iesus they convert and come to us and then we immediately baptize them indeed but as for them t is impossible for them so much as to preach the Gospel in all Christendome in the way and words in which Peter Ananias Philip Paul and all the first and purest preachers did while they suppose all they preach to to have been baptized in infancy for what Priest in Christendom can say to his parish repent and be baptized for remission of sinnes arise and be baptized and wash away thy sinnes he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved as they of old said Mark 16.16 Act. 22 without gross absurdity having christn'd them all long before he ever preacht to them neither do they baptize any at all after conversion and the best baptism they dispense in token of remission of sins so long before either sins commission or the sinners conversion is at best but meer rantism neither He tells us that those have right to all the immunities of this house to all the priviledges of this City of God meaning the Church here below and have title to all Christs visible ordinances that they belong to Christ and therefore must parâ—ake of that which is of Christ and being of the houshold they must therefore have of the food of the houshold yea the stewards of the mysteries of God must be accountable in case they deny it them And yet till they are at years not any one of them may participate as themselves say of any one of those visible ordinances viz. neither praying preaching hearing not the supper nor any thing else which is the food of the houshold after baptism by which they are barely entred in infancy and onely thrown ore the threshold into the house and then ly starving for many years together without bit or crumb of any other food at all being utterly denied to be communicants at the supper the use of which their folly will once be manifest who say they are lesse capable of in infancy then of the use of baptism for as shall appear more hereafter howbeit they are truly capable of neither they are as truly capable of both as of either yet are they deni'd a share in that service of the supper by these stewards of the mysteries of God the ministry themselves and that for no less then 16 years together at least according to the rule of the old stewards the episcopacy that have almost given up all their earthly account and I know not for how long by the will of the new stewards i. e. the Presbytery for if their rule be to practise it no oftner then they practise it indeed some of them have had no supper at all in their parishes neither for young nor old for about seven or eight years together last past and when they will no body knows and how they can with a good conscience I cannot tell nor never could while I stood among them they standing all and their people all universally unbaptized to this day for which neglect of theirs to give persons their meat in due season order and manner feeding them with a break-fast in baptism before they are fit to be fed so much as with that milk and then denying them any supper at all when they come to years though they then both pay for it and are at least as fit to feed thereon as they were in infancy to feed on baptism the Lord of that supper and of all the other holy ordinances of his which they have dispenst more after their own minds and mens tradition will and Testament then his own will call them ere long to give account of their stewardship too and let them be no longer stewards And yet a little more to trace Mr. Blake to and fro as he daunceth the hay up and down in that tâ—ifling treatise he tells us that these are a holy seed of the noblest birth yea though they be the children of loose living parents of misbelieving parents p. 4.5.25.26 of apostatized parents of excommunicate parents of fornicating parents and consequently a very bastard brood which under the law that Mr. Blake himself professes to be tried by were unclean and not admitted into the congregation unto the tenth generation of papistical parents for even these are but misbelievers and Christians in name still and as himself sayes no infidels though to go round again holding such damnable errors in the faith p. 30. as shut them out from the happiness and therefore I think from the holiness too of Christians yet all this notwithstanning to go round again if the children but of believing parents that are of the Church and to go round again not true believers neither as believer is opposed to unbeliever misbeliever or Christian in name onely with all which he confesses the Church may abound but as believer is opposed onely to infidel p. 25. between which terms unbeliever and infidel which are not synonimaes it seems with him yet the Scripture makes no more difference then is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same greek word that expresses both and is translated into latin by infidelis and Englisht by either unbeliever or infidel notwithstanding all this I say if born in England or any where else in any nations or of any parents that are but Christian in name onely or of but one such Christian parent the other being an Indian that is with him an infidel indeed they are with him a holy seed still that God ownes and challenges for his yea frrom the womb Gods heritage a seed so nobly born as noble Nehemiah himself was not yea p. 28. the least of whom is greater then Nehemiahs better These high and Heroick Eulogies Mr. Blake bestowes upon not true believers and real Saints onely to whom yet they peculiarly belong but on meer carnall Gospellers the naturall lukewarm formalists of the Antichristian more then Christian nations upon pretensive verbal professors and that not of truth neither as t is in the word but as in the word of an erroneous Priest-hood who preach truth for tith and yet not the tith of that truth they should preach neither
con they are but as Auxilliarie hereunto Secondly because I am willing also sith you call so much for it to give out my own grounds for the truth by the way as I go along in disproving of your false ones that you may either yield to them if sound or answer and disprove them if unsound and rotten in the residue I shall be so much the briefer The next argument whereby you undertake to prove infants of believing parents to have the holy spirit is drawn from those Eulogies given them in Scripture not inferior to those of the best Saints from whence you thus argue Disputation Those who are invited to come to Christ Mark 10.14 Mat. 19.14 Luk. 18 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 15. babes such as are new come from the womb blessed by Christ declared to have right to the kingdome of heaven set forth for examples of innocency not to be offended guarded from heaven by Angels c. have the holy Ghost But such are little children Disproof You say they have Eulogies i. e. good language and commendations given to them not inferiour to those of the best Saints Nay Sirs they are superiour in some sense to the best of Saints for the best here have sin but these have yet none Christ taking away Adams sin and they adding none of their own and yet it will not follow that they are to be baptized for they have yet no need of it muchlesse that they have the holy spirit which is the thing you would prove by it As for these particular Eulogies which you instance in if the most special among them do clearly prove the subject thereby denominated to have that holy spirit that entitles to baptism then I le agree that mine are but if it do not then I hope you will agree to it that your wits are little better then sodden In order to the fuller finding out of the full weight of each Eulogy to such a purpose I le consider some of them asunder that being the best way and not as you Babilonicae brevitatis gratiâ have wrapt and swadled them all up together into one Syllogism and if you think it too tedious so to do I would have you to know my pains in writing will be Tantamount to your patience in reading The first Eulogy which you say Scripture gives to little children is their invitation to come to Christ from whence your Argument in form must runne thus Babist Those who are invited to come to Christ have the holy spirit and are thereupon to be baptized But little infants of believing parents are invited to come to Christ Ergo they have the holy spirit and are to be baptized Baptist. To which I retort stating onely another Minor in room of yours as the subject to answer to your middle term and then judge your selves how false your foundation i. e. your Major is and consequently your building or conclusion Thus Those that are invited to come to Christ have the holy spirit and are thereupon to be baptized But all men and women in the world are invited to come to Christ Mark 16.15 Mat. 22.9 2 Cor. 5.19.20.21 Isa. 55.1 Mar. 11.28 Rev. 22.17 Ergo all men and women in the world have the the holy spirit and are therevpon to be baptized I need say no more to wise men The 2 Eulogy given from Scripture to little children is this viz. they are blessed by Christ whence your argument must run thus Babist Those that are blessed by Christ have the holy spirit and so present right to baptism But little children of believing parents are blessed by Christ Ergo they have the holy spirit and present right to baptism Baptist. I answer first by denying your Major which is not universally true for persons may be blessed by Christ and yet not have the holy spirit for better understanding of which let it be considered that persons may be blest various wayes from which yet to their having the holy spirit there 's no consequence viz. outwardly and inwardly temporally and spiritually with blessings of the body and of the soul of this life and that to come first with outward temporal bodily blessings abstract from the other they may be and often are blessed when yet at present at least for so they must have as to your present purpose they have not the holy spirit who possibly also never have it in all their lives I mean in that sense from which Peter argues thus to their baptism Act. 10. for that some of you say when you can make advantage on 't another way was the spirit in the extraordinary gifts of it onely as tongues prophecy utterance c. by which sense how ever your infancy is clear cut off from all capacity of having it and so you are confuted by your own party in the very corner stone of this your babish building but I le give you the advantage of your own personal Tenet let it be what it will save only that forenamed common sense of the spirit wherein I have told you t is in all men who yet are not therefore to be baptized I say again both men and women and children may be blessed by Christ outwardly only as with health peace plenty fruitful seasons Mat. 5.45 God is good to all and sends sun and rain i. e. all temporal blessings on the good and evil just and unjust The blessings of bodily protections as to be guarded with Angells from heaven from dangers and mischiefs which is another of the Eulogies you here instance in which to save your selves and me some labor I le take in hear it being but a temporal blessing from which it follows not that such as are blessed with it must consequently have the holy spirit also bodily salvation from and sanation of disâ—ases distempers by Christ who is a Saviour of the body these blessings of the body the barn the basket and the store health and external happinesse persons may be and often are blessed with from God who fills their bellies with hid treasure so that they prosper and are not plagued when yet they are wicked in their lives and far from the holy spirit Secondly If you take Christs blessing as in this place you must for it s so expounded and plainly expressed in one of the three Evangelists you quote which write all the same thing in some difference of prase for his praying for the persons whom he blessed I say that even spiritually persons may be blessed by Christ in prayer for them yea blessed with the blessing of the spirit it self as de futuro and and yet not pro presenti have the spirit for Christ blessed his disciples Luke 24.50 i. e. prayed for them that they might be endued with the spirit and yet that he then prayed for or by lifting up his hands to the father then blessed them with did not come on them till some while after in this sense Isaac blessed Iacob Gen. 27.28.29 Iacob
having that at present they rather scoff at the holy spirit yet dare you not say they are all reprobates for some of them may turn at Christs reproof for ought you know therefore what consequence is there from not being reprobates to a present possession of the holy spirit Secondly do you know so precisely which infants are Elect and which Reprobate as to take upon you to distinguish them by baptism or are all infants of unbelievers reprobate so that you may accordingly denominate them for such by whole sale as you do Do not the infants of unbelievers very often prove believers and so elect and precious and as ordinarily believers infants when they come to years I mean prove reprobates were not Asa the son of wicked Abia and Iosias of wicked Ammon elected both when Ishmael and Esau the sons of Abraham and Isaac themselves were in Scripture secundum te o Accountant p. 13. both branded for reprobates Lastly to the plain perverture of the words of the the text you quote to your own ends instead of Iesus Christ between whose and the spirits being in men there is no small difference for Christ may be in us by faith I mean we may be in the faith when yet he is not in us by his spirit I mean before the spirit is yet given witness all the disciples that believed and were baptized with water some while before Christ gave them the holy spirit Act. 8. Act. 19. instead of Christ I say you insert the spirit of God you also wholly pervert the sence of the Apostle in that place 2 Cor. 13.5 who speaks it not to infants nor of them neither but of persons that could both know and prove and examine their own selves of all which infants were uncapable by your own confession he wrote it of them to whom he wrote it and so indeed though you are slow of heart to consider it the whoâ—â— Gospel was written viz. de adultis adulâ—orum officiis of grown person whether parents or children and their duties but not for the use of infants in â—â—fancie at all In the next place upon occasion of my denial that it can be made appear that infants have the holy spirit to the making of them subjects of baptism you argue it on thus Disputation The report of Scripture concerning them and the necessary consequences of the former Arguments do make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason then the Profession of any particular person who perhaps may be an hypocrite as Symon Magus can make it appear of himself Gods testimony being to be preferred before mans Disproof Here is one of the most prodigious pieces of absurditie and contradiction of your selves as you speak in other places that was ever discerned to pass from men that cried out so loud as you do for libertie to reason logically since the art of Logick was found out In that you here call the consequences of all your former Arguments necessary consequences which is as much as to say such as conclude the thing in hand i. e. that infants have the holy spirit necessarily universally and infâ—llibly for that and no other were you so well skilled in Logick as you would seem to be is a necessary consequence which proves the matter concluded certainly so to be yea certo ità esse nec alitèr se habere posse a necessary consequence is when there is tam necessarius nexus indissolubilis dependentia c. such infallible dependence between the subject and the praedicate that the conclusion must be universally and perpetually true whereas your conclusion which is this viz. That little Children have the holy spirit as it followes not so much as probably nor possibly from all that you have here premised toward the proof on it witness all the Disproof made of your Disputation hitherto so much less doth it follow from them necessarily to be true for then it must be at least truly denominated de omni i. e. universally true concerning all little children that they have the ho-spirit de omni being the very lowest degree of necessity but this for shame you cannot say that all little children of every sort have holy spirit no nor yet so much as all of that sort of whom you so peculiarly assert it viz. the little children of believers among whom when they are at years there are as many destitute of the holy spirit as are indued with it And in further evidence hereof that it follows not necessarily from any thing you have said that those little infants you sprinkle have the holy spirit I appeal from your selves to your very selves for howbeit you here affirm as also p. 16. inch a necessity in the consequences whence you conclude that infants of believers have faith and the holy spirit yet to the utter confutation of your selves herein you elsewhere confesse that at the best your proof can be no more then probable viz. p. 18 where you write concerning the infants of Christian parents having faith and the spirit as if notwithstanding all that was said before to prove the certainty of it you could not now tell well what to say to it for as in p. 16. you acknowledged that all infants have it not so these are your own words p. 18. viz. the spirit is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor barr'd from working it in any of the children of infidels so that no judgement of science can be passed till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriori onely and yet by the way be it known unto you that every necessary consequence demonstrates a priori the discovery of habits it made that unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound nor yet bard there can be no conclusion made In which words see how plainly you acknowledge that no conclusion can be made of it that infants of Christians have the habit of faith i. e. it is a thing that doth not necessarily follow and cannot appear in infancy at all nor be certainly presumed whether they have or have it not till they come to years and be seen to act so that then it may be known by your own confession and yet in this place I am now in hand with you say no more nor lesse but in effect the clean contrary as also p. 16. where you seem to wonder almost and fault the difficulty in mens understandings that there are at all any doubts in them about their having it avouching that the Scriptures by necessary consequences confirme the thing viz. that they have it That the report of Scripture concerning little children and the necessary consequences of the former arguments do make it appear yea plainly yea more plainly then the profession of any particular person at years can make it
appear of himself O Earth Earth hear the reasonlesse round abouts of these Logicians they tell us in one place that it is to be concluded by no lesse then necessary consequences that believers infants for of such onely they assert it have faith and the holy spirit by and by to go round again they tell us that it cannot be certainly presumed what children have it what have not that the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor barr'd from working it in any of the children of Infidels so that there can be no conclusion made in one place they tell us that no judgement of science concerning these or those infants having the holy spirit and faith can be passed in their infancy till the acts themselves be seen and examined i. e. till they come to years and shew forth some fruits and it appear by some acts and professions of it for a posteriore onely the discovery or habits is made but elsewhere to go round again they tell us that it doth more plainly appear concerning believers infants in their infancy that they have faith and the holy spirit to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason then the profession of any particular person at years admitted to baptism can make it appear of himself as if it could not half so well appear a posteriore when we are at years and capable to profess and act faith and shew forth the fruits of the spirit whether we have faith and the spirit yea or no as it may do a priori i. e. in infancy before any act of faith or fruit of the spirit can be discovered seen or examined Moreover to animadvert this present passage of yours yet a little further wheras you say here that the report of Scripture concerning little infants which is Gods testimony and to be preferred before mans doth more plainly prove it that infants have faith and the holy spirit then any particular mans testimony doth prove it concerning himself I answer first by denying that God in Scripture gives any such testimony at all concerning little infants litterally taken that they have faith and the holy spirit Secondly if that phrase Mat. 18.6 viz. these little ones which believe in me could have any such construction as of little infants litterally yet I deny that he speaks of them any otherwise then by a Prosopeiâ as I said before Thirdly if it were to be proved as it never can be that he speaks there of infants and not figuratively neither but plainly and properly yet t is most plain that he speaks but indifinitely not particularly of one infant more then another or of Christians infants more then of infidels so as that you can thereupon take on you as you daily do to distinguish which have the spirit which have not and accordingly to admit these to baptism and debar those yea you your selves do ore and ore express it p. 5.6 that what the Scripture declares Infants to be it declares them so to be in generall specially while any particulars of them have not yet barrd themselves by actual sin or deserv'd to be exempted from what the Scripture hath in general declared them to be so that all this that you have brought thus far hath not the weight of a feather to warrant your good opinion of one infant above another and your practise of baptism to this or that particular infant suppose a believers rather then an unbelievers It would be no plain but a muddy totter'd confus'd implicit shufling kind of argumentation for me if I were to give account why I baptize this or that particular man or woman and not others to argue thus indifinitly as you do all along viz. No man may forbid them to be baptized that believe and have the spirit But the Scripture declares that men and women may believe and have the spirit Ergo men and women must be baptized If I should I say go on thus in generals onely not making it appear that ther 's any faith at all in these individuals whom I baptize more then in others I should take him for little better then a fool who should take me for a wise man in so arguing yet so and no otherwise do you argue whilst when we put you to prove that those infants whom you baptize have title to it in contradistinction to heathens infants whose right to baptism you deny you give us your account in these indeterminate terms viz. Those that have faith and the holy spirit may be baptized But the Scripture testifies that little children have faith c. Ergo little children may be baptized I say what a bald way of arguing is this wherein you conclude no more concerning the particular infants whose right to baptism we put you to plead while you shut out other then concerning those very infants also whom you so shut out This is just as silly as if you being put to prove your own particular salvation before Iudas's should do it thus viz. Such as believe shall be saved But men believe Ergo men shall be saved Without making any proof of your own faith in particular whose salvation you would so prove above his whereas you should of right argue onward from the Major thus viz. We believe and Iudas did not Ergo we shall be saved and not he And so had you dealt down rightly and plaid above board in your Disputation sith believers infants in particular is the subject in hand between us you should have spoken plainly thus viz. All and only those infants that believe are to be baptized But all the infants of believing parents and those infants onely believe Ergo all and onely those infants are to be baptized But you know of your own selves this would be too broad a discoverie the Minor being so apparently false that you cannot hide your halting by it from the view of the very vulgar if you should so express it for he that hath but half an eie may see that as there is no more faith to be seen so the Scripture declares no more faith to be in believers infants than in the infants of unbelievers or if you will needs have the Minor in such general and indefinite terms yet at least grant us a fair Conclusion concerning those particular infants you dispute aboue no less than that can amount to so much as ingenuity and then it must run thus viz. Those that believe and have the holy spirit and so right to the Kingdom of heaven are to be baptized But the Scripture doth in general declare little children to be such as believe have the spirit and right to the Kingdome Ergo the infants of Believers and these infants onely are to be baptized But then you cannot so well shrowd your shuffling from any observant eie it being equally absurd to argue to universals from meer particulars and to some particulars only from
upon denial of any sufficience in all your former proofs to make it appear is at last undertaken by you to be made sufficiently appear in this last Syllogism which if it do not make it as sufficiently appear concerning unbelievers infants considering your own matter used to prove the Minor as concerning the other then my candle is quite gone out but if it do then surely the very light that is in you is utter darkness In the next place you dispute upon us by way of Question and Interogation thus Disputation 1. How do those men and women that are baptized at years make it appear to those that baptize them that they have faith and the holy spirit If it be answered by their profession 3. Whether their profession since it is possible they may lie can make it appear infallibly If it be answered no. 3. What judgement then can they that baptize them passe upon them to be the subjects of baptism as they call them whether any other than that of charity If it be answered that of charity T is replyed then let them passe the same judgement upon those little infants of whom in general the Scripture hath given so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and the controversie between us is at an end Disproof First whereas you quere how those we baptize make it appear that they have the holy spirit before we baptize them I answer I know no necessity of making ir appear that persons have the holy spirit before their admission to baptism for though we find once that God Anticipated his promise and gave the holy spirit before baptism Act. 10. yet I know not nor yet do you any promise there is whereupon in an ordinary way we can expect it of receiving the holy spirit of promise till after faith repentance obedience turning to God baptism and asking of it Prov. 1.23 Iohn 7.38.39 Act. 2.38 chap. 5.32 chap. 8.16.19 Luke 11.13 Ephes. 1.13 Secondly as for the holy spirits appearing infallibly I answer first it may possibly appear infallibly to be in some in whom it is as Act. 10.44.45.46.47 by sundry fruits and manifestations of it which may warrant us to say God is in them of a truth Mat. 7.16.17.18.19.20 1 Cor. 12.7 1 Cor. 14.25 It may I say undoubtedly appear to be in men and women but cannot and way at all so appear to be in infants if we may believe your selves who tell us p 8. that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith and p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered and that no judgement of science can be past upon infants till the acts themselves be seen and examined for a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made and that unlesse it could be certainly presumd what children have it what have not there can be no conclusion made And howbeit I am not of the seekers mind that an appearance of the holy spirit in any person before baptism in water doth exempt him from it but am well assured that it strictly rather ingages him to it or else Peter could not have commanded them in name of the Lord to be baptiz'd in water upon whom the holy spirit fell Act. 10. but must rather have forbid it as frustraneous and altogether superfluous yet that the spirit should appear at all to be in men in order to their baptism much more that it should appear infallibly to be in them is a matter of no necessity that I know of sith in the word it s not required that persons be baptized with the holy spirit first in order to their baptism with water but that they be first baptized in water in order to their receiving the holy spirit Act. 2.38 for the baptism of the spirit as t is promised onely to believers so we believing obeying the Gospel and asking the holy spirit t is signified to us as one thing that shall be given among the rest in that very way of water baptism so that its enough for us as to the baptism of persons to take cognizance of it that they believe and repent which things though they cannot do without the spirit performing its common office of striving drawing moving inlightning convicting of good and evil sin and righteousness c. in all which it acts to the whole world Gen. 6. Rom. 1.20 Iohn 16.8 Act. 7.51 yet they not only may do them without but must do them before they can by promise expect the spirit in those special respects wherein he is promised to believers and calld that holy spirit of promise And now because you ask how we know they have faith whom we baptize I answer by their profession which gives though not infallibility yet by your leave for all your preferring the Eulogies given in general to all infants above any mans personal profession for himself in this case a far clearer and better grounded judgement of charity concerning them that they have faith then that you have concerning infants which at best is but charity mistaken for cruelty whilst it takes that to be in infants and that on pain of their damnation too they dying without it viz. believing see p. 8. which infants are utterly uncapable of and whilst it takes even that too without which it holds no infants are saved to be in but very few infants viz. believers infants onely and so damns all other dying infants which are far more innumerable and as capable of faith and as little barring themby actual sin from salvation and as little deserving damnation as the other so that whether we or you plead the cause of innocent infants let the world judge And whereas you suppose that because in charity onely we judge men and women to believe therefore we passe no other judgement then that of charity onely on them to be the subjects of baptism herein you grossely mistake our grounds of baptizing for thought that of charity onely is the judgement whereby we judge them to be believers yet that is not the onely judgement whereby we judge them to be the subjects of baptism but as to that we go upon a judgement of certainty and infallibility also for though it be not infallible to us that every one that professes to believe doth as truly believe as he professes yet this is infallible to us concerning him that professes viz. both that he professes and also that professing to believe with all his heart so that we in charity may judge him so to do whether he lie or no he is by the rule of the word quoad nos a warrantable undoubted and as no infant is infallible subject of baptism for the word requires us to baptize such as after our preaching the faith to them do truly professe to believe whether they believe as truly as they profest or no for that indeed is not so infallible to
Infants 1 Cor. 16.15 besides if housholds must needs be taken as comprising infants then that phrase salute the houshold of Onesiphorus 2 Tim. 4.19 must be taken so to and what absurdity were it to tell Cradle-bed-Infants that Paul the prisoner remembred his respects unto them as for that of Lydia as its likely enough she then had none so no man knowes whether ever she had any husband at all if she had she might have no children if she had children she might be an antient widow whose children were grown up to believe with her and besides that those of her houshold whether children or servants or both that were baptized with her were not infants but adult disciples is evident both by that compellation viz. the brethren a denomination never given to them and mostly because they were such as the Apostles did actually comfort as we never find they did any infants in their infancy Act. 16.14.40 By all which by that time you have laid it to heart so little ground will be left you from all these instances for the baptizing of infants that it may without crouding be well written within the inside of a cherry-stone And now whereas Mr. Marshal more downrightly then rightly denies that children did eat the passeover which most undoubtedly they did I demand of him why if housholds be a term so conclusive of infants when its said housholds were baptized the same word doth not as much conclude children when its said housholds did eat the passeover Babist Mr. Marshal himself gives you good reason for that p. 40. of his Sermon the Argument saith he from the term houshold is not so strong to prove that infants did eat the passeover as it is to prove they may be baptized because no other Scripture shews that the passeover doth belong to children but we have other plain Scripture proving that baptism belongs to infants as well as grown men Baptist. I remember indeed that Mr. Marshall speaks thus yea more and more absurdly then thus doth he speak p. 219. in his reply to Mr. Tombos viz. that we shall never find so good evidence out of the housholds eating the passeover Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eat the passeover as this proves that the infants of the house were baptized but I must tell him first that what influence other Sciptures give toward the proof of either one or the other makes these never the stronger simply and in themselves so but that their particular strength and weaknesse stands the same but Secondly how dares Mr. Marshall say there 's no other Scipture save that is not that one particular sentence wherein the word houshold is exprest as eating the paschal lamb enough specially when the next verse or the latter part of the same verse viz. Exod. 12.4 saies plainly that it was to be taken and eaten according to the number of souls in the house and by every one according to his eating and if the family were too little to eat iâ— they should join families together are not children exprest undeniably here are they not among the number of souls capable to eat every one pro suo modulo according to the measure of his eating and digestion and doth not this evince as much for women And whereas for the exemption of women not as holding these did not eat it but to secure himself the more from that deadly wound which he is aware will light upon him if he grant that children did eat the passeover viz. our arguing upon him from thence to their right to the supper acccording to his own arguing from infants circumcision to their baptism he brings this reason viz. because according to us they were not circumcised and no uncircumcised person might eat the passeover I have to or three things to say to it First that phrase no uncircumcised person shall eat it must either necessarily be understood concerning those uncircumcised ones onely who were both capable of circumcision and of whom circumcision was required or else Secondly â—t must be understood that the females were accounted as vertually circumcised in the males Thirdly that very phrase that excludes all and onely such uncircumcised ones from the passeover as were capable of circumcision and of whom it was required serves us against you thus far however as to include and enright all them to the passeover that were circumcised and so if women did not as none need doubt but that they did yet all circumcised males and consâ—quently male children as soon at least as they were capable to eat were under a right to eat the passeover and so as to prove you who deny them the supper to be ingaged in the guilt of diminishing Gods grace and robbing poor infants of their right as well as we if your own arguments be true viz. that to deny such dispensations to infants under the Gospel the answerable ones to which were dispensed to them under the law is to lessen the grace of God in the Gospel Covenant and make it straiter then it was under the Law and to bereave little children of what belongs to them Thus Mr. Marshal where by the word housholds he should understand children as well as others for his own ends he leaves them out but where by the word housholds such families are exprest as in which he knows not that there was one infant and may know if there were by the very places themselves that they were excluded yet there he winds things about to wind them in By all this you see how little consequence is in the Argument children were circumcised Ergo they must be baptized Yea say you Aâ—hford disputants in the tail of your argument or else the Covenant of the Gospel is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham then it was to the carnall seed under the law Bus Sirs to conclude this matter I say no for if by spirituall seed you mean Christians natural infants I must as before cry shame on you still for stiling them the spiritual seed of Abraham for if Abrahams own semen carnis be not qua sic his semen fidei are the semen carnis of believing Gentiles Abrahams semen fidei but if by his spiritual seed you mean such as are so indeed i. e. true believers are this spiritual seed ere the worse because a meer fleshly seed may not without faith be signed as heirs together with them how will you ever be able to make that good yet again to take your words so punctually as may be by meeâ— denial of baptism to your carnal seed is the Gospel made worse to Abrahams spiritual seed then the same Gospel was to Abrahams carnal seed of old no such matter surely Sirs for the Gospel was preacht but darkly to the Jews of old which were Abrahams carnal seed viz. onely in types and figures and shadows and prophecies pointing out onely Christum exhibendum a saviour to come but now it s preacht not only to believers that is
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
upon you above that are held out by any of you out of the armory of Scripture in defence of infant baptism and those are Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 10.1.2 both which not onely knock sprinkling oth'head but may also very easily be sheathed in the bowels of baby-baptism As for the first it speaks as well nigh all scripture doth not much medling with infants not onely to buâ— of adult disciples only of whom as well as to whom and not of infants in way of satisfaction to them and answer to those that would have brought in the old circumcision made with hands among them Paul saies ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands which circumcision without hands there spoken of is not baptism neither as some dream who thence also draw in circumcision and baptism to be of so neer kin that as they have both one name so they must both have one subject also for baptism is no more done withoutehands then the other but the sanctification or inward circumcision of the heart cutting off the foreskin i. e. the filth of the heart which things infants do not in token of which he tells them they are not sprinkled but buried i. e. overwhelmed in water with Christ in the outward baptism wherin also they are risen with him through faith c. All which things he that imagins they more include then exclude the sucking infants of such to whom he speaks is no man in discretion with me As for the other place its most evident the Apostle speaks not of baptism litterally but Metaphoically onely there they were baptized unto Moses i. e. by the visible tokens of Gods presence amongst them viz. the cloud and Sea assisting and siding with them and overthrowing their adversaries they were confirmed in the belief of God and his servant Moses as we by baptism are in the faith of Gods goodnesse to us and of his Son Jesus Christ in further confirmation of which meer figurative sence of the word baptized you may do well to consider that though they were said to be baptized in the cloud and in the sea which phrases however sound forth such a total immersion as is not in two or three drops of water fingered on the face yet they were not so much as wetted with either the cloud or the sea for its said Exod. 14.21.22 the sea was made dry land under them and they went through it dry shod or on dry ground which they could not be well said to do had it so much as rained upon them such a figurative sence of the word baptize there Mr. Baxter himself denies not p. 90. yet Dr. Channel urged that place in a publique dispute at Petworth Ian. 1651. as one of his arguments for infant baptism besides Secondly if you will needs have it properly taken that they were baptized really and not quasi baptized as Mr. Baxter yields they were and if you will needs make that baptism such an emblem of ours that ours must have an adequate subject to that which say you was infants as well as parents then t will put you to your trumps to excuse your selves handsomly in your now denying to infants the same spiritual meat and drink in the supper which they then eat and drank of in a figure also viz. the Manna and the Rock which both were no other Antitypically then the bread and wine are mistically in the supper i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ. For all your vain boasting therefore of what innumerable arguments you have from Scriptures I say the Scriptures are sure enough on our side nevertheless taking the word in a sutable sense you do well to call your Scripture armes or arguments innumerable for indeed they are not to be numbred for even unit as much more nonit as non est numerus being no more than just none at all Secondly whereas you boast of the innumerable Arguments which may be brought for your infant rantism from reason the full force of reason is utterly against you and so wholly assistant to our cause that the unreasonablest man amongst you will once see it when sound reason comes to reign and sway the scepter indeed Yea not to stand reasoning on it now how reasonless a thing it is to ask a company of men and women as the priests were wont to do at the font thus viz. do you believe in God the Father and Christ c. and will you be baptized in this faith and when they answered yes that is all our desire then instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized to take a small sucking babe out of their armes and dat him with a drop or two on the face and send away all the other unbaptized Babist The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child that could not speak for it self and expresse his good resolutions to forsake the divel c. and his desires to be baptized Baptist How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signifie things to sucklings while they understand them not and that too by such a vanishing visible sign that when they can understand they neither see nor never shall and such like Trumpioall transactions to which there are as few grains of reason concurring as there are inches in an Apes tail even your selves however it happens that you so contradict your selves yet that is no news with you as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism are even in this very cause found falling out with and fighting down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections which by your own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism but I le spare you till I come thither 3ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof which you complain and grumble much p. 1.11.12 that t was set aside and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation is so utterly against your infant baptism that even this alone were it of any esteem with you had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it and laid the itch and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty is most manifest if by the Church of God and the Fathers therof you mean what I do viz. the Church of God in the primitive which were the best and purest times of the Gospel whose practise in this particular is set out in the word but specially in the Acts of the Apostles the fathers of which Church and of the Church
in after ages too were the Apostles themselves viz. Father Peter Father Paul Father Barnabas Father Iames Father Iohn and the rest whose authority from Christ was great indeed and adequate with the Scriptures then written and the foundation for all the Churches to build on and such was not the authority of the Churches then much less since which are to be subjected to their word in Scripture this Church and these fathers never knew such a baptism as yours nor is there the least tittle of talk concerning any such matter to be found among them Or if by the Church and Fathers of it whose authority and practise you build on you mean those of the ages next to the Apostles Then first I marvel why you should put your selves upon the triall by succeeding ages and decline the first and purest age of the Gospel of all specially since there 's as clear history and more infallible testimony given in the word of what was done by the Church and the first fathers the Apostles then ever was in any age inferiour to it whatsoever and more specially yet since its being in after ages is no palpable argument of its being in the first age for the mystery of iniquity was at work from the very Apostles t is now Ergo it was then is not so good a wherefore to our why as we look for besides t is ingenuously confest by your own writers viz. Mr. Blake in answer to Mr. Blackwood p. 58. that faith can hang on the humane testimony of the succeeding fathers in whose daies infant baptism was no further then de facto viz. that it was onely and not de jure that it ought to be and Mr. Marshal p. 5. of his sermon that the practise of the thing in their dayes proves not the truth of it at all Secondly neither doth the second Century help you so much as to a proof de facto For First as much as you would seem to be verst among the fathers in which many Priests are better read then in the Scriptures and some to seem to be better read there then they are will quote the fathers when they have not read them but by snaches and pickt a few fine phrases out of them to make their sermons the more sententious yea and sometimes for those very sentences for which they might more truly quote the Apostles that primitively pend them witnesse one of your tribe whom I heard with my own ears say of Heb. 2.16 he took not on him the nature of Angels thus viz. for as Saint Barnard saith when as he might as well have said as the spirit or as the Scripture saith He took not on him c. if yet he knew that t was in the Scripture as much I say as you are versed in the fathers you are desired by Mr. Blackwood a man better read in those fathers then either you or I yea you and Mr. Marshall also who quotes Iustin Martyr are desired by him in his storming of Antichrist p. 25.26.27 to prove if you can out of any place of Iustins genuine works who is the antientest father extant next the Apostles whose works are accounted on that there is so much as the name of infant baptism much more the thing yea he tells you ye may as soon find a Dolphin in the woods as any such thing save onely that t is once mentioned in a spurious book falsely called his out of which book Mr. Marshalls quotation is neither doth Mr. Blake gainsay this nor yet Mr. Marshall in their replies nay they rather seem to grant that it s to be doubted it was so which makes me as well as Mr. Blackwood not a little wonder that Mr. Marshall should quote it with so much confidence I mean so as to assert it thereupon as a matter manifest that the Church counting from the time of Iustin Martyr viz. 150 hath bin possest of the priviledg of infant baptism for the space of 1500 years and upwards for had he not doubted but that the words he cites were without question the words of Iustin himself he had not had sin but now he hath no cloak sith he demonstrates to all men Dubitatum per magis dubium and tells the world to make them believe that Iustin disputes the condition of children that dye baptized and unbaptized when yet it s not believed but much doubted by himself whether Iustin did any such thing yea or no as to the words Mr. Marshal p. 4. of his sermon cites out of Irenaeus who lived toward the end of the second Century which Englisht are thus viz. Christ came by himself to save all all I say who are born again unto God infants and little ones c. it s not likely that in this sentence that father by the word born again meant baptism as Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal contend for by that sence they father such absurdity upon that their father as children that pretend to honour their father may be ashamed of whilst they make him say Christ came to save all infants that are baptized when as neither all infants that are baptized are actually saved quâ baptized nor are any unbaptized infants damned quâ not baptized but both alike saved as both alike they either dye before they have bard themselves by actual sin and derserved exemption or living to years believe and obey Christ and both alike damned as living to years they both alike obey not his Gospel but however let Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal squeeze what they can from the quotation it must yet remain as doubtful whether the speech of Irenaeus if it were his own were at all of infants baptism as it doth whether the speech fathered on Iustin though it be of infants baptism were at all his own and so what dubious evidence the second century affords so much as de facto that infant baptism was then in being all men may see whilst you can say no more then perhaps it was so and a fool may say as much as perhaps it was not which is a proportionable answer to that argument for t is commonly said in the Schooles saies Mr. Marshal that forte ita solvitur per forte non Secondly but what if your testimony de facto concerning the practise of infant baptism in the second century were as clear as t is cloudy yet what green headed antiquity is this in comparison of that we plead from viz. the Apostles themselves when you are stormed out of all your strong holds then you send us still to ages above us and cry out your practise is of 1500 years standing but sith you cannot say as we can of ours t is above 1600 years old nor is yours now likely to live to it as good you had said but 15 for our way onely being found in the first century and yours not at all before the second we are a people so much elder then you upstarts that your antiquity is but novelty with us
of But First with spending so much time and searching so much into their testimonies as you have compelled me to do that me thinks I am out of my element where I desire to be i. e. the Scriptures whetâ—er I le return by and by God willing especially this last testimony of Tertullian which yet I could not help unless I would for want of help betray the truth when I saw how Mr. Marshal Dr. Holmes and others had almost stolen away corrupted and by fair words enticed our old friend Tertullian to serve on their side for we would not willingly be cousined of what is our due yeâ— least any man should think of me above that he seeth me to be and take me to be a man of much reading because I talk so much of the Fathers I testify that I am of little further acquaintance with these Fathers for my converse is mostly with Maâ—thew Mark Luke Peter Paul Iude Iames and Iohn then this controversie hath brought me to which now is so much that though I honor them as honest and good men in their times as finding many things of much worth and excellency in them yet for all that I am sick Secondly with seeing what abundance of absurdities silly reasons senselesse anti-scriptural sentences odd conceâ—ts vanities vaâ—ieties of error as well as verities uncertainties whether some of their books be their own or no mistranslations foisting of what of their own other men please into their works as Ruffinus into Origen falsities flat contradictions amongst themselves and such like are to be found among them sufficient enough to cause all men to trust no more to their testimonies then with their own eyes they see the same testifyed in the Scriptures Thirdly I am sick more yet to find the whole Clergy after whom the whole world wonders and walks in error wondring so much after these Fathers and walking after them where they walk in error and yet neglecting to give heed to them where they speak the truth and which is worst of all sleighting the short pure and plain waies of God the Father of all of Christ our Father and the first Fathers next and immediately under God and Christ Supreme Governors of the Church and givers out of the Gospel to the world I mean the Apostles who in my mind write the way of the Gospel if men were not willing to go astray from it because it is narrow self denying and thorny though more briefly yet more clearly to any common capacity then the most voluminous of all the other fathers do for we use all plaineâ—s of speech saies Paul 2 Cor. 3. Wherefore Fourthly and Lastly I am sick most of all to consider what a stirr ministers make in their quotations of the Fathers marching on and giving such a broad side as they think with two or three sentences ou of the fathers as if they would bear all men down before them that come near them no higher read then in the Scriptures no better armed then with the sword of the spirit the word of God For this only is dispised as much as Davids sling and stone before Goliah and this too though in coole bloud the Scripture is confessed by themselves to be so instar omnium that nothing is of any force but what flowes from it for though some Clergy men dote so far that they believe the Fathers no otherwise then they would have the world to believe themselves i. e. because ipse dixit yet some are so wise as to confesse that how far forth soever the Fathers may serve to prove to us things de facto to be done in their several ages yet their testimonyes de facto cannot prove any thing to us to be de jure at all whereas if it be so and ye so it is I am me thinks become a fool at this time in falling before I was aware so up to the ears in contest about a few testimonies of the fathers as well as I and others heretofote in counting so extraordinarily on them wherefore I do henceforth humbly conceive and confess my self to the people together with all my fellow father-fool'd friends viz. the Clergy of all Christendome to have been no better then childish and semi-simple so far as such high and holy heed and such heedlesse submission hath been given by us to these fathers Schoolmen and other authors as hath occasioned extreme seduction from the Scriptures hear therefore O thou most miserably be wildred Priesthood of the Nations and understand for so thou shalt if thou return from out of that thick wood of Authors Polemical Tracts Schoolmen Casuists Tomes Volumes of Fathers Councels Commentators Treatises Systemes of Theology framed forms of old and New Creeds long and short Catechismes confessions of Churches c. in which thou hast wandred and lost thy self from the truth to the unfeigned study of that little book of Scriptures which alone if thou wilt be admonished by it is able to make thee and them that hear thee wise enough unto salvation Thou speakest what thou hast seen of thy fathers we speak what we have seen of our Fathers what thine teach in their books we regard not quâ ipsi dixerint unless quâ dictum prius by our Fathers if they teach no other then what our Fathers teach in theirs it is no more then what thou having the same Scripture the same liberty to search the same promise of the same spirit to guide the same accesse to God in prayer for it mayest learn not at second hand from them but at first hand from thence as easily as themselves but when they go aside from that and thou with them and thine with thee a venture this seems no other to me then Ignis fatuus with a false flash going before and Ignoramus fatnus with his false faith and a number of ignorants following after Thou tellest us of thy novel antiquity of Counsels National Oecumenicall of Churches Greek and Latin of Fathes Austin Gregory c. and yet confessest thy self that particular Churches have erred and may erre and if all particulars then why the universal which consists of all particulars cannot thou canst not prove and that generall councels which the School-men term the representative Church are subâ—ect to error and have sometimes decreed heresie and falshood for truth thou confessest by Dr. Featley p. 17. of his figment And that none of the fathers nor yet the joint consent of many is a competent judge for faith to hang upon concerning the right of things is confest by Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood and yet to go round again thou ventest thy self out of the mouthes of others as if their verdict were enough to warrant and canonize all that for verity that is vented by them Tell us therefore no more as Dr. Featley doth of Gregory nor yet of Gregory the great whose testimonies if they were for thee but now I think on t they are not for
purpose but nothing to their own viz. that when Christ saies go reach and baptize and he that believeth and is baptized in these expressions he speaks of persons at years not of infants for such must be taught first but that hinders not but that infants may be baptized before teaching and this is the very common wind away of you all to all whom as to them then so I say now again if the Scriptures and commands of your own assigning do speak of persons at age onely and there 's no mention at all of children in either of them for in those words Dr. Featley expresses all your minds concerning Mat. 28. Mark 16. when brought by us against infant baptism where are the Scriptures that do mention infants so as to institute their baptism if I should assert this that Christ commanded that infants should eat at his table and being put to assign what Scripture it s commanded in should name 1 Cor. 11.28 and when it s argued against me to the contrary saying that place permits them onely to come that can examine themselves as infants cannot therefore t is no command for infants to come should answer thus viz. there 's no mention at all of children in that text much lesse any prohibition of infants to come when Paul saies let a man examine himself he speaks of persons at years onely but that hinders not why infants may not come without self-examination would you not say I were half out of my wits yet thus do you all almost as well concerning places of your own assigning as those we bring viz. Mat. 28. Mark 16.16 Act. 2. Repent and be baptized Act. 8. if thou believest thou maiest return thus viz. those phrases speak of adult ones and not of infants and so say I of these and every Scripture else that speaks of baptism and I trow where is that place that makes mention of any such thing as the baptism of infants Secondly in president of which you send us to the housholds wherein your selves cannot tell that there was any infant therein at all which is as much as to say and urge ab exemplo thus viz. t is not certain by any one instance thereof that any one infant was baptized in those housholds which are said to be baptized in the primitive times Ergo no doubt but by the same example infants ought to be baptized now Again some of you urge Mat. 28. as the institution of Christ for baptizing men of ripe years at least yea and infants also as Mr. Marshall some of you again deny this saying that Mat. 28. is not an exact platform of Christs commission concerning the matter or subject of the administration of baptism as Dr. Holms p. 7. both which men direct their different doctrines to Mr. Tombes in order to his direction but how shall that man be resolved which shall he cleave to whose words shall he take the Doctors or the Divines Again some of you say that semen carnis a fleshly seed is intituled to the promise for even this seed with you is semen fidei some of you say semen sidei the spiritual seed onely i. e. as many as are of the faith and so faith the Scripture are blessed with faithfull Abraham but then semen fidei with you is no other but semen carnis the fleshly seed and that of such too as are Abrahams seed not after the flesh nor after the faith neither thus you wander in a wood and trace too and fro in a thicket moap up and down in a myst are rapt up in a cloud of confusion contradiction and unanswerablenesse about the proof of a popish practise dancing round and crossing the way one of another ever and anon and yet ken it not nor consider how all mens eyes that are but half open are half amazed at your shufles Again some of you pin your practise upon the score of the infants faith and of these again there are several subdivisions for some ground it on seminall faith onely i. e. the habit or on infants having faith denying utterly their capacity to act it i. e. to believe as Mr. Willcock and many more Some again deny that they do build it upon seminall faith but say they go upon more certain grounds as Mr. Blake p. 24. to Mr. Blackwood who saith of faith in the root or of this semniall faith this faith is not our ground for infants baptism being undiscernable Some again upon their acting faith which they assert infants capable to do though against their wills as well as to have it as to the clear contradiction of themselves Mr. Willcock and many more do whilst they with him and he with them speak of children in this phrase viz. that they do believe and thus they speak whilest they interpret that clause Mat. 18.6 i. e. these little ones which believe in me of little ones litterally taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere i. e. to believe expresses not the habit onely but the act of faith as to know to read to teach to love to learn do sound out non munus non actum primum onely but actum secundum also Some of you again put that practise upon score of the parents faith not the childs and of these which are also subdivided some the faith of the next parents onely as Dr Holmes who in his to Mr. Tombes p. 216.217 saith thus the children are not to be baptized whilst the next parents are unbelievers i. e. though the grand parents be believers and Mr. Cotton also who p. 87. of his book stiled the way of the Churches of New England saith thus God never allowed his Church any warrant to receive into Covenant the children of godly parents who lived a thousand years ago nay rather the text is plain that the holynesse of the children dâ—pendeth upon the faith of the next immediate parents or one of them at least as if the seed of parents were not their seed at two or three generations off others the faith of the remote parents as Mr. Rutherford Pres. p. 164 where he saith all infants born in the visible Church what ere the wickednesse of the neerest parents is are to be received into the Church by baptism yea p. 173 Joshua had commandement of God to give the seal of the Covenant to their children who were as openly wicked against the Lord as murderers drunkerds swearers c. also Mr. Marshall and Mr. Baily who commends Mr. Cottons learâ—ed maintenance of infants sprinkling in p. 132 and yet contradicts him in this thing no further off then p. 134. saying although the parents are wicked meaning the immediate parents yet the Lords interest is in the children i. e not of the 3 â— and 4 th but of the 1000 th generation and by this shift the Ishmaâ—â—â—ts the Edomites the Turks are of Abraham though not of Isaac and so Gods by birth yea we and the whole world are of Noah though not of Abraham and
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
lapsus Calami when t was penned yet t was lapsus animi and Error mentis too to let it passe uncorrected when t was printed but most of all when t was corrected after the presse for verily among all the printers mistakes which you hint to me in that corrected copy you sent me when you summoned me to answer your Pamphlet there 's no mention of this mistake of the penman who cannot impute this as an oversight of the printer but of the overseers themselves which weakness to conclude with you in your own kind may serve to conclude against the exercise and eminency of your Reason though not against the being of Reason in you at all Review 3 Why are they not after admitted to the supper Because the Apostle expressely requires of every one that comes to examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 If any such thing were required of all that are to be baptized they might lawfully be barred from that Re-Review Here reason demands of you why after baptism you admit not infants to the supper and good reason too for cui signum et signatum is a pigg of your own sow and I add cui admissio et accessio per et post baptismum cui incorporatio ei continuatio progressio corporis communio fractione panis et precibus Acts 2.42 cui nativitas ei facultas auctrix nutrix et quare non nutrimentum He that hath the thing signified as infants of believers appear it seems to have to you but not to us more then other infants i. e. indeed not at all must have the sign he that hath membership must have fellowship in things pertaining to the body he that is once born growes and is nourished yea to speak in Mr. Blakes phrase being of the houshold they must have of the food of the houshold the stewards of the mysteries of God must be accountable in case they do deny it why therefore should not infants have the supper Babist In answer to which I tell you that baptism is an initial sacrament of our spiritual birth and entrance onely into the Church of both which infants being capable in token thereof must be baptized so soon as they are born specially of spiritual parents though that be but a fleshly birth neither that hath no more appearance of the spirit or spiritualnesse in it then is in the birth of the children of the most carnall in the world but the supper is a sacrament of our spiritual growth nourishment continuance further establishment c. of which infants being not so capable are consequently not capable of the supper till they come to age and become men of some growth Baptist. As if there is not a growth ensuing every birth even the spiritual as well as the naturall and as if every babe as well spiritually as naturally born doth not continue and desire the sincere milk i. e. to suck and receive nourishment and relief as if Mr. Blake were out and so I suppose he is but not that he supposes himself so to be in saying to the confutation of his fellow helpers as he doth p. 32. that children of believers have such timly knowledge of God as to be sucking in somewhat of him whilst they suck milk from the breast which if it be true then if one sign belong to them the other doth also because the things signified severally in both do belong and they are as capable to eat and to drink as to be dipt and to know the meaning of one as of the other and in order to the one i. e. the supper as capable to examine themselves as to believe with all their hearts in order to the other i. e. baptism why therefore not have that sacrament of their spiritual nourishment as well as that sacrament of their spiritual birth but if it be false then besides the untruth of Mr. Blakes testimony there is sure no such thing in infants as spirituall growth and nourishment and so consequently in infancy no spiritual birth neither and so no right in token of either to be admitted either to one sacrament or the other but your reply to Reason in this place is this viz. self-examination is to praecede in the subjects of the supper no such matter in the subjects of baptism No Sirs are not repentance from dead works and belief towards God with all the heart and confession of sins and calling on God such kind of matters is not self-examination ever praevious to repentance Lam. 3.40 Let us search and try and turn was there ever any confession of sin without it yet these things are all required in order unto baptism Doth not Philip to one that askt him this question why may I not be baptized return this answer if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest and doth not that imply that else he might not as much as let a man examine himself and so let him eat is as much as to say or else he may not Babist That was spoken by Philip first to a man and not to an infant secondly to one man onely and not to all Baptist. Was not that of Paul spoken of man onely at years yet is it reckoned by you exclusive of infants and why not Philips also Secondly if Philip spake but to one single man and Ananias to another when the one said if thou believest thou mayest be baptized and the other arise and be baptized calling on the Lord c. yet Iohn baptist spake to more then one even to all the people that came forth to his baptism or to be baptized of him when he said repent and amend your lives and they did so and were baptized of him in Iordan accordingly confessing their sins i. e. they that were at all baptized by him and Peter said repent as well as be baptized to all that he preacht to yea repent every one of you exempting no one from repentance to whom he enjoined baptism and they did so and were baptized accordingly i. e. as many no more for else it s a fallacious relation as gladly received his word that did not infants therefore all this is also as exclusive of them from baptism surely as let a man examine himself and so let him eat is exclusive of them from the supper or else I le never trust reason more but fâ—rgo it and become as reasonlesse as your selves To conclude then in granting positively that without self-examination there is no right of accesse to the supper and also in granting it suppositively that if there be any thing equivalent to that required of all that are to be baptized then infants may lawfully be barred from baptism you answer as answerably to reason as men can do or even reason it self but in supposing that no such thing as self-examination is required in order to baptism as it is to the receiving of the supper you wretchedly bewray your self-non-examination of the Scripture Review 4. When they come to ripe
the principle of reason and facultie of understanding in infants the faculty of understanding is an innate habit necessarily to be concluded and that in the highest degree to be in all infants t is in omni per se quâ ipsum but faith in Christ is by your own confession but an infused habit and by your own confession as not in all infants so in you know not which and which not till you see them act it and yet by your own conclusion to go round again t is in such not in such viz. not at all in Turks and Pagans infants for they are all in a damnable condition with you but in all infants of Christians even such as yet give no specimen of it and that so necessarily that a man may as truly deny that which is naturall to them even the faculty of understanding as deny the habit of faith to be in them Next in order to a fuller and more direct answer you prepare the way by a pannel of six or seven positions which you say you must necessarily hold concerning two or three of which we may say it s no great matter whether you hold them or no for any undoubted and infallible truth that is to be found in them in the sense wherein you take them or at least for any great matter of assistance that acrues to your cause by them and as for the rest of which you say you must necessarily hold them you might have said rather you must necessarily yield them to us for indeed they are the giving up of your cause and no other then the drawing of a dash with your own pen over all that ever you say throughout the residue of your works as concerning that sufficient appearance of faith you assert to be in believers infants yea he is blind that doth not see you thereby perfectly blotting out again what ever you penned in that particular with your own hands First say you the habit of faith must be before it can work I know no necessity of holding this for truth neither indeed would you hold it but that you imagine faith to be another kind of habit then it is for there are more kinds of habits then one though you speak of habit by the lump all along as if you were aware of but one for here 's ore and ore again habit habit habit habit habit but not the least hint of what kind of habit you mean you are never the men that distinguish of habits whereas qui bene distinguit bene docet there being some habits acquired and obtained no otherwise then by acting and faith it self is such a habit as will hardly be proved for all your confidence in the contrary to be any other at least to be apparent in any one or visible to the view of others till some act thereof hath past the persons in whom it is neither is any one in the world that I know of habitually a believer in Christ till having heard of him or his word he doth actually believe Secondly whereas you say the spirit of God infuses this habit I grant he infuses it if you take the word infuse in a true sense i. e. for begetting it in persons by the preaching of the word other infusion of faith if yet that may be properly called infusion which is a phrase rather of your own coining in this case the word knows none God indeed gives it but he gives it in the way of hearing the word of faith in the way of hearing Christ preached in which way he never gave it to infants neither is it his gift to them in any other the spirit works it but not without the use of means not per saltum and in nictu oculi i. e. so suddenly as you fancy but by the discharge of that office he bears from the father to that end and purpose towards the whole world i. e. moving striving perswading inwardly whilest the word doth without inlightning convincing a man of sin in himself of righteousness to be had and of a judgement to come wherein we shall be saved or damned according as we believe or believe not accept or neglect so great salvation upon which motions and convictions which are â—tricter and stronger in some then in other some some yield and believe and obey the Gospel and some for all this rebel and obey not so that t is true the spirit thus effects the business within us yet not so as that he is said wholly to do it without us he is the supreme efficient the operative cause of it but we are to be concurrent cum causà operante we have a part to do as well as he when he hath done his part towards us i. e. to believe which if we do not he will not force us he will go no further nor shall he be blamed but we and we not onely blamed but damnd for not doing it accordingly but if we do believe and turn at his reproof then indeed there is a promise of an infusion or rather effusion of the spirit in other i. e. those more special and peculiar offices of a witnesse to our spirits that we are Gods children a seal a comforter a revealer of the things freely given us of God a supporter under suffering c. all which it performes towards the Saints and in â—espect of which onely its called the holy spirit of promise Eph. 1.13 in this manner the spirit of God in order to that sweet infusion of it self into us may be said if you will call it infusion for which a fitter word may be found to infâ—se i. e. to work faith other infuâ—ion of faith into men much lesse into iâ—fants or such a downright infusion as I suppose you dream on the Scripture makes no mention of at all Thirdly in that you say he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor barred from working it in any of the children of infideâ—â— this indeed you must necessarily hold as you say for t is undeniable truth but in holding it you must wholly let go all you held before concerning believes infants appearing to have faith and that in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers for first you use to say as p. 14. out of Act. 2. that the promise of it is to believers and their seed i. e. as believers seed and so consequently to all and onely their seed not the seed of unbelievers for quod convenit qua ipsum convenit omâ—â— soli semper belongs alwayes to all of one sort and not any man of another and thereby you use to bind the spirit unlesse he will bee unfaithfull to work faith as without which you think he cannot give them salvation in all the seed of believers for a promise that is made to such or such a seed qua si must needs be sure as the Scripture saith Romans 4.16 and made good or else God that cannot lie breaketh his word to
signifies and not to sprinkle and therefore that I may rouze all those people into a remembrance of this matter whose Priests deceive them and draw them to dream that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to dipp to sprinkle which some whether it be of that ignorance of the truth that cleaves and accrues to the common sort of Priests through their taking things upon trust and tradition one from another without tryal or of meer malice making them willfully to hide the truth after they have received the knowledge of it I know not God knowes but some I say stick not still as much as they can to make their people believe it But to awaken such to some attention to the Heterodoxness of their Priests as well as all waies to the Orthodoxness of them I here summon all the priests in Christendome out of either Stephanus or Scapula the two Greek Lexicons that are in so great request and of such ordinary use among you and such friends to your selves as you may see by the bitter invectives of both of them against us as Anabaptists as a Diobolicall sect and therefore would favour your cause as far as in conscience they could to shew the contrary to what I here have said viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eiher doth not signify a totall dipping of the immediâ—te subject that is denominated baptized or dipped by it or that it ever signified such a thing as sprinkling at all Yea the word that signifies to sprinkle is another word viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is ever used in Scripture by the spirit when he speaks of such a thing as sprinkling yea t is used three times in one chapter viz. Heb. 9.13.19.21 and is all along englished by sprinkling neither is there any one place of Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered to baptize or used to signify baptizing neither is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred sprinkling or used to signify such a thing as sprinkling not is there any reason why it should be so rendred specially if you consider Secondly The Non Identity and deep diversity that is between these two actions viz. Sprinkling and Baptizing Anglicè dipping by which as by a second Argument its most plain that sprinkling is not only not the baptism of Christ but in truth no baptism at all and so consequently that he is properly no-Anabaptist who baptizeth them that were but sprinkled and he Ano-Baptist that doth but sprinkle Rantist Our sprinkling is baptizing as well as your dipping and these two are one say you what you will Baptist. I tell you and you will see it at last that as Christ hath but one water baptism and as he hath by appointment but one subject for that one baptism and not two kinds of subjects as you dream viz. a believer only and not both a believer and a believers seed so he hath but one true way and essential form wherin that one Baptism is to be dispensed and that is baptizing Anglicè dipping and not two waies forms or dispensations of it specifically and essentially distinct from each other so that they are not so much as in speciall kind the same but sprinkling and baptizing alias dipping are truly two waies two forms two actions two kinds of actions â—o really different in their essentials so specifically diversified in their nature as actions that even homo and brutum which he is a brute that will say are all one and the same do not differ more essentially in Praedicamento Substantiae then sprinkling and baptizing alias dipping do differ in the Praedicament of action and therefore they cannot be called one and the same T is true all things that are are the same in general i. e. genere remoto for Ens dividitur in omnia so that all things that are are equally denominated entia i. e. things that are so a man and a beast in genere proximo they are both Animals yet are they not so all one as that the one may be universally understood by the naming of the other nor the one denominated by the other so as to say a man is a beast and a beast is a man they are one in genere two in specie and the like may be said of dipping and sprinkling which are two dividing members of one and the same general as Homo and Brutum also are and as specifically distinct they are in genere remoto both actions yea they are in genere proximo both wettings with water yet are they not one kind of action or wetting in specie nor all one so as the one may be universally used and done instead of the other and yet the business be as well done or both done and yet but one and the same thing done but one and the same word of command obeyed in so doing nor so as that the one may be as well understood as the other when eiâ—her of them is exprest nor so as to be denominated properly by each other nor so as that the one is the other but all actions that are so specifically the same as sprinkling and baptizing alià s dipping are made to be with you are so as that they may be indifferently promiscuously universally used and done one in the room of the other and yet no other then the self same thing in specie is done still as much as if we had used or performed the other yea so as they may be properly denominated one by the other so as that in specie one is the other so as that in speech sense and signification they are so alike that it matters not which term you use or which of the two you speak by for the sense will still remain the same and stand perfect sound and entire and the sentence have no non-sence at all in it notwithstand e. g. smiting and striking or to smite and strike to be smitten and stricken are all one and may be denominated one of the other so as that one is the other and though here are two terms yet but one thing is exprest thereby and the sentence you place them in may be without non-sense and as entirely the same as before if you use one of them in the room of the other as he mas stricken or he was smitten are the same in sense yea universally in all speech where you may use the word smite you may use the woâ—d strike and both the sense and matter signified thereby will still be the same But now so it is not between sprinkling and baptizing t is so indeed beâ—ween baptizing and dipping baptizing and overwhelming with water baptizing and putting under water baptizing and dousing or plunging ore head these are all one they all denote the very same kind of action the very same kind of wetting with water and though here be a difference in terms yet t is in word onely not in deed the distinction is onely nominall not
real not specifical not essentially formal for take any sentence of Scripture that hath speaking of water baptism the word baptized in it and you shall find any of the other terms in sence coincident with it and consistent properly in the room of it in speech and signification as Mark. 3.5 t is said of the people they were baptized of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins it may as properly be said they were overwhelmed dipped plunged ore head put under water by Iohn in Iordan but t is scarce propriety of speech to say they were spâ—inkled of Iohn in Iordan Rantist No do we not in common loquution say the same while we say sprinkled in a font or in a Bason Baptist. I confess in common loquution we speak so as brevitatis gratiâ we do improperly many times in other cases yet is it scarce so proper as to say sprinkled with water out of a font or bason but however Mark 1.7 t is said of Christ that he was baptized of Iohn into Iordan now I am sure you may say sensibly enough he was dipped plunged of Iohn into Iordan but it cannot be said without most palpable non-sense he was sprinkled of Iohn into Iordan therefore certainly the form of Christs own baptism then which we cannot have better president for ours was dipping as ours is and not such a simple sort of sprinkling as is still in use among your selves in the doing of which you do not onely as is evident by the premisses another thing then that which was dispenst to Christ and enjoined by Christ to be dispensed but indeed as toward the fulfilling his command in that ordinance you do plainly nothing at all that you shall be accepted in for your labour for in vain you practise another thing as in obedience to him neglecting what he hath required which he never required at your hands and such is that sprinkling which by custome in the corruption of the times came superstitiously to bear the name of baptizing and then by little and little till it had wholly worn it out of the world to be practised and passe for currant instead out and this I will give you some account of too sith I have given you the hint out for in Cyprians time people being overgrown with such a superstition as because baptism was the token to them of remission of their sinnes therefore they would commonly after conversion delay their submission to that dispensation till toward their latter end as neer as they could ghesse it approaching on them that they might thereby have evidence of remission of all their sinnes at once fearing if they should be baptized before least they should sinne again and so spoil all the comfort they received by baptism so far were persons from posting as they do now a daies to dispense baptism in infancy to their infants that they at years did too much delay their own hereupon it came to passe not seldome that the procrastinators of baptism were taken with sicknesse on a sudden and confined to their beds unawares before they could be baptized in which case not knowing how to be baptized in that manner wherein t was usually dispensed i. e. by dipping in places of much water and yet unwilling withall to dye without it they sent to Cyprian who was the oracle of his time to be resolved whether in such a pressing case as this was wherein they were as unwilling to die without Baptism as uncapable to be baptized as they should be it might not as well serve the turn and be counted sufficient baptism to have a little water applied to them or sprinkled upon them in their beds to this the good man being loath to leave poor sick soules upon the wrack whom he saw somewhat affraid to die unbaptized returnes his opinion to this purpose viz. that in this case wherein without manifest hazzard of the sick persons life it could not be so well done as it should it should be done as well as it could and that they might have some application of the element to them in their beds which if they died at that time should passe for currant and be counted lawful baptism Neverthelesse saith he himself if they happen to be restored to health again let them be had to the River and there be dipped He that doubts of this may read it in Cyprians own Epistle to 〈◊〉 who wrote to him about the case So that we see he judged it fit to be done ore again to be done better to be done indeed if they lived but if they then died he allowed it to be called Baptism though it was none in favour to the weak rather then otherwise And here now comes in the first Rise of your Rantism and no small occasion I believe if it were before begun of the growth of your Babism also for when the needle was once so clearly entred how easily would the thred follow after when it had once past through the mouth of a man so reverend and respected in his generation as Cyprian was that it was baptism enough to be sprinkled onely in such a case how easily might not onely every tender person that is loath to dipp the foot in cold water but even every person also that will do no more then needs must against the will of the flesh mistake it so far as to make it serve the turn in every case and when such an easie kind of baptism as thaâ— was was grown into use that could be no more dangerous to infants then to men how willingly would all persons specially those of that gang that grew apace a little after for Cyprian himself and 66 Bishops more gave ground for it when in a certain councel they gave this ground for infant baptism viz. because so farre as lies in us no soul is to be destroyed who held baptism in such necessity as to say it saved ex opero operatio how willingly I say would they imbrace such an easie and such a necessary baptism not onely for themselves but for their infants also But to return I pray pardon this digression this sprinkling which you use is not baptism or at least not the baptism of Christ Cypriano Iudice let Cyprian judge of it for if it were he would not have required persons to be baptized after it in case conveniently they could Rantist Miscarriage in the manner of baptism doth not nullify the matter it self neither doth an error in meer circumstance annihillate the substance of the ordinance so but that its baptism and stands Christs ordinance still Baptist. True miscarriage in the meer manner of doing any thing doth not null that thing if that very thing be done indeed which we wot of though error in bare circumstance and such it seems you confesse your retained Rantism to be is too abominable to persist in but miscarriage in the matter of a thing and such grosse miscarriage as makes it another matter or thing and such
as the other they that are baptized with the spirit and fire are also baptized in the spirit and in fire and put into the spirit and into fire i. e. wholly into a holy flame of zeal for God and the Gospel for that 's the baptism with fire that is there mainly spoken of and not as the Dr. divines that outward appearance of cloven tongues onely like as of fire that sat upon them in the assembly Act. 2.3 for that was but a special accidentall visible token of Gods presence extraordinarily appearing among those particular persons at that time baptizing them inwardly with the other which is no more necessarily incident to all persons that are baptized with fire and to all those unto whom that baptism with fire is promised which are indeed all the Saints that repent and believe the Gospel as well as those that were met on the day of Pentecost as we see Mat. 3.11 where Iohn promises the baptism with fire as well as with the spirit to all penitents most of which never had that vision of cloven tongues which appearance of cloven tongues I say is no more incident to nor to be expected by all that are baptized with fire then the appearance of the spirit descending in shape of a dove and lighting upon Christ at the time when he was baptized or filled with the spirit which was much vvhat such another special casual and visible token of Gods presence as the other is incident to or to be expected by all those that are baptized i. e. filled vvith the holy spirit and albeit this phrase in the spirit may seem to sound so non-sensically to Mr Cook out of our mouthes that are a people of no account vvith him yet I hope it shall seem congruous enough out of the mouth of the holy spirit and the holy Apostles themselves for they use it more then once or twice in the holy Scripture and me thinks he should not be unlesse he be willingly ignorant of it for not onely doth Iohn say twice viz. Rev. 1.10.17.3 of himself in this manner viz. I was in the spirit and he carried me away in the spirit but likewise Paul saies plainly to all Saints Gal. 5.6 walk in the spirit and to himself and all Saints v. 25. if we live in the spirit let us walk in the spirit and testifies of the Saints also Rom. 8.9 that they are not in the flesh but in the spirit if the spirit of God dwell in them where by in the flesh he means all over all together or totally fleshly drenched drowned in flesh plunged over head and ears as it were in flesh filth and corruption as the world is that lies in wickednesse so that there is nothing but flesh to be seen upon them as he is that is buried in water whom that Element hath wholly covered and by being in the spirit no other then that which is the baptism with the spirit i. e. being indued with the spirit wholly sanctified in every part though but in part with the spirit all over seasoned washed clensed by the spirit for thus he is that is baptized with the spirit i. e. he is in the spirit as well as the spirit in him More then this yet though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred with as well as in for t is both with and in water that we are baptized when we are baptized as we should be when it stands between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that we may read it as well I baptize you with water as in water yet can it not be very properly read so when it stands between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet so it stands Mat. 3.6 Mark 1.5 for though I can bear with him that saies thus viz. Iohn baptized with water yet he that shall say that Iohn baptized with Iordan or with the River Iordan as if all Iordan was used to every ones baptizing rather then in Iordan and in the River Iordan I shall think that his braines crow out nonsense which is intolerable Whereupon as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Translators do there English it in and not with and though I can read it with together with them as well as in when the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet by their leave and with non-submission to their judgements as no way sleighting them further then I find them not fallible and saving both the Dr. and Mr. Cooks conceits to the contrary I see no reason sith one of those places is a relation of the same thing with the other but that as Mat. 3.6 Mat. 5.1 we must read thus viz. they were baptized of Iohn in the River Iordan so we may without such uncouth utterance of the thing as seems to them to be in it yea and as agreeably to Scripture language as otherwise read Mat 3.11 Mar. 1.8 thus viz. I indeed baptize you in water but he shall baptize you in the holy spirit and fire But more then all this yet though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is used in those places may without any advantage to you be read with as well as in yet the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used Mark 1.9 where it is said that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan that cannot possibly be rendred with which yet in the intent of the spirit is doubtlesse the same in sense and signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the other and more significant to our purpose for howbeit it be rendred in Iordan as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is elsewhere yet into Iordan were more agreeable to that rendition of it that is usuall in other places but so to read it viz. he was baptized of Iohn into Iordan doth render your sprinkling a plain piece of Nonsence for it cannot be sensibly said he was sprinkled into Iordan therefore you will in no wise give way to that the Doctor indeed leaves A. R. and bids him farewell in that point as if he were affraid to have any noise of it and saies not a word against it but Mr. Cook and Mr Blake who saves himself a labor uses not a jo◠more then what Mr. Cook furnishes him with to that purpose do both sternuously stand against the reading of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 1.9 by into Mr. Cook p. 14. and Mr Blake p. 4. of their respective returns to A. R. and Mr. Blackwood who both make mention of that passage yet the utmost that both these repugnants bring against it is of no more force then a very feather for all that they say is this that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth often signify in or by and not into as Mat. 2.23 Mark 4.13 Mat. 5.45 Mat 10.9.11.13.33 he dwelt in Nazareth in Capernaum neither by Ierusalem c. neither possesse mony in your
respected in baptism for not onely purgation but also mortification and the dying of the old man is proposed there c. And of spiritual circumcision Paul maketh two parts saith Zanchee the first he calleth buriall with Christ the other resurrection with him and of both these he maketh baptism the sign c. Neverthelesse our above named opposers will at no hand give way that there should be any representation or resemblance made in baptism of these two things which are the prime significations of it by putting under water and plucking out again yea they seem to chide with their several Antagonists A. R. and C. B. for offering once to urge that the outward sign ought to hold analogy or proportion with the thing signified in that particular A proportion between the sign and these things signified viz. a death burial and resurrection Mr. Blake grants there is in our way of baptism by dipping but that there need be or should be so by institution this he heares not of with patience no nor Mr. Cook neither But if it please you to have patience with me so long sith those two are the maine men that beside the Doctor whose repulse is not worth a rush so mainly oppose our Argument from Rom. 6. Col. 2. I le take the paines to transcribe their several replies and then see what strength there is in all that they say to the contrary Mr. Cooks defence is as followes What you go about to gather saith he from Col. 2.12 Rom. 6.4 I know not unlesse this that as Christ was buried abode in the grave three daies and then rose again So your party baptized must be put under the water abide there some considerable time and then come up again for if you presse a similitude of Christs death in going down into the water and of his resurrection or comming up out of the water why not also of his abode three daies by abiding three daies or some considerable time under the water which will make bad work neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scriptures I would demand two Questions saith he 1. How you gather from these places a dipping of the whole man over head and under water and that a similitude of Christs death burial and rising again to be represented by dipping in water is signified here these Scriptures shew indeed that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with him in his death and resurrection by which we are dead to sin and raised again to holinesse but if you will presse hence a resurrection by our descending into abiding in and comming up out of the water take heed least you be one of those which adde to Gods word least he reprove you as a lyar and adde unto you the plagues written in his book for I know no word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implyed much lesse expressed Besides if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by descension into and ascension out of the water you must urge also burial which is principally there expressed by the biding of the whole man head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three daies burial which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning 2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures those few that were in the Ark only excepted were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion not by dipping so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping and to the preservation of Noah and those that were with him in the Ark on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptism as its Anti-type Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16 17. And then again p. 19 20.21 he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large and to prove that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things that are signified therby then it may be as well nay must be rather by washing pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water sprinkling and infusion being as if not more agreeable to the nature and instiâ—ution of baptism then dipping or immersion for as the word used i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing so the thing represented signifyed and sealed saith he in the wonted implicit phrase in baptism is a washing 1 Cor. 6.11 ye are washed c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10.22 t is a cleansing and purging 1 John 1.7 blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9.14 blood of Christ shall purge your conscience which things viz. washing clensing purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping and though it were granted saith he that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water and being dipt therein that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now then the examples of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying but it may be objected saith he that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there the face or head onely I answer first saith he the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly with as good reason one may plead thus that t is most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as his stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who would endure saith he such reasoning These outward elements of water bread and wine are for spiritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing yea the spirituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism viz. The application of Christs blood and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring sprinkling and that probably if not certainly with allusion to
among flatternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them and I am sure there 's no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling which is any ingredient to your dispensation for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed not on but off and so as that is no washing so if it were I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of baptism Besides both sprinkling and powring are vertualy implied in plunging and burying in water but these are not at all supposed in the other every lesser wetting being contained and included in the greater not so the greater in the lesse Fiftly which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. daies under water answerable to Christs 3 daies buriall if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death burial and resurrection is so fond that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile currit quatuor no similitude answers in all things besides t is the truth and substance of the thing not the circumstance or quantity of time of abode which is to be respected here for a burial is as true a burial when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element wherein he is buried as if he abode 3. daies and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water as if one continued under altogether and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive then if one lay till he were altogether dead Sixthly and lastly which assertion of his uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body is so much the more savouring of either ignorance or forgetfulnesse in him or both by how much one of the very Scriptures that are quoted by himself as speaking in reference to baptism doth require it for its said Heb. 10.22 let us draw neer with a true heart c. and having our bodies washed with pure water which clause if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is requires not a sprinkling but a washing and that 's more then your sprinkling is and this too not of the face only which is the only part you sprinkle but of our bodies which word whether we shall take properly to signifie the whole body indeed or run to figurative acceptations when we need not and take the body by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part to signifie so small a part as the face only I need not wish a wise man to determine for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies Rantist But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must before I believe or receive it that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all that 's the thing I wait to see proved for let Mr. Cook make what suppositions and grants he will of a resemblance yet I see no reason at all to urge a necessity of such a thing nor will I speak so much as ex hypothesi if there must be for none need be â—or ought I know What I hope there are an hundred signes of things which have not any analogy at all with those things they signifie Baptist. Having thus blown away the strange mist whereby Mr. Cook endeavoured to thicken the air so that men might not discern clearly the true intent of those Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. nor the truth at all in this point of total dipping I come now in answer to his and your and Mr. Blakes flat denial of any word or warrant for any representation and also to his demand p. 27. to shew how we gather from reason and your own authors and those very Sciptures you oppose the diping of the whole man over the head and under the water and that a similitude of Christs death burial and rising again to be represented by dipping into the water is signified there But first I must tell you I observe you know not greatly what to say among you against our urgings of a resemblance of Christs death and burial and resurrection from these Scriptures for some of you stand it out as much as you well can that there is not to be any representation of a death and resurrection as Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook both do the Dr. keeping at such a distance from it that to fence it farr enough from him he denies any such thing to be so much as signified Mr. Cook yielding that that very thing among others is signified and that the spiritual grace or thing signified is to be represented too only you must excuse him as to that piece of the spiritual grace all the rest but that he will give way to have resembled but fearing least it can hardly be so cleerly evaded but that t wil needs be proved against them that a death burial and resurrection must be represented they fall a proving it that there may be and is a death burial and resurrection reselmbled in their way of sprinkling and infusion as much if not more then in our way of dipping but either of them shift for themselves in severall wayes the Drs way wherein he proves there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in the manner of baptism as it is administred in the Church of England is this though the child be not dipped in water himself saith he yet the minister dippeth his hand in water und plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant where note that the Doctor doth conceive that though sprinkling may serve to represent a death and resurrection as well as our dipping yet it is upon this absurd account viz. in that there is a certain dipping accompanies their sprinkling whereby that resemblance is made viz. the divping the hand of the Administrator but Mr. Cook though he be not so gross as to imagine with the Dr. that the burying of the ministers hand wiâ—l serve instead of burying the persons body which is if any burial be at all to be buried in baptism yet he is as grosse in his conception another way while he goes about to prove sprinkling or infusion it self to resemble a death burial and resurrection as sufficiently as dipping and this too by such a coined Chymaera such a crude and immature imagination as is ridiculous viz. of the old worlds being drowned and buried by no more then sprinkling and the fall of rain for verily neither was the rain a resemblance of a death burial and resurrection or any thing like thereto nor yet was it the rain but the overflowing of waters by reason of the rain that drowned them and though that orewhelming was a lively emblem of death and burial as baptism is to be yet there was nothing that resembled a
say however in this point and hold it fast too if by the word you find it to be good I come therefore to consider that which first occasioned all this discourse and to see if such a matter as a death burial and resurection of Christ be not here expressed or at least implyed neither of which yet is granted by Mr. Cook or Mr. Blake as things to which true baptism is to bear some resemblance and here let me tell you though you and the rest are engaged to make the best of your rantism now you see it questioned and have begun in the face of the world to defend it will sooth men up and tell them there is none but the Anabaptists gather that there must be a representation of death burial and resurrection from those places and such like yet we are not alone in our assertions even from those places that these are to be resembled for some that wrote impartially upon the places Rom. 6. Col. 2. even of your own way before the matter came so much in question have shewed their sense therof to be the same with ours as concerning the representation of all these witnesse one Mr. Thomas Wilson who in an exposition of his upon Rom. 6. declares from the 3 and 4 verses thereof in this manner That baptism is a pledge of our sanctification in all the parts of it thus the death of sin saith he is effectually represented by the water cast on us at our baptism though by his favor who was I perceive of Mr. Cooks conceit that infusion might serve turn not half so effectually as by the water overwhelming us the burial of sin by our being under the water and by our comming out of the water our arising out of our sins to a better life through the power of the holy spirit applying Christs death and burial for the beating down of our corrupt nature and his Resurrection for our quickening to godlinesse of living Thus he Neither is he alone in this sense upon these places but most if not all modern writers that do purposely or but occasionally touch upon these places as Calvin Vrsin Paraeus Tilenus Zanky c. do fully agree with him in this particular viz. that the lively resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection and of ours with him that is to be held forth in the administration of Baptism is among other things signified in those Scriptures and do with him expound the words baptized in his death buried with him in baptism into death wherein yee are also risen with him c. not of the things signified only viz. our Mortification of sin and rising to holinesse in a way of likeness to Christs death and resurrection but also of the oâ—tward right and form of administration of the sign it self to be done in a way of likenesse to them both so that we by that as by an image or lively resemblance may not only be kept in a lively remembrance of the matter of them but may bear the manner of those matters also in our minds Thus Calvin l. 4. c. 15. s. 5. Alterum fructum affert baptismus qui nostram in Christo Mortificationem ostendit c. id est another fruit of baptism is this it sets forth our death to sin in Christ and our new life in him fitly as the Gosspel saith Rom. 6.3 we are baptized into his death and buried with him in baptism into death that we might walk in a new life By which words he doth exhort us to an imitation of him as if he should say we are admonished by baptism that by a resemblance of Christs death we should dy to our lusts and by the example of his resurrection we should rise to righteousness c. Also l. 4. c. 16. s. 16. speaking against such as say no more then truth though Baptismum esse sepulturam in quam nulli nisi jam mortui tradendi sunt id est That Baptism is a form or way of burial with which none but such as are i. e. appear to be already dead to sin or to have repented from their dead works are to be buried And that he might vindicate infants who yet in infancy cannot dy to sin or repent from dead works tells us but believe him who will in that Nos jam ante Mortuos per baptismum sepeliri id est That persons are to be buried in baptism before they be dead before they repent or appear to have died to sin and to prove that he cotes this very place Rom 6.4 which the scripture saith he Deserte reclamet nos ea conditione in mortem sepeliri ut emoriamur ac mortificationem istam exinde meditemur i. e. very elegantly proclaims the contrary namely that we are buried in baptism into death on this very condition that we may die to sin and may even by that outward visible burial we have in baptism be minded of the duty of mortification Which Exposition is the truth yet not the whole truth nor yet so much as serves the turn Mr. Calvin brings it for t is true we are baptized into death or buried in baptism in token that we must and on this condition that we shall dy to sin yet not only so but also in token and on condition that we are dead in a measure or have repented already nor doth it follow because we are buried in baptism that we may and in token that we must die more and more to sin that therefore we are to be buried in baptism before we die to sin for we are to repent before baptism and after it also But however the truth that is in it is enough to serve our turn at present i. e. to prove his Judgement and ours to jump together as to the true intent and meaning of those phrases in the text viz. buried with him in baptism into death which both hee and we take to expresse the outward rite of baptism and that that outward rite be performed answerably to the name here given it in manner and form of a burial which cannot be without submersion and this too in token and as a resemblance of our death to sin and burial with Christ the signatum or thing signifyed and resembled which whether it go before or come with or after the sign is not material And though Mr. Calvin and we are twain and cannot agree whether we are to be baptized i. e. buried in baptism before we are dead to sin or after yet herein we meet in one with all other Expositors on this place so far as I find Mr Cook and Mr. Blake only excepted viz. that whether Mortui or Morituri we ought to be buried in baptism according to this place not spiritually only for that is the inward thing signifyed into which i. e. in token and resemblance of which we are outwardly buried but visibly and representatively also in the ceremony Much what to the same purpose speaks Calvin again about three
of divine Justice in which Christ for our sins sake which he took upon him was for a while in a manner swallowed up Abode under the water how little a while soever yet saies Mr. Cook it must be three daies answerable to Christ three daies burial or else it answers it not as a true resemblance of it at all denotes his descent into hell even the very deepest degree of lifelessenesse while lying in the sealed and guarded sepulchre he was accounted as one truly dead rising out of water holds out to us a lively simitude of that conquest which this dead man got over death which he vanquished in his own den as it were that is the grave in like manner therefore it is meet that we being baptized into his death and buried with him should rise also with him and so go on in a new life Rom. 6.3.4 Col. 2.12 that these things are signifyed unto us in baptism the very outward rites themselves do teach for immersion shadowes out to us the pravity of our nature dying in us in which our old man dies and is buried with Christ the progresse of which benefit putting forth its power in us by a little abode under the water points out even as rising out of the water sets forth a new life corruption being done away hence it is that baptism is called the washing of Regeneration and that whereby we are saved Titus 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 namely because what is done outwardly by the body in the sign the same is truly performed and confirmed to believers in the soul and even therefore both the names and properties of the sign and the thing signified are very often interchangeably attributed to each other by a Sacramentally metonimy Thus saith Tilenus in the forecited pages and some of this he repeats ore again page 1078. whereby you may guesse that in this his thoughts were well digested Form a Baptismi est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies he sive Relatio c. The Form of baptism is that Analogicall relation of the external and earthly which are the signes with the heavenly things or things signifyed this relation and most lively similitude that is between them is the cause why both the names and the properties of the signes and things signifyed are frequently given to one another by a familiar metonimy of the holy Scriptures wherein baptism is called the washing of regeneration and is said to save us saith he and in this respect also say I we are said to be buryed and raised in baptism in those places because of that lively resemblance of and likenesse to a burial and resurrection that ought by institution to be in the dispensation of baptism and that is in that institution if practised as ordained by Christ. Now who would think by all this but that this man had been baptized indeed i. e. dipped into buried under and brought out of the water in his baptism in remembrance and resemblance of Christs death resurrection and his own with him for how does he speak and that out of these Scriptures we are upon that we ought thus to be baptized and these things are exactly exemplified to us saith he as if he had the lively Effigies of all that was done to him in his baptism dwelling indelably in his mind as if he had been truly buried and raised visibly in baptism indeed and yet behold I believe I may be so bold as to guesse by what he saies in favour of infants sprinkling and by one thing or other that he was not baptized all this while but meerly a Rantist and none of us in practice though so much for the way of dipping in his discourses Rantist But quorsum haec what mean you by all this quotation of Authors Baptist. Because Damnati lingua vocem habet vim non habet the words and constructions of a condemned man that is prejudged to be a heretick before he is heard are like to sway but little among his Accusers and therefore I rather chose to convince Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake who deny these Scriptures either to expresse or imply a representation of death burial and resurrection to be held forth in baptism by immersion submersion emersion by the judgments of their own approved orthodox Authors then by my own judging within my self that those words of Paul Act. the 17.28 viz. as certain of your own poets have said was ad hominem an argument of more weight then an Argument of ten times more weight then it self and that if the joint harmony of Modern Divines holding forth from Rom. 6. Col. 2. a necessity of resemblance of burial and resurrection to be made in baptism by immersion submersion emersion be not considered the never so well grounded Testimony of my single silly self must needs be sleighted Neverthelesse whether you will hear or whether you will forbear I shall leave a word or two upon record whereby either to inlighten you that there is a resemblance of a burial and resurrection necessarily to be held forth in baptism and that no lesse is necessarily implyed at least in these two places Romans 6. and Coloss. 2. or else to leave you without excuse in your disownings of it For First this will appear plainly if it be considered that by the word baptized in the texts is undoubtedly meant the outward rite ceremony sign and form of the administration of baptism Secondly if it be considered that the phrase buried with him and risen with him i. e. Christ doth expressely relate immediately and specially if not onely in those texts to that outward sign it self as that in which taâ—en distinctly from the mistery and inward grace we are said to be buried and risen not onely in signification but in lively representation of the inward and spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ and not to the spiritual internal death and resurrection it self as that which is to be understood by those phrases at all muchlesse onely or altogether or abstractively and apart from any outward and bodily burial and resurrection in baptism as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake seeme too impishly to imagine Thirdly this appears yet further insomuch as there are other phrases in that 6 of the Rom. that do intimate and expresse that spirituall death and resurrection that is signified by the analogical and representative burial of the body in water and raising it again in baptism viz. dead to sin alive to God newnesse of life c. Here is mention made of the things signified And as for that that is spoken of under this expression buried in baptism t is delievered as a medium whereby as a motive whereupon as a reason wherefore as an image and representative wherein we are both to read and remember and also to practise and perform that other for do but mark how shall we saith he that are dead to sinne i. e. should be so live any longer therein know you not that as many of you as were baptized
the forenamed books that are extant specially that of Mr. Baxter whom I know to be a very able and godly man who hath in mine and I think in all discerning mens Apprehensions so sollidly disproved and clearly confuted your way of dipping that few or none of those that see what he saies in that point will be of your mind and follow your fashion therein for whereas you say that dipping was the custome in the first times and therefore go about to seduce men into the belief of it because it s said that the Eunuch went down into the water and that John baptized in Aenon because there was much water there he replies that is a thing never proved by any and that the Jaylor was baptized in the night in his own house and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey where water was so scarce and that the Eunuch might well be said to go down into the water for the Country was mountanous and the brooks in the bottoms and that even the River Aenon it self where Iohn baptized because there was much water is found by Travellers to be a small brook which a man might almost step over and much more that gainsaies much of what you have said is in the 135. page of his book which I shall expect your answer to but if you please le ts see what you can say to this first Baptist. I shall very freely speak to any thing which hath not yet been spoken to in particular and to Mr. Baxters exceptions in that particular rather then any other because he is most noted in those parts were he lives and also in the examination of his Exceptions I shall have the more hint to take notice of such reliques and broken pieces as remain yet unspoken to as the gainsayings of the rest in this point for he seems to me to have gathered them up there and to have epitomized those mens matter as iâ— were into a fardel of fewer words excepting the two last grand Arguments of Mr. Cook against dipping one of which Doctor Featley affronts us with in the title page and both of which are more sparingly spoke to yet covertly touched and tacitly touched upon by Mr. Cook and those Mr. Baxter rather comments on at large and makes I cannot say a fairer but a fouler a falser and far more miserable improvement of then any of the rest do This he professes to be the businesse of his book p. 13. viz. To use the proofs that others make use of in some newer kind of way confessing that few have improved their Arguments as they might have done nor mannaged them in the most forcible way and not to medle much with those arguments that others have fully mannaged Yet by his leave he meddles so much with the Arguments that others almost every one makes use of that he makes some of them the worse again he mars many a one with his mendall Mannagement It is not to use many Arguments saith he but to drive home a few Yet he uses many more then any one else viz. three capital ones to prove infants to be disciples twenty cardinal ones to prove them members to which Nos numeri sumus a number of others are subservient and subordinate two more in proof of babisme besides eight in proof of no body knows what all these in his Disputative piece of book so that for ought I find Et sinon prosint singula multa juvant his genius stood more to numerositie than dextery in handling a few unlesse by few he mean only the three main Mediums as Capital and Cardinal to the rest the first of which but especially the second in tot ramos ramulos ramusculos se ipsum Rantizavit hath stragled it self into so many small branches that indeed it hangs not handsomly together within it self and indeed the whole is but a certain three legged stool which he hath made for people to sit at rest upon in their vain Worships and seâ—vings of God after the Precepts of men which if they never be broken by any hand writing responsibly to them yet are so rotten that they will wear out within a while of themselves but be they few or many he might well say he would drive home a few for verily above all the rest those two I speak of viz. wherein dipping is called Murther and adultery he drives on beyond the bounds of modesty truth sense and reason as far I dare say to the full as God would suffer the Devill to direct and drive him For my part I never saw Mr. Baxters face that I know of but I see too much of his spirit in his latest labor in which if the spirit of God had been his leader he would not have led him into that confident utterance of such utter untruths not onely in point of doctrine but matter of fact too now and then let his parts let his piety you talk on be more then his parts if it will God once left as honest as holy as worthy a one as he can be in punishment of a people whom he had a mind to plague for their dotage on him to be stirred up by Satan to do things inconvenient and unseemly 1 Chron. 21.1 and so it seemes to me he hath left Mr. Baxter as Godly as he is or else there could never have issued from him such inconsiderate crudities such rank venomous viperous ulcerous fluxes of folly flesh fierceness fiction falseness firery invectives to the madding of the very magistracy if it would be any longer blinded by the bawlings of a mistaken ministry against many a dear Saint of God against a people precious to God though base in his eyes against thousands that are as intimate with God and more privy to his will in point of baptism then himself that thus he does shall appear by and by at present see what little verity and less validity is in that first viz. that it is not yet proved by any that dipping was the primitive custome when yet it s proved if not by many yet at least by two of our way viz. A. R. and Mr. Blackwood and that so sufficiently that if Dr. Featley and Mr. Baxter Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake did not decline them and if they had been minded to mark and seriously to search the Scriptures and not to dazle mens eyes with all the fiddle-faddles they could find to fling before them and to satisfie themselves at slender rates in the present custome rather then cry out for a change sith it is the present custome the Scriptures they hint on are so plain taking the words thereof not in feigned forced figurative and forreign but in their own prime direct native ordinary proper and rational sense and signification that he who runs may read no lesse then this that dipping yea total was the way wherein baptism was then dispensed but if we had not such proof of it extant from our own party yet t is so
further as to limit these Scriptures that relate the baptism of Christ and of the Eunuch so as to force them to no further signification then this to and unto and from the water as if they went not into it at all Rantist Nay not so neither by your leave for the words that follow which relate that the Swine were choaked in the waters shew plain enough that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though we will not allow it the sense of into Mark 1 9. must needs be Englished into here and that the English word into though we allow it to signifie no more then to or unto Acts the 8. verse 38. yet signifyes that the Swine were really not at onely but in the waters for how else could they be choaked there Baptist. How why man t is as possible a creature may be choaked with water powring down his throat yea and a little more possible then t is for any Creature to be said truly not Synechdochically to be baptized by sprinkling or powring water only upon his face and yet t is sure enough that this choaking of the Swine was otherwise then so and no other then by an overwhelming in water forasmuch as it is said they ran down INTO the Lake and were choaked Luke 8.33 choaked IN the Waters Matth. 8.32 IN the Sea Mark 5.13 and yet t is as sure to me who dare not suppose the spirit to speak nonsence as they do in my mind who say that this baptizing Act. 8.38 39. Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.9 10. was though with water also as their choaking was and therefore Dr. Featley will get nothing by pleading for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify with yet not as truly in the water also i. e. by an overwhelming therewith forasmuch as t is said Act. 8 38 39. they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized Anglice dippt or overwhelmed or if you will have washed washed him by dipping for as dipping and swilling is a true washing so by washing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englished by it is meant neither infusing nor sprinkling but that washing onely that is by the way of dipping and I testify to their faces that would fain make a baptizm of rantism that t is more easy to choak then to baptize a man without overwhelming But Mr. Cook foreseeing no doubt what absurdity must needs be committed in granting the words to be read as they be translated viz. they went down into the water and ascended out of the water and yet denying that they were at all in the water and being sensible also surely how it might be noted as a piece of paultry and partiallity to allow the sense of into to the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 8.38 and yet so deeply to disown and deny that sence of into to the same preposition in Mark 1.9 as he does he is more wary then either Mr. Blake or Mr Baxter in that particular and will not by any meanes read it as the other do viz. they went down into the water nor yet as t is in the text they came up out of the water but runs it over more smoothly in a phrase sutable to his own purpose viz. they went down to the water and came up from the water but I hope he'el condescend freely to be corrected for the same fault and with the same rod of reproof with which himself hath corrected others or else his partiallity will so appear as to deny him to have any of that wisdome which is from above Iames 3 the last wherefore as he checks A. R. most sharply for offering to alter and vary from the wisdome of interpreters so as to English the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by in which they thought good to English with p. 12 in these words viz. I would demand of you whether you think that our Translators and most or all others who have englished it with knew not how to render the original in its proper signification as well as your self So I must take the boldnesse sith our Translators and most or all others but himself do read Act. 8.38 thus they went down both into the water and ascâ—nded out of the water to demand of him in his own words to A. R. whether he think that our Translators and most or all others who english those passages by into the water knew not how to render the originall in its proper signification as well as himself As for the other two viz. Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter they foreseeing no doubâ— it would be no safe handsome acceptable nor advantagious way to take upon them as they saw Mr. Cook did to correct the Translators and mend their constructions they are more wary then Mr. Cook in that particular and so thus incidit in Scillam qui vult c. to decline the Rock of insolence they drop into the gulf of nonsence owning the original to be rightly rendred and reading them according to that rendition viz. into the water and up out of the water yet denying those phrases they descended into the water and came up out of the water to sound out any more then Mr. Cook saies the Greek words do viz. to and from the water But I must intreat those two Parallels in that opinion to consider what imparalleld improprietie it is to expresse no more then going to the water side and comming from it again by these phrases viz. going down into the water and comming out of the water for they imply necessarily a being in the water and not only at it he descended into hell is more then being at the brinks of hell he descended into the lower parts of the Earth is more then bare being on the superficies of the Earth and so he descended into the water is necessarily more then being at the side the situation of the water below in the bottoms will not salve the absurdity of such expression concerning being at the water only and returning for he descended to it and ascended from it is enough for that but to expresse that only by into it and out of it is superfluous and superlative simplicity whatsoever element or place in any element we are said to go down into and come up out of we wâ—re once in or else we are fowlly belied had it been said of Philip and the Eunuch they went down both to the water or into the bottoms they descended into the vallies where the water was as Mr. Cook prates by a Periphrasis and when they came up out of the valley or bottom from the water then it had shewed somwhat like the sense these men like best and long to have it in but into the water and out of the water expresse not only a bare being in the bottomes where the water was but in the water also for whatsoever place or element is put after the prepositions into and out of is a place or element that the
exemplifying such a thing as the housholds he makes use of are but also clear examples to the contrary as the non-baptizing of those very infants that were brought to Christ and the non-baptizing of those very infants with their parents Act. the 2. to whose parents and their children to on the same termes of repentance when at years the promise is there made both which Scriptures he wrests into his turne yea verily and had he but one true single example of any one infant baptized in all that word we should lay down to him and never open our mouthes more against infant baptism yet if these two examples do prove for us it seemes they shall not be heeded whilst against them unlesse there be a general concurrence of all examples Wherefore secondly I tell him of a truth that though me thinks the single example of the Lord Iesus might content him and of the Eunuch for can he shew a better example then these yet there 's as general a concurrence of all examples in this particular as there is of the example of any one thing that is exemplified in the Scriptures all Ierusalem all Iudea and the Region about Iordan were baptized i. e. dipt of Iohn in Iordan confessing their sins Christ dipt of Iohn into Iordan the Eunuch going into the water and there baptized baptizing in Aenon because much water and indeed the very word baptize makes them all examples of our practise while it signifies obruo submergo Secondly saies he we have examples giving full evidence of a different practise and nothing can be concluded for you from these examples of yours Mr. Bls. examples it seems for his different practise must conclude for him but our examples though never so clear must conclude nothing for us ipse dixit Mr. Bl. hath forbidden them so to do and therefore we must sign ne plus ultra here and urge our examples no more wherefore I le cease Onely secondly I hope he will give me leave to ask him what different practise it is he meanes of which he hath examples giving full evidence against ours and if it be either baptism of infants or Rantism of infants or powring water on infants or washing infants any other way or dispensig Christs ordinance of baptism to men or women in any other way then in the way of dipping or washing by dipping which baptizo signifies I le promise him faithfully that upon his giving us any one example that gives full evidence of it or any other kind of full evidence of it besides that of example any of which he is far from giving in any thing that was ever pen'd by him yet I shall yield and become his disciple and follow him as far as I find him following Christ in that or any thing else and that for ever till then he must excuse me if in love to his soul I seriously beseech him to search and try his wayes and turn in truth to that truth of the Lord Iesus he yet tramples on Rantist There is example given you enough against your way by Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook too of baptizing otherwise then by dipping in the Iailor whom they all instance in either expressely or implicitly First Mr. Baxter saies in that section of his which you have not yet fully spoke to that the Iailor was baptized in the night in his house and therefore not likely over head in that Countrey where water was so scarce and to this agree some words of Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook concurrent in matter though different in form we read saith Mr. Cook p. 16. of multitudes baptized even 3000 in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers and of whole families without mention of going to the waters or fetching store of waters it is like the waters they had within doors at midnight sufficed Acts 2.41 Acts 16.15.33 and saith Mr. Blake p. 10. sometimes baptism was administred where water for dipping was not to be had and though the Eunuch comming to a river saith here is water what hindred that I should be dipped yet there is little probability that Paul could say so in Judas's house in streight street in Damascus nor the Iailor in his prison in Philippi you say that baptism was ordinarily in rivers where there were many waters but sure there were neither many waters nor rivers in these mens dwellings and as sure they went not out in the night unto any such places yet were they baptized Baptist. Are these your Examples of baptizing otherwaies then by dipping certainly unlesse these three men were every one of them either shamefully slighthy in their searches or willingly ignorant or smitten with blindnesse and given up in some measure at least for their not imbracing this plain easie truth of dipping in the love thereof to deep dotage and stronge delusion they could never believe much lesse print such palpable untruths absolute absurdities and cleer self confutations as are unavoidably to be seen by him that reads with understanding these parcells they have published to the eye of all men See first how Mr. Cook contradicts himself in that clause we read of great multitudes baptized even three thousand in Ierusalem without mention of going to the Rivers To say nothing of the invalidity of this piece to his purpose nor needlessenesse of the Scriptures mentioning the particular place where every one was baptized for what if that be not specified every where where baptism is talked on least the volume should swell is it not as much as to say they were dipped in that it is said they were baptized i. e. submersi obruti abluti immergendo for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mainly I suppose I may safely say only such washing as is by dousing dipping or swilling specially since in places enough it is said they were baptized in Rivers and places of much water but to say nothing I say of that mark how this clause of Mr. Cook clashes with another of his within a matter of ten lines upwards from it for there giving other reasons then that of dipping why Iohn chose to baptize in Rivers and running waters among others he gives this as a speciall one viz. Because of the multitudes that were baptized especially saith he seeing there came such huge multitudes to him to be baptized and yet here were great multitudes baptized even no lesse then 3000 and yet sith there is no mention of the place where which by Mr. Cooks own reason if it be a reason must be a place of running waters and streams that many might be imploied at once in baptizing along the river for the more speedy dispatch with so great multitudes therefore these belike went not out to the rivers though yet there 's no more mentioned that they did not then that they did There were thousands of converts Act. the 4. the 4. of the matter of whose baptism there is no more mentioned then of the manner of it and yet there is
out and his bringing them in again he took them and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straightwav Thirdly that when he had brought them into his house which words compared with verse the 30. where it is said he brought them out shew clearly that he and his were with them still without hearing the word washing them and submitting to be baptized i. e. immergendo washed of them he made them eat and rejoiced now what man but one minded to overlook what likes him not can chuse but see this to the confutation of these three mens opinions which I doubt because it is theirs more then any thing else may be the opinion of 3000 that the Iailor first brought them out and then washed their stripes and was baptized and then brought them in and rejoiced with them is clear Rantist You have spoke long enough to little purpose to this for I am not yet of your mind pray let us see what you will say to those worthy mens writings in disproof of the proofs that you have brought Baptist. I come then to consider what is said by either any or all of these three repugnants in exception against what is said by us for the way of dipping having spoken already to the first as you desire in its several parts The next exception I find Mr. Baxter makes against what we say is this the word signifies saith he to wash as well as to dip and so is taken when applied to other things as Mar. the 7.4.8 and herein he sums up in short the whole mind of Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake also in this matter who say viz. Mr. Blake p. the 4. 5. to Mr. Blackwood that Scapula saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to dip to drown and sometimes to wash the Septuagint use the words baptizing and washing promiscuously Mr. Cook p. 11. to A. R. much what the very same viz. that baptism signifies washing and p. 13. quoting the same Scripture Mark the 7. here you have saith he the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wash To all which I answer but briefly having toucht at this before who doubts of this that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash how is it possible that it should not signifie washing so long as it signifies dipping dipping being no other then a kind of washing what ever word signifies properly and primarily as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth to dip drown plunge in overwhelm with put under water must needs be supposed secondarily consequently and even thereupon to signifie washing neither does it signifie sometimes onely to wash as Mr. Blake observes out of Scapula but it alwayes signifies to wash there being no dipping but signifies a washing dipping being not a dipping onely but necessarily a washing also wherefore very ofâ— baptizing and washing are and well may be promiscuously used each for the other but what will the men make of all this that because baptism signifies a kind of washing viz. the washing of its own kind or such a washing as dipping plunging or swilling is therefore it signifies all manner of washing a kind of washing it ever did but all kind of washing it never did yet signifie since the world stood a washing by immersion and submersion is the sense on t a washing by infusion is not but as for your washing by bare aspersion so far is it from being the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is no kind of washing at all yea if you will go critically to work as Mr. Blake would have us about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between which yet there is no such difference as he imagines and keep close to the signification of the words both your petty powring and your spoil-all sprinkling will be discarded so far from the name of baptizing that they will not be found to meet it half way nor on a true account to amount to so much as the name of washing for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies originally to dip plunge or overwhelm and therefore consequently to wash we deny not that being indeed not onely a way but also the most effectual and usual way of washing therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes promiscuously used with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which originally signifie washing of what kind soever whether that which is by dipping in water or rubbing water upon the subject when they are each applied unto the other but as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one signifies to powre out onely the other to sprinkle onely but neither this nor that alone and abstract from some other concurrent action as rubbing the water on that 's so applied which was never done at any Rantizing that ever I saw doth yet signifie so much as any kind of washing whatsoever therefore though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred not onely by mergo submergo to dip or plunge over head and ears but also by lavo abluo to wash clense or wash away and very fiâ—ly sith baptizing or dipping is really and truly such a washing yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred effundo to powre out and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by aspergo perfundo irroro to sprinkle or moisten as it were with a small dew but neither of them by lavo abluo nor do they signifie such a thing as to wash nor are they such a thing as washing in any wise so far are they therefore from bearing the name of baptism that you may as well render baptizing by rantizing and say to baptize is to sprinkle which is a thing that all men in the world cannot shew to be so much as a remote sense of the greek word baptize as render rantizing by baptizing that is to say that to sprinkle is to baptize which likewise can never be shewen to be so much as a remote sense of the word Rantize if therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come not so neer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to be adem with it in tertio to be latinâ— with it into lavo or to be englisht with it so much as by the name of washing which is but a secondary sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how will you ever reach your rantism into the name of baptism it self whose prime signification is submergo i. e. to overwhelm out of which prime signification that it should be used continually as you say the spirit uses it in Scripture where all along you strain a point to have it englisht washing and never overwhelming at all for pray where shall it be englisht by the term of overwhelming just no where by your good will is a piece of simple slipslop to utter Rantist But Mr. Blake tells you another tale that I believe will make you eat these words you last declared for whereas you talk so much of dippings being the prime signification of 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then he p. 2. saies in way of answer to that that there is nothing more ordinary then to have words used out of their prime signification Baptist. Nothing more ordinary then to have words out of their prime signification what a strange extraordinary expression is that I dare undertake to shew him something more otdinary then that and venture to avouch that it is more ordinary to have words used in their prime signification then out of it or else I know not how we should handsomely understand one another in any tongue for howbeit there is now and then a word figuratized besides its proper meaning yet that a secondary borrowed bastard forraign sense should carry words so quite away from their own proper direct prime proxime native signification that we must take them in no sense no not in their genuine sense more ordinarily then in those secondary senses is such a peece of senslesse as will hardly enter into the center of my understanding while I have one yet so do you dote upon the farre fetcht senses of words when they onely though never so untowardly too may be wrested in â—o serve your turn that nothing is more ordinary among your selves indeed in such a case then to shut out the aptest the amplest acceptions altogether and force the first senses from having to do at all with those words whose own whose plainest whose neerest whose likeliest whose chiefest properest senses they are and on this wise do you deal with the truest sense and signification of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which because it signifies sometimes onely as Mr. Blake observes which is however argumentum ad hominâ—m though I grant it signifies ever yet onely secondarily to wâ—sh therefore if you may have the vote of it it must never signifie any thing else and never be interpreted by its prime signification at all it signifies i. e. usually and for the most part and primarily for who can take Mr Blake as meaning otherwise to dip or drown c. and sometimes quoth he out of Scapula to wash but if I should ask Mr. Blake how often he would give it leave throughout the whole new testament to be taken in that sense which his word sometimes annexed to the sense of washing shewes he takes to be the most usual and common sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. to dip plunge or overwhelm I am afraid he will change his note and say it signiâ—ies alvvayes to vvash and not allovv the sense of it to dip or plunge so much as sometimes no not yet so much as once throughout the gospel yea I demand of him vvhere he dare give vvay to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be construed in its prime sense i. e. to dip overvvhelm or in vvhat one place he vvill be pleased to let us give it any other then the secondary that onely sometime signification of vvashing I doubt it must be contented for him and all the Rantists to be vvithout its neerest to be stript of its plainest to be banisht and forct for ever from bearing its truest sense in all places of the book of God unlesse they may be forc't once to be vvithout their vvills for in all the Scripture that I knovv of where the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is placed it is thus displaced from its principall signification by them so that all our desires to them on its behalf that it may sometimes at least be granted the sense of dipping shall in no vvise prevail for itâ— ovvn sense to be allovved it I remember but these places at present vvhere the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used vvhere vvater baptism of persons is spoken of viz. Mat. 3.6.11.13.14.16.28.19 Mark 14.5.8.9.10 and the 16.26 Luke 3.7.12.16.21 Luke 7.29.30 Iohn 1. â—5 26.28 and the 3.22.23.26 and the 4.1.2 Act. 1.5 and the 2.38.41 and the 8.12.13 16.36.38.39 and the 9.18 and the 16.15.33 and the 18.8 and the 22.16 Rom. 6.3.4 1 Cor. 1.13.14.15.16.17 Gal. 3 27. Col. 2.12 in vvhich of all these places dare they allovv us the prime signification of the vvord not so much as one I dare say yet Scapula quotes but tvvo places viz. Mark 7. Luke 11. vvherein it is taken to vvash vve vvould be contented to allovv them that not sometimes onely as they talk of but that alvvayes it shall signifie to vvash for dipping indeed being a chief kind of vvashing it cannot be rationally gainsayed onely proh dolor vve must not once english it dipping or overvvhelming no not by any meanes in the world But Sirs though you are so accustomed to that trick so that it is to be feared you will be hardly brought off it viz. to have nothing more ordinary among you then to carry vvords and specially the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clearly and that not sometimes onely but continually besides its prime sense of dipping into its farre off sense of vvashing and into its non-sense of sprinkling for it signifies no such thing as that yet vve have no such custome nor the Churches of God but to take vvords ordinarily in the sense vvhich they most properly bear Rantist But Mr. Blake denies dousing over head to be the prime signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tells you p. 3. that the great Criticks in the Greek tongue will not allow you your sence to douse over head and years to be the prime distingishing between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the Latter to bear your sense the former to be a dipping more light and overly as Luke the 16. and the 24. it is evidently used Baptist. O that 's another matter he should have said so then at first for because he talked that words are used out of their prime signification and among the rest this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sake of which he saies the other out of its pâ—ime signification of dipping I took it for granted and so I might well for he allowes it to signifie washing in Scripture and what sense is it that he pleads against by that speech viz. that words are oft used out of their prime significations I took it I say for granted and seriously a grant it is if he well examine it that he took dipping or overwhelming to be the prime sense of baptism unlesse almost a page of of his be pennd in vain and dares he now deny it that is worse then all the rest but I wonder what is if that be not the prime for I am sure the prime is not to wash it is quoth he a dipping more light and overly then so To which I say let the persons baptizing dip the persons baptized as lightly and overly as they will so they dipp them and not some of them barely for then I know they must do it underly also for what man is truly to be baptized that man is to be put under water not a part of him only as
it that baptism was not only by dipping then I hope we shall have your answer to them too and the rather because they are of some weight and therefore you are the more willing to slip by them First saith he if the way of baptism were only dipping then the Baptizer must put the baptized over head in the water and after a space receive them up again otherwise he could not say in your sense I baptize thee but we read of no such thing any where in Scripture we find Christ and the Eunuch going to the water and coming thence but neither John nor Philip putting them into the water or taking them from thence p. 8. Baptist. I strange that Mr. Blake should grant as he doth above p. 6. that Philip and the Eunuch are fitly said to go into the water and yet say so shortly after we find no more then their going to the water and from it again how fitly can they be said to go into the water and out of it that go but to and from it I have shewed already but t is more strange to me that he should so far forget himself as to say we read of no such thing in Scripture as of Iohn and Phillips putting Christ and the Eunuch into the water or taking them from thence for we read plainly that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan and in Iordan and we read that Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and Philip baptized him and that Christ came up out of the water and that Philip and the Eunuch came up out of the water if all this be not partly an expression partly an implication of the same thing that Mr. Blake saies we no where read of then I shall never trust my spectacles more for what shall we think was done to Christ by Iohn when it is said he was baptized by him into Iordan if he was not dipped overwhelmed put under the water was he sprinkled into Iordan and what shall we think Philip did to the Eunuch when it is said he baptized him after they were both gone down into the water if he did not put him under it did he no more then sprinkle or pour a few drops of water on him either of those might have been done as easily and more if they had never gone into the water yea if they had never went so much as to the water at all and when it is said of Christ and the Eunuch that they came up out of the water is it not necessarily implyed and therefore what need it be expressed that Iohn and Philip who put them under the water did take them up again after a space and not hold them alwaies under it for if they had how they could have come up out of it I know not Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture then he did Mr. Cook from whom he borrowed this Argument and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden or else Mr. Simpson stole it for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his which he desired should be communicated he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water and took them up again but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you Rantist Now you talk of dipping under water and taking up thence again I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water and to lift him up again above the water sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water and stand there up to the middle and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under by the administrator but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others is there any command for them to go into the water Baptist. I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden and you have laid your heads together you jump so right in one mind in this matter for in this manner and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above divinity admits not say you of se-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call se-baptism I know not but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism yet we have president so plain as is equivalent witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water and yet saving your ignorance which permits not the baptized to be agents Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ and that is sufficient that betakes himself not onely to the water but also so farre into it that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back and then dash him in against his will and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed besides doth the condemned mans being agent and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head as to ly down and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself what dribling Divinity is this Rantist Mr. Blake saies further that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments and lay them aside for that businesse but we find no such thing mentioned we find saith he one iâ— the new testament stoned and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of unclothing for that end nor yet of
that total dipping was not the way of the primitive baptism viz. because the conversion of disciples and so consequently their baptism hapned sometimes to be when there was no season for dipping the element of water being over cold for that service he speaks thus in way of answer to an objection viz. if any object that in those Hotter Countryes there was no danger in the coldest times I answer saith he The Commission being for all nations disciples were made in all Countries how soon came the word to this nation c. In which words he is void of common sense that doth not discern Mr. Blake siding with us saying that the way of baptism should be one in all ages and places and asserting quite contrary to his fellow disputers against dipping so far as to confute them to our hands for whereas they all uno ore with one consent cry out that the reason why they baptized by dipping in the primitive time was because Judea and the regions round about were Hot Countryes but England is a colder climate and therefore we need not baptize the same way as they dâ—d he tells them plainly that the heat of those Countries could be no reason why they should use totall dipping then more then other nations because the commission for baptizing was one and the same to all Nations and disciples were then made in all Countryes as well as in Iudea in cold Countries as well as in hot yea how soon saies he came the word to England it self baptism therefore in his account should be the same in England as in Iudea not by dipping in Iudea more then in England because that was a hot Country and this a colder but the commission is a like in all places cold and hot this is the sense those words of his sound forth but if Mr. Blake were silent in this case the Scripture speaks loud enough that there is but one baptism for all Nations and no Rantism ordained for any for then the commission must include Christs willingnesse to dispense with colder climates in this point and in our understandings at least run thus viz. go and teach all nations baptizing them that live in hotter countryes and rantizing them that live in colder climates he that believeth and is baptized if he live in Iudea or any Hoter Countrey or is but rantized if he live in England or any cold Countrey shall be saved in which silly unsound sense to understand those Scriptures is to be silly indeed and without either sense or understanding and yet thus it may be understood if this be the reason why they in Iudea must be dipt and we in England must be no more then sprinkled for fear of danger viz. because Iudea was a warm Countrey and England a cold one for either Christ did ordain the thing to be done in this different manner in different regions or he did not if he did then it must be first some way or other intimated in the commission but there it is not and secondly it must be done accordingly in this different manner in the execution or else they are high transgressors that do but rantize in Iudaea and they high transgressors and so Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook say they are with a witnesse but will never prove it that baptize by total dipping in England but if he did not ordain it to be done in such several waies in several Regions according as they are hotter or colder but in one way only in all places then that one way is by baptizing i. e. dipping onely or else by rantizing onely and if by baptizing onely then they are high undertakers that take upon them to correct Christs commission saying t is better and safer to rantize only in some places if by rantizing onely then non tutum est ludere cum saâ—ris they were vain persons that made a Maygame and matter of pleasure of the ordinances of Christ that in Iudaea and the hotter Countreys would chuse to be baptized for delight and coolnesse sake by totall dipping and bathing in water rather then otherwise when Christ ordained no more then sprinkling or infusion Secondly Sirs you grant so much as to say possibly probably it might be done by dipping in Iudaea and the Hot Regions round about but may not be in these colder pray tell me from the bottom of your consciences without stifling them or shuffling with them so as not to suffer them to speak what constructions must be made of those Scriptures which we have canvast to and fro which relate the manner of their baptizings that then were viz. Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.9.10 Act. 8.38 where it is said of the people and Christ that they were baptized in Iordan into Iordan went down into the water and came up out of the water yea were buried with Christ in baptism Rom. 6. Collo 2. yea and of all the other Scriptures that tell us of the baptism that was dispensed in those Hot Countries as Iohn 3.23 Act. 16.13.14.15.33 where it is said Iohn baptized in Aenon because there was much water and Paul went out to a Rivers side and spake the word at which time Lidya and hers were baptized and a while after the Jaylor and his tell me I say what construction all these and all the Scriptures that talk of baptism as dispensed in those Hot Countryes must consequently bear if it be once granted that such total dipping was the manner of baptizing in the primitive times in those Hotter Countreys must they not then needs have the senses we put upon them viz. that Christ and the rest did really descend into the water were buried under the water and raised again and not those forced senses into which you would rest them to your own ends viz. that they went but to the water and there were wetted onely by sprinkling or pouring and from the water again without going into it or being dipped in it if you give us one for granted viz. that in Iudaea and those Hot Countreyes as Rome Phillippi and Collosse the manner of baptizing was by going down into the water and being dipped therein in this Sacramental washing you must necessarily give up also all the interest that you claim in those Scriptures for sprinkling they being no other then the relation of what baptism was done in Iudea and those Hot Coun-Countreys and not what was done in cold if then it be supposed that baptism by submersion and not aspersion was the custome in the Scripture times it must semblably be supposed that the Scriptures themselves that story out the baptism of those times do speak of that Manner of baptism that then was and not of another unlesse we suppose it must be interpreted as speaking of another thing then that it only speaks of and so consequently this Scripture this Testament must be supposed to be wholly on our sides and to speak only of mens baptism by submersion and you must suppose out some New Testament of
self-preservation as dipping in water as if the Priests profaning the sabbath by servile work were not as contradictory to the moral command as your very selves call it of Sabbath observation as either of those to self-preservation and yet when all is done all these were to be done and none of these contradictory to the other neither for in very deed God never commanded sabbath-observations so strictly as that the ordinance of the dayly sacrifice should be neglected yea and the life not onely hazzarded but utterly lost and laid down for Christs name sake and the Gospels he tells us that the duty of self-preservation is a moral natural duty and baptizing but positive I tell him again he saies as much in that as I desire he should say to the confirming of our tenet for if baptizing be a positive duty so far as t is positive it must take place against the other a positive command being to be obeyed rather then self to be favoured in any wise in any case whatsoever God gave Abraham a positive command to slay his son therefore that being positive and the favouring and sparing of himself and his son though moral and natural yet but suppositive i. e. to be lookt at so far onely as God lent him leave to injoy his son it must be done and the other let alone God must be trusted and his will obeyed and the saving of his son must give way to the slaying of him the positive duty of killing him being the greater and to be preferred before the other and the sparing him being inconsistent with this though elsewise a duty yet would have been at that time a sin In that therefore he yields baptism to be a positive command as if self-preservation were not so he yields us more then we are willing to take of him for howbeit for the most part it is positive and therefore so far as such to be observed without respect to the ill consequences of it to the lifeward yet verily I question my self though I find no expresse exemption from baptism in any case whether there be not yea it is certain there are some cases wherein the forbearance of the dispensation may yea and must be dispenst with but those are not the coldnesse of the water and weather but the utter impossibility of the persons submitting to it of whom else it is required or his being bard from it either as the thief on the crosse was or by imprisonment or by some such absolute sicknesse or weaknesse as confines persons necessarily to their beds and puts them out of capacity and ability to betake themselves where it may be done as it ought I am willing to modify Mr. Baxters rigid epithete of a positive command whereby he denominates baptism so far as to spare persons in these cases and respects and to stile baptism a duty but suppositive i. e. a thing that necessarily must be done if either possibly or conveniently it may be done but if it cannot may be let alone but this proves not that self-preservation must be alwaies prefer'd before baptism for then it need never be obeyed at all there being no time wherein it can be done with so little seeming tediousnesse and disease to a mans self but that self will willingly excuse it self from obeying it by pleading the duty of self-preservation This duty of self-preservation hath couzened as honest a man as Mr. Baxter ere now and it couzens the whole Priesthood to this hour who generally suppose that God is no further to be served then self may be preserved hence no pay no preach no countenance from the magistracy no continuance in their ministry but for selfs sake they turn still with the times but no faster as if they durst trust God no further then they see him and this was the plea whereby Peter would fain have put Christ beside a duty that he foresaw would be dangerous for Christ and himself too but Christ gave him no great thanks for his labor far be it from thee Lord quoth he to go to Ierusalem and suffer by no means let this be he thought he did well to rebuke Christ for owning the Gospel in that case wherein he must expose himself to suffer but get thee behind me Satan saith Christ thou art an offence thou savourest not the things of God but those that be of men thou thinkest as if he should say that self must be favoured before positive duty be performed that the life must be saved and the gospel obeyed no further then is consistent with self-preservation but I tell you saith he that if any man will be my disciple he must deny himself and take up his crosse and follow me for he that will save his life i. e. discharge no duty that may prove dangerous to his life shall lose it but he that will lose his life for my name sake and the Gospel shall save it Mat. 16.11 to 26. if Paul had stood so much upon the point of self-preservation and counted his life so dear unto himself as Mr. Baxter seems to do his he would have harkned to such as besought him to favour himself and not have gon up to Ierusalem where he knew not what should befall him save that he knew that bonds and afflictions did there abide him if he would there testifie to the Gospel Act. 20.22.23.24 21.22 nor would he have exposed himself to so many hazzards and perils by sea and land perils by water perils by hunger and thirst and cold and nakednesse none of all which things moved him that he might witnesse to the Gospel He tattles to us that God must not be tempted and that it was the divels trick to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to have cast himself into danger of death who doubts of all this but is it tempting to perform a positive command of God and expose our selves to danger and difficulty in the discharge of our positive duty to him because it is so to indanger our liues by doing that which we have no call to nor warrand for and which is absolutely sin and hath not the least dram of duty in it at all it is true it would have been but pretence of Scripture and trusting of God in Christs casting himself from the pinacle of the Temple but dare he saie there is but pretence of Scripture and trusting of God in submitting to his own ordinance of baptism is there no more word to warrant us to be baptized and to trust in God and to expect his protection in the execution of that so absolute a command then there is to warrand the execution of our selves which God universally forbids and that on no more ground then the bare bidding of the devil who would think a mininister should be so moped as to make these two a like warrantable it was the divels trick therefore to draw Christ under pretence of Scripture and trusting of God to self-execution against
him as his but also when we do good to them that are none of his disciples upon the meer account of his command who injoines all persons as occasion is to do good to all though especially to the houshold of faith whereupon also I perswade my self verily nor is it very unworthy of observation that the spirit when it speaks of doing good to profest disciples indeed Mar. 9.41 he incourages to receive them not onely in the name i. e. for the sake of Christ so requiring but as belonging to him also as his disciples in the name of a Prophet in the name of a righteous man in the name of a disciple but when he speaks of our doing good to that child Luke 9.48 he saies no more then barely in the name of Christ i. e. for the sake of Christ owning such an action but expresses not the other notion and account of discipleship and Relation to him as that on which he would have him to be received Moreover were it otherwise it would make little to the purpose of Mr. Ba. who brings it to prove some such sucking infants as men sprinkle i. e. believers babes to be disciples sith that it was a believers child of which Christ there speaks or that he speaks of such children rather then of the children of other men is much more then Mr. Ba. can ever clear and that it was a child of such a stature as to come to Christ when he cald him and therefore no infant of a span long nor such as is the subject of your sprinkling is too clear for Mr. Ba. to gainsay without clear contradiction of the Scripture Mat. 18.2 These are far fetcht faddles whereby Mr. Ba. backs his people in the blind belief of his fond and false opinion that all believers infants are Christs disciples and thereupon to be baptized The mediums whereby he manifests their membership in the Gospel-church are many more then a good many and not more many then manifestly weak and utterly unavailable to such a purpose Rantist Many more then ever will be answered easily by you or any other that set so light by them as you do Baptist. That may possibly be too for I think no wise body will immittere pecus in pratum vbi non est sepes busie himself beyond measure in such a boundlesse prate and piece of sillogization about infant membership as it is nor be so extravagant from Mr. Bs. own advice who p. 12. tells us that we shall never be able to justifie it if we lay out but the thousandth part of our time study talk or zeal yet if he have not spent the twenteth part of his own I am must mistaken upon this question it self either for or against it as to lose a moiety of his time in replying distinctly to such a mint of impertinencies as are handled at armes end here by Mr. Ba. for my own part I am not minded to tire my self to much with tracing at large after every new hare that starts in my way nor to stand dancing the hay after Mr Ba. into every corner of that laborinth of Logick into which he leads me and yet leaves me after view and Review as little ground for infant baptism as if he had said nothing at all nor shall I bury my self up from better imployment in the bottomlesse pit of those absurdities which this part of his book also is fully fraught with partly because I find that most that he saies there is in effect answered already in the book called Anti-babism where the genuine sense of the main Scriptures he rests into his own use is given out viz. Rom. 11. 1. Cor. 7. Mar. 9.36 Rom. 4.11 Mal. 2.15 partly also because I perceive a vain of particular contest with Mr. T. to run thorow the whole which Mr. T. according to the particular interest he hath therein hath already taken notice of in Print so far as its worth an answer partly also because I am not so happy as to have the patience of many scarce of any of the churches of Christ whose servant I am suffering me hitherto without such frequent avocations of me from this to services of another nature abroad as are inconsistent with my writing of much more at home Neverthelesse besides some animadversion of as much of its absurdity as may be with conveniency I shall take the sting out so clearly that it shall not hurt and that by both a clear though general disproof of it all and as clear though generall and brief demonstration of the contrary Take notice therefore of the most cardinal argument upon which he grounds infant church-membership under the Gospel It was so once that infants were of the church and it is not repealed therefore it is so now To which I answer by granting t was so from Abrahams time and downward to Christ for before that time all the paâ—â—s he takes doth not and all the braines he hath in his head cannot produce the least sollid proof of such a thing for all that Church and the materials of it were a ceremony and a type and never the viler for that as Mr. Ba. foolishly fancies p. 59. of the church under Christ t was so in that outward typicall covenant that God made concerning an earthly Canaan with the natural seed of Abraham in the loines of Isaac and Iacob not Ismael Gen. 17.20.21 nor any of his seed by Keturah Gen. 25.1.6 upon the performance of certain carnal ordinances as circumcision and the rest of the ordinances of Divine service pertaining to that covenant which circumcision bound them to till the time of reformation Heb. 9. but that therefore t is so now in the church under the Gospel-covenant that was typified by the other I utterly deny whose heavenly inheritance and spirituall seed of Abraham i. e. believers born of God by faith in Christ answer as he Anti-type to that earthly Canaan and fleshly seed of Abraham and before which the type is fled away for all the ceremonialls of that law are vanisht among which this admitting of fleshly babes was one and what it pointed at is shewed abundantly in Anti-babism which may serve as an answer also to his fourteenth argument for their present membership where if the law of infant-Church-membership were ceremonial he bids us shew what it tipâ—fiâ—d â—he membership therefore of infants which belonged onely to that particular Church of the Jewes which was also the whole universal visible Church that God then had upon earth unlesse we shall dream with Mr. Baxter of more particular visible Churches then that of the Jewes during its standing different from it in form order and constitution which together with that made up some one universal visible of which infants were members first as he dotes and then secondarily of that particular which conceit of his concerning such a universal visible is a meer invisible chimaera for who ever saw any visible Church or people whom God visibly
Ba. argues from the samenesse of the Olive tree the Jew was broken off from and the Gentile was grafted into that therefore as infants stood members then so they must now I answer it is true there is some kind of indentity between the Jewish and the Gospel Church but not such as concludes an indentity of membership for infants they are the same ingenere visiblis Ecclesiae they agree in the common name of Church and visible Church elected and segregated from the world but there 's little else that I know of wherin they are the same they differ in circumstantials in their accidental forms in their officers ordinances customs constitutions subjects members that being constituted of one whole nation of people or fleshly seed of Abraham taken out from all other nations this of a spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. believers scaterred here and there taken out of any nation as they happen to be called almost every nation some the ceremony of inchurching Abrahams own much more any other mans meer fleshly seed being ceased Mr. Bax. peddles on apace and brings a company of Scripures in proof of infants Church-membership and baptism which though he stile them as indeed his whole book Plain Scripture proofs for those two yet a man that is not minded to force the Scripture into the Service of his own fancy because it does not serve it freely may look till dooms day before he see in them any plain perspicuous proof of either one of these or of the other Christ saith he Mat. 23.37 would have gathered Ierusalem oft as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings but they would not therefore sure he would not have put them or their infants out of the Church the strength of the consequence lies here saith he he would have gathered whole Ierusalem and that into the visible Gospel Church therefore infants also Now that Christ does not speak of whole Ierusalem here as he saith he does both men and infants the circumstances of the text do fully evince to us for he speaks of the same persons he speaks to and the same persons he complains of saying ye would not the same and no other are they to whom he speaks when he saies Oh Ierusalem how often would I have gathered c. but those were men and women only whom he called to believed in him and not infants Again he gathered them by preaching of the word into baptism and membership and received all that came and no more viz. sometimes the children and not the parents sometimes the parents and not the children so that a mans foes for the truths sake sometimes were they of his own family his own flesh therefore he offered not to gather infants for he preacht not to them nor called them at all nor were any more baptized and added to the Church-fellowship in the Gospel then they that gladly received the word that did not infants yea 3000 were gathered into the first Gospel Church by preaching and baptism in one day and never an infant among them all for they surely did not continue in fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers Acts 2. Therefore whereas Mr. Ba. in his Epistle to the parish of Bewdley challenges Mr. T. to name him one particular Church since Adam either of Jewes or Gentiles where infants were not Church-members if they had any infants till 200 years ago I name him the first Gospel Church that ever was Act. 2. in which there was not one infant yea there was three thousand baptized in one day and it is a hazard but that those three thousand had many perhaps no lesse than three thousand infants belonging to them all and yet as Mr. Cotton thinkes so think I that none of their infants were baptized with them much lesse were added with them to the Church or continued with them in fellowship as the whole Gospel Church did in breaking of bread and prayers yea though there was no infants in that Church which was gathered at Ierusalem it self to which Christ saies how oft would I have gathered thy children c. and therefore Mr. Baxs sense is very sinister so I challenge him again to shew me not by such dubious muddy cloudy circumlocutory inconsequential consequences as he doth but undeniable evidences any one of all the Gospel Churches of the primitive times either of Jewes or Gentiles which we are all to reâ—orm by viz. Ierusalem Rome Corinth Galatia Philippi Ephesus Thessalonica or any other to fellowship in which there was one infant baptized added and admitted and I shall cry him mercy and lay down the Cudgells at his feet and acknowledge he hath broke my pate The next Scripture he uses is more impertinent then this yet Mr. Ba. makes a certain shift to squeese an argument out of it and to compel it invita minervâ not a little against its own intent and meaning to corroborate his crooked crazie creed concerning the inchurching and cristening of infants viz. Rev. 11.15 whence he thus Syllogizes If the kingdoms of this world either are or shall be the kingdomes of the Lord and of his Christ then infants also must be members of his kingdom i. e. the visible Church the Antecedent is the words of the text indeed as he saies but the sequel is so sure and follows so firmly in his fancy that he saies nothing can be said against it that is sense or reason but indeed it self is against both sense and reason Who would ever think if the word did not declare that the things of wisdome are hid from the wise and prudent that such a disputer as Mr. Ba. holds himself to be should deduce the now membership of infants from such a premise as this viz. because the kingdomes of this world are or else shall be the kindomes of God and Christ what 's this I trow toward the eviction of the other much every way saith Mr. Ba. yea so much that for any thing he can see this text alone were sufficient to decide the whole controversie whether infants must be Church members Amen so beit say I let this Scripture decide it and let 's see what Mr. Ba. saies on t If they can say quoth he by kingdoms is meant here some part of the kingdom excluding all infants such men may make their own creed on those termes let the Scripture say what it will I know in some places the word kingdome and Ierusalem c. is taken for a part but if we must take words alwayes improperly because they are taken so sometimes saith he then we shall not know how to understand any Scripture so of necessity it must be understood properly i. e in its prime signification of the whole kingdoms and whole Ierusalem with him and not improperly for a part onely though Mr. Blake to Mr. Black saith upon occasion of our pleading for the proper signification of baptize nothing more ordinary then to have words used out of their prime signification whereby
bad for then there is manifest falsehood in many promises and threats the natural seed of righteous men often perishing and being not counted their own fathers children unlesse they be like them in righteousnesse as Iohn 8.39 Christ denies Abrahams natural children to be Abrahams children and blessed with him because they did not as Abraham did and contrary wise the natural seed of the wicked prospering when they do well contrary to Prov. 2.21.22 Is. 20.14 Ps. 37 20. if the word seed were there taken for the natural seed where it is said the seed of evill doers shall never be renowned And so the seed of the serpent and the children of the devil expresses those that do his works to say nothing I say of this which yet is enough to blunt the edge of Mr. Bas. argument grant the word seed here to be taken for the natural seed of the righteous even those in infancy may be many wayes blessed though they neither be baptized in infancy nor inchurched yea they may be blessed with eternal salvation dying in infancy without either baptism or membership in the visible Church for I hope you will not say those 1000s of Jewes and belieuers infants that have died before circumcision baptism and visible admission are damned without any more ado because they fell short of your admired membership and if these be blessed with salvation to whom you delay baptism why not those to whom we deny it doth our denying baptism to an infant before he dies send him to hell sooner then your delaying it till he be dead But however the seed of the righteous may be blessed with many temporal blessings as provision fruitfulnesse multiplication and yet not be taken into the visible Church and to say the truth if Mr. Ba. had not been resolved to wrest this Scripture besides its true sense to botch up his proofs into a multitude he might easily have seen by consultation with the verse before that it is not such a thing as membership that is here meant by the word blessed but meer matter of outward sustentation I never saw the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread he is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed i. e. provided for and preserved from beggery and considered by others in time of adversity as he considered others in the like case And lastly whereas he challenges us to shew where ever God pronounced any blessed and yet took them for none of his visible Church saying t is absurd once to imagine it that he did I assert it is most absurd in him to imagine the contrary for God himself by promise pronounced Ishmael blessed saying as for Ishmael behold I haved blessed him and I will make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly and make him a nation because he is thy seed and this at the very same time when he denied to establish the Covenant with him which he establisht with Isaac and commanded that he should be cast out of Abrahams family from sharing with Isaac in that very covenant which Mr. Baxter contends with all his might p. 64 65. that whoever are not in it are not under the promise of the mercy which Church-membership is with him a speciall part of In proof of this consider and compare Gen. 17.18.19.20.21 with Gen. 21.10.11.12.13 as if there were no blessing but that of Church-membership or at least no blessing without this of Church-membership whereas as admired a mercy as this meer membership is with Mr. Baxter persons may be blessed without it and also witnesse the Jewish Nation which for the most part were reprobates they may have admission to the meer mercy and bare blessing of membership and yet perish and be accursed for ever The 18th plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and baptism is this If infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted then certainly it was not proper to the Iews and consequently is not ceased but infants are therefore The Minor of which argument Mr. Baxter endeavours to prove aswell as he can and this he doth First partly by perverting the sense of the text Mal. 2.25 where it is said God made two one i. e. instituted the ordinance of marriage between man and woman that he might seek a seed of God i. e. a legitimate Issue for legitimacy onely in the issue is the result of marriage and that among what parents soever even heathens as well as others for whom as well as others that state of marriage is sanctified yet Mr. Baxter saies he made two one or ordained marriage that he might seek a seed of God in another sense that better serves his turn i. e. to seek Church-members as if Church-membership in the seed were the direct result of the state of matrimony in the parents which every simpleton knowes to be false for marriage is honourable among all and was ordained for all mankind as well as the Godly and yet the seed are not therefore Church-members besides marriage was instituted in the state of innocency to this end that mankind might be propagated in a more modest way then other creatures and not that the seed so propagated might be Church-members Secondly partly by a heap of frivolous conjectures of his own in which a man may warrantably enough chuse whether he will believe him or no but whether his Minor viz. that infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted be true or false it makes nothing to his purpose unlesse he had made surer work in his Maior for that is so inconsequent and utterly unsound that had I happened to have heard his argument before it came in Print I should have spared him all his paines about the Minor and have put him to the proof of his Major the consequence of which hee 'l never make good by fair play while he breathes for there were many things long before circumcision was instituted which were proper if not to the Jewes till the Jewes were in being yet to the ceremoniall law that was after more clearly given to the Jewes and to that old Testament of which Moses was the Mediator and circumcision the sign and the Jewes the subject and yet were tipicall and ceremonial onely and so ceased together with circumcision as the keeping the seventh day the sacrifices the cleannesse and uncleannesse of certain creatures and if that were at all before circumcision as Mr. Ba. does not plainly prove it to be among the rest the Church-membership of infants His 19. plain Scripture-lesse proof is this If God be not more prone to severity then to mercy then he will admit of infants to be members of the visible Church but God c. therefore c. Oh the wit of this man how wonderfully doth it work and wind to and fro and wander far and neer to fetch in any manner of fewell wherewith to feed that false faith men live in concerning infant baptism for fear it should be quite extinguished and brought to nothing
state of salvation But some persons yea both men and infants may appear to us to be in a state of salvation and yet at the same time not be in so much as immediate and present right to be joined to the visible Church Therefore The first proposition is most clear the second I shall make as cleer First briefly concerning men Secondly More largely concerning infants because the question mainly is of them Concerning men I instance in all the believers in the primitive times of whom comparing Scripture with Scripture Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 19. Heb. 6.1.2 it s most evident they had not an absolute immediate right to visible fellowship in the visible church though converted to faith and repentance by the word and so in a visible state of salvation as the thief upon the crosse so far as with him visibly repenting believing till such time as they were admitted after baptism and â—aying on of hands with prayer and of single disciples as they were before they were added and admitted in to the visible body till of single living pretious stones as they were before by their precious faith they were built up visibly into a house the whole building the whole body was fitly framed together fitly joined together as well as shaped before therefore they that were not actually added and joined were not of the body Ephe. 2.21 the 4.16 if the whole were compacted by joints and bands then all the parts were actually added and joined and those that were not joined were no part of the whole so Col. 2.19 knit together Mr. Bax. argues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Cart before the horse they must be first supposed to be visibly members in the visible Church before to be visibly in a state of salvation but it is undeniably apparent they must have visible right to salvation and that by faith too before visible right to membership in the visible church Mr. Bax. supposes persons must be first supposed to be members of the visible Church a priori before they can be warrantably supposed to be of the invisible i. e. to be such as shall be saved for if a person be of the invisible Church he must be thought to be of the visible much more for the visible containes the invisible in it saith he p. 72. and ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church he means in real state of salvation who are not meaning first of the visible p. 72. But now I say and suppose the clean contrary viz. that persons must be first supposed to be of the invisible Church a priori before they can be warrantably supposed to be of yea or so much as to have right to be of the visible who backs Mr. Ba. in his sinister supposition I weigh not let him chuse his second if he will I le chuse Mr. Bax. himself to back me and to be witnesse to the truth of mine whose words are altogether the same with mine p 73. viz. if we were fully certain by his own externall discourses that any man were not of the invisible Church that man should not be taken to be of the visible In order of time therefore persons were to seem to be members of the invisible church and were visibly in a state of salvation first before they could have any right at all so much as to be baptized which with Mr. Ba. himself was the first entrance into membership in the visible church but with me is not so much as an immediate entrance into it but that which is necessarily to go before it therefore persons may be seemingly in a state of salvation and not yet in present right to membership in the visible Church much lesse actually and visibly in it And now concerning infants of whom Mr. Ba. asserts that they must be members of the visible Church or else cannot be seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation upon such slender grounds as these he concludes it to be clear viz. First because it is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he gives eternal life and those that sleep in Iesus that God will bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will present pure and unspotted all which places I appeal to Mr. Bas. conscience whether they speak not of the misticall body and invisible church of Christ to which all and onely they square and are adaequate and not to the visible Church which he was to speak to or else speaks nothing to the purpose to all which visible church and to onely which these things agree not for neither all those that are of the visible church are saved nor onely those of the visible Church saved witnesse many infants of believers whom Mr. Ba. dares not say are damned some never living to enter the visible Church so farre as to baptism and some once alive coming dead out of the womb which he is blind that ever saw to be in the visible church so that he sits here beside the saddle Secondly and Thirdly because there is no divine revelation for the salvation of any without the visible Church that yields good ground of Christian faith or hope that any such shall be saved as notwithstanding he saies there is not yet I shall shew there is by and by Fourthly because it is said Acts the 2.47 that God added to the visible church dayly such as should be saved which though he did yet t was not all nor onely such but onely such men and women not such infants as should be saved Concerning infants in proof of the proposition above viz. that some infants may be in visible State of salvation and yet not be in nor yet in present right to membership in the visible Church I argue thus downrightly First if all infants are in infancy in a visible state of salvation and no infants are members or in any right to be members in their infancy of the visible church under the Gospel then some infants may in infancy be in a visible state of salvation â—â—d yet not be in nor yet in present right to membership in the visible church But all infants c. and no infants c. Ergo some infants ut supra The first proposition is most undeniably clear the Minor hath two parts which I shall prove successively one ofter another and then I have done with this argument of Mr. Ba. I le ptove the last first and the first last and here I dare say I might easily muster up scores if not a century of solid arguments toward the fuller clearing of it that no babes now but the new born babes spoken of 1 Pet. 2.2.3.4.5 i. e. at least in appearance spiritually born babes such as those 1 Iohn 1. 1 Cor. 3.1 Heb. 5.13 are to be
as the other for a bastard was not to be admitted into the congregation of the Lord unto the tenth generation and its evident that that child was a bastard I conclude therefore contrary to that round Mr. Ba. runs about in like a horse in a mill making a necessary concatenation between being in visible right to Church-membership and in a visible state of salvation proving the one by the other concluding sometimes that infants of believers are children of the Gospel promise so visibly in a state of salvation therfore they must be baptized and in churcht or else they could not and others may not sometimes that infants of believers are in visible right to be admitted into the visible Church and therefore we may have sound ground to hope their salvation so dying as denying their right to membership we could not have and of other infants we cannot I conclude I say that there may be sound ground whereon to hope the salvation of some dying infants that dye without actual membership in the congregation or visible Church of Christ and without any right to it also in their infancy had they lived longer And if we may hope well of some infants that dy without membership and without right to it also I know not why we may not hope the like of all for all Mr. Baxs impropriating the unlimited and boundlesse grace of God and ingrossing all hope of the salvation of dying infants to the dying infants of none but faithful parents specially considering besides what grounds more of my own I shall add in proof of it by and by two more at least of Mr. Baxters own grounds whereon to hope the salvation of believers infants are grounds whereon to hope the salvation of other dying infants as well as them the Scriptures he refers to for them speaking if of infants at all then of the whole species of the whole kind of that Stature called infants and not of infants of one kind more then another For first whereas his 6th ground for the salvation of believers dying infants and of being without any fear of their damnation is this viz. because it is said Psal. 127.3.4.5 children are the heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb his reward c. if that be spoken of infants at all as it seems rather to be spoken of children that are grown up that are the strength of their father and his family it is surely spoken of all infants as well as some and he that particularizes that indefinit term of children and the fruit of the womb where ever the Scriture speaks hopefully of such so as to understand it universally to expresse and sound forth no more then those individualls viz. the seed of believing parents and yet thus Mr. B i. muzzles up all such Scriptures and makes them sound no more then he would have them doth little lesse then force the word to his own fancy Secondly whereas his 13th ground is from Mat. 18.10 where he argues thus If little ones have their angels beholding the face of God in heaven then they shall be saved for that is a mercy peculiar to the people of God I argue that if little ones litterally taken i. e. if infants be there meant as he saies but never shewes they are saving per alios and not per se then surely all infants as well as some for he speaks not there of the little ones of believing parents in special but of what kind of little ones soever he speaks he speaks of that kind of little ones in general without exception whether it be of infants or of his disciples and if yet it must needs be understood of infants onely that they shall be saved it is understood universally of them and so much Mr. Ba. might have seen and would have said had he consulted the 14. verse but just below where it is thus said of all little ones that are lost and so of all as well as some viz. it is not the will of your heavenly father that one of these little ones shall perish And sith Mr. B. so suches it out below p. 104 105. c. from Mark 10.14.15 saying that of such is the kingdome of Heaven must needs be meant viz. by kingdome of Heaven salvation which I grant and by such as I le grant also at this time however sith thence I shall have another Argument ad hominem to give hope by of the salvation of all dying infants not such as are like infants but infants themselves and that not of those individuals onely that were then brought which whether they were children of believing parents or no too is more then Mr. B. ere can demonstrate there being many that came to Christ for healing of themselves or theirs as t is most evident that these did of whom not more then one of ten were as they should be for of 10 leapets clensed where were the nine I say not of those individuals onely but of the very species of infants yea how oft ore and ore and ore again does he inculcate this upon us in that place saying it was the species of infants the very species infants in specie and not those individuals whom Christ saies the kingdome of heaven i. e. salvation doth belong to I appeal to Mr. Bs. own conscience whether there be not out of his own mouth a strong Argument of hope if not of assurance from Christ himself that the whole species of infants so dying i. e. all infants and not some onely shall be saved for the â—pecies of infants expresses not some infants onely but all infants or infants quâ tales so that quatenus ipsum evermore including de omni whatever belongs to infants inspecie i. e. to the kind or to infants as such belongs to all infants quod convenit homini purely qua est homo convenit omni homini and so what ever belongs to any thing as t is such belongs also to all that is such But Mr. B. teaches us the truth in this that the kingdome of heaven and salvation belongs by Revelation from Christ himself to infants not in individuo onely i. e. not to those infants onely that were then brought to Christ nor any other but to the kind to infants in specie i. e. all infants as infants therefore the kingdome of heaven and salvation belongs to them all and so did that kind of comming to Christs person while he was on earth with infants not for nor by baptism but for healing belong to all infants that needed it as well as some that were then on earth as comming to Christ with infants by prayer to him to help and heal them in whatever malady since his person is absent belongs to all infants in the world and not to believers infants onely and yet not baptism and a standing in fellowship in the visible Church for they indeed are not fit for fellowship Therefore though Mr. Ba. contracts the grace of God to
baptized till he came to years then though under the Law the circumcised were circumcised in their infancy yet under the Gospel none are to be baptized till they come to years His 25th runs thus If the Scripture frequently and plainly tell us of the ceasing of circumcision but never at all of the Churchmembership of infants then though circumcision be ceased yet we are not to judge their membership to be ceased but c. Therefore This is so far from a demonstration that it s not a Topical but Sophistical Syllogism in which there is fallacia homonomiae or ambiguity in the middle term viz. the Scripture tells us which may be taken for an expresse or for an implicit telling or having a word for a thing yet one of his propositions will be false let him understand it how he will for if by the Scripture telling us and having a word for it he means an expresse telling of the cessation of membership in totidem verbis a Syllabical word given out of that particular by name then his consequence is false for it follows not because there is not an expresse particular prohibition in the New Testament for the cessation of things that were under the old therefore they are not ceased for so we shall make most of the types and ceremonies among which infant membership was one as I have shewed to remain in force still as well as that as the dedication of the first born and many others the cessation of which is not so syllabically spoken of But if he mean an implicit prohibition or word for the cessation of Churchmembershâ—p of infants which is enough then there is prohibition enough yea the very command for the cessation of circumcision of infants any more Act. 21.21 vertually is a command to cease inchurching of infants for the very end and intent of circumcision was the inchurching of infants thereby which thing was formally done then by circumcision besides circumcision ceasing the whole law ceased with it the whole of which he was a debtor to keep that was circumcised also Heb. 2.12 t is sayd summarily thus viz. that the priesthood i. e. of that testament being changed there must be of necessity a change also of the law And so I have done with all his arguments for the church-membership of infants which is the second medium and next to that of discipleship by which he would prove but cannot infant baptism His third medium which he onely names and handles not therefore I shall do the like in speaking to it is drawn from the duty of parents to engage their infants solemnly to God in Covenant and runs thus viz. if it be the duty of christian parents solemnly to devote their children to God in covenant then they ought to do it in baptism but c. therefore He proves his Minor from the practise of the old Testament from the duty of parents then from which time as to that particular of dedicating and solemn engaging of their children it will not follow to our doing the like in all respects now as they did for then we must thus dedicate our first born and that doth of man and beast His consequence is also false of his Major proposition for I may devote my children in a gospel sense to God according to my duty I mean ingage my self to the Lord to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and also devote them to him in prayer i. e. give them up to him as his right and to him to teach by his word and his spirit when they come to years and sundry other wayes and yet no necessity of doing any of this in baptism But I shall make this as short as he does himself and gather up the sum of what he hath said viz. infants are disciples visible Church-members and to be solemnly engaged to God in Covenant as a holy seed c. therefore are to be baptized denying now the consequence as to him as I did the antecedent before which I have been all this while in disproving For Ad hominem so long as he argues for baptism to be after the manner of circumcision the consequence will not follow if this were as true as t is false that infants are now disciples Church-members and a holy seed and in covenant that therefore they must be baptized for women under the Covenant whereof circumcision was a sign were both disciples and visible Church-members and a holy people in the sense of the Covenant and dedicated to God in Covenant as well as males and yet not then circumcised and why viz. for want of a commission to do it and the like I say now of infants if they were as t will never be proved while the world stands that they are disciples in right to visible membership and holy in his sense and to be ingaged c. yet of necessity it followes not they must be baptized unlesse there be some command or commission for it which no man ever shall find in the word of Christ all the rest of his arguments wherein he undertakes to disprove the practise of baptizing naked and baptizing children of Christians of age as I have shewed above are ignoratio elenchi a dispute besides our practise for we do not so therefore though I see some grosse absurdity in them all yet I le meddle no more with them here Thus I have done with both that subject of rantizing which partly at the motion of you Ashford disputants I was ingaged in at the end of your Review and partly by that meer demi-reformation that is made in this point of baptism by a party of men in Lincolnshire and elsewhere of whom I suppose there are several congregations who having long since discovered the true way of baptism as to the subject viz. that professing believers onely and not any infants are to be baptized but remaining ignorant of the true way and form of administration of that ordinance are fallen into a frivolous way of sprinkling believers which to do is as much no baptism at all as to dip infants in no baptism of Christs ordaining which people for whose sakes as well as others I write this will be perswaded I hope in time to be as to the outward form not almost onely but altogether Christians and rest no longer in that meer midway mongril reformation I have done also with this book of Mr. Baxs for infant baptism the weak arguments of which for it were enough if I had no more to convince me of the error of it to make me doubt of it renounce it even as Mr. Ba. himself saies he had like to have done once when he saw the weak arguments of others for it which had he done he had done no more then what is his duty to do now and in order to Gods glory though it were as much to his own shame as it will be rather for his honour to deny himself and imbrace the
him he next begins to act according thereunto to act like him self to make out his mind to his disciples concerning them and all men most expressely and plainly about this matter of water baptism and to give order to them both when and to whom both in what time and to what subjects they should dispense it and likewise both how and for how long he would have the nations as by command from himself commissionating his disciples so to teach them to practise the same dispensation of water baptism in the two following verses Going out therefore teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy spirit teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and â—o I am with you alwaies even to the end of the world Where note first in general three things First That he gives order to his disciples to teach the nations and baptize them in water in his name ver 19. going out teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father son and holy spirit Secondly that whatever order is given out by Christ to his disciples concerning this businesse of water baptism as to the order of its administration and the term of its continuance the very same and no other doth Christen join his disciples to give out to the disciples â—hat should be successively in all nations to be observed as his will concerning them v. 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Thirdly that what ever he gives out as his will concerning both them and the disciples in the nations that they should make he gives out as his standing will and Testament to them and their standing duty to him in all ages of the world as well as that even to the very end thereof in these words v. 20. and lo I am with you alwaies i. e. in the observation of these things I command you to the end of the world Secondly more particularly yet let it be observed what Arguments in particular do most naturaly arise hence in proof of the continuance of water baptism by comcommand from Christ to this very day and that from several clauses and passages of this Scripture severally considered First from these words Go ye out therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name c. it is very evident to the utter confutation not onely of those who are for infant baptism as is shewed above but also of those that are now for no water baptism at all that our lord Christ expressely enjoines these two things viz 1. That all those whom his disciples presume to baptize in his name shall be first taught by them or made disciples i. e. preached to or instructed in the Gospel till they learn and believe it 2. That all those whom his disciples do teach till they have learnt the Gospell or by preaching to them have converted to faith in his name shall in his name like wise be baptized so inseperable hath Christ made these two viz. discipling and baptizing believing and baptizing in his will and Testament to us that as he would have no creature in the nations be baptized without precedent teaching and believing so he would have no creature that is instructed till he believes to go unbaptized whereupon in one and the same word of command he requires both neither can any one abstract either from the other without such violation to the will and Testament of Christ confirmd by his blood which wo be to that man or angel that disanulleth in the least particular so as to take upon him to give a toleration to persons either to be baptized before believing or to content themselves with belief only without baptism But first as expresse as t is the mind of Christ that one of these should be done so expresse it is that the other should be done and each in its proper order Secondly as clear as it is that these are commanded to be done by the very persons he then spake to viz that they should teach and baptize so clear it is that the very same is commanded to be done in all nations and among all people by such persons as should be discipled by them in these words v. â—0 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Thirdly and as long as t was his mind the one should be used viz. teaching and believing so long t was his mind that the other should continue viz. baptizing and being baptized and that was that they should all abide in force to the very end of the world Whence more formally we may argue thus viz. What Christ hath conjoined man must not seperate But Christ hath conjoined our discipling of persons and baptizing them as a standing course to the end of the world as Matth. 28.18 19 20. plainly shews Ergo man must not seperate these two In this very manner and form of words word for word little heeding how while he declines the gulf of no-baptism he runs against the rock and makes shipwrack of his infant baptism by the shift and at once breaks the neck of all his Arguments for it doth Mr. Baxter argue against these new No-baptists in p. 341. of his Plain Scripture-lesse proofs for infants Church-membership and baptism whereby verily as he wounds both himself to death and all those that together with him do plead for the baptizing of such subjects as they never teach viz. infants whom themselves must needs acknowledge to be uncapable of conversion by their instruction so all those likewise that plead for the teaching of all nations still and preaching of the Gosel to every creature and yet plead against any more baptizing of them in water who are converted to the faith by preaching who tear the Testament of the Lord Christ to pieces and take what of it will serve their own easie turnes and reject what of it is more tedious to the flesh as the way of outward ordinances is specially that ordinance of water baptism as a businesse long since abolished and out of date as being ended almost as soon as instituted as bondage as meer bodily exercise that profiteth little or nothing as but indifferent at most and so may be done and yet as well be let alone as a low weak thing as a foolish matter to make such ado about as needlesse for every one to submit to or make use of as that which some can live as well without as with c. as if Christ Jesus was a fool for so all those do say in figures though not in words at length to invent such foolish instruments to appoint such simple tooles to be used in his house such earthen vessels such vessels as are not honourable enough nor fit in their conceit for the masters use or for any thing but to be thrown aside as out of date and not worthy to be now meddled with any more to which high Notionists who camaelion like live
foregoing it s also evident that some of the Church of the Galatians were not baptized for the same expression is used concerning them Gal. 3.27 from which two instances it is apparent that baptism is neither necessary to make a Saint or to render him capable of Church-fellowship Baptist. As many as is a phrase that where it s used doth not alwayes nay doth never of it self necessarily expresse and imply not all or but some onely of the things or persons spoken of in the words that border about it but as it may happen pro re substrata according to the nature of the matter in hand and according as the sense thereof is manifest by the foregoing and following sentences expressing or implying it so that sometimes you shall find it signifying but some onely or a part exclusively of others or the rest of the body spoken to or spoken of thereabout and sometimes no lesse then the whole of it neither is it apparent whether a or but some onely is the sense of this term as many as where ere t is used but as t is made appear by the context or some circumstances in it and not a jot lesse then this is said by your self in that very objection of yours I am now answering to for of Iohn 1.12 as many as received him to them gave he power these words plainly intimate say you that some of them i. e. the Jews whom its said he came to did not receive Christ and for my part I grant they do so signfie in that place but why or how doth it appear that they must needs signifie there that but some of the Jews received him It appeareth not by any usuall or constant sense of the words as many as as if they alwayes sounded forth but some and never all of such or such subjects as are spoken of but it appeareth say you by the words immediately foregoing in which veâ—ily you say right for the words foregoing do plainly shew what the sense of these words As many as is in this Scripture for forasmuch as it s said plainly above that he came to his own and his own received him not i. e. for the generality of them rejected him therefore it s undeniably evident that here the words as many as received him do intimate that some did not receceive him but if you should take these words as many as received him abstract from what 's said above viz. that his own for the most part did not receive him then they were not necessarily to be so understood neither could they simply of themselves intimate so much and as these words as many as considered abstractively from the context or speeches adjacent are not of themselves termes so necessarily exclusive of some as they are conclusive of some so considered in a right reference to the rest of the words preceding and succeeding among which they have their place they will be found sometimes conclusive of no lesse then all those persons or things there spoken of e. g. if I were speaking of the whole company of men in the great ship or Royal Soveraign as Paul does to the whole Church at Galatia and say you are all in a pretty safe condition for as many of you have been admitted into that strong ship cannot likely be sunk does not the word as many of you signifie all the men he speaks to even the whole company of them that are in the ship and not some of them onely so and no otherwise is it to be understood in these two Scriptures viz. Rom. 6.2 Gal. 3.27 where you would needs have these words viz. as many of us and as many of you as were as have been baptized into Christ necessarily to intimate no more but that onely some of the believing Romans and some of the Galatians were baptized and to be conclusive of some in each of these two churches and exclusive of the rest even of them as being not baptized whereas there is nothing in the world more plain then this that these words Rom. 6. as many of us Gal. 3. as many of you as have been baptized c. if considered with that due relation they bear and stand in to the words foregoing or following do intimate to us that the whole Church of the Romans that were to reckon on themselves as dead to sin and bound to live to it no longer and that certainly was no lesse then the whole were baptized and that all the Churches in Galatia or all the believers among the Galatians were baptized Yea if the scope of the Apostle Paul in both the places be observed we shall find that he makes this no other then an argument and uses it as a certain medium or motive whereby to perswade the Romans that they were all to dy to sin and now to live to it no longer and to prove the Galatians even all of them to be visibly to us at least the sons of God by faith in Christ because they were all of them baptized into Christ and thereby had visibly put him on First take notice that the businesse he would perswade the whole Church at Rome to and prove to be the duty of them all is this that they should now dy to sin have no more to do with sin and live to God now how does he prove that and go about to perswade them to it which is his businesse throwout that whole chapter Rom. 6. no otherway as I find but by imminding them of it that by their being buried with Christ in baptism this not only was signifyed to them but also became the duty of them all and that so strictly that howbeit before not so obliged yet from thenceforth they must crucify the old man and utterly abolish the body of sin and live to righteousnesse what shall we saith he for so his sense is continue in sin i. e. we that are dead to it and have been all baptized into Christ in token of it God forbid know ye not that every one that 's baptized into Christ is baptized into his death yea therfore t is that we i. e. all we still himself and the whole Church to whom he writes are buryed with Christ in baptism into death c. to shew that as Christ dyed and rose again so we also should walk in newnesse of life for if we i. e. all we have been planted together i. e. in baptism the lively â—esemblance of it into the likenesse of his death we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection c and so he goes on moving them all now to lead a new life and to be servants to righteousnesse by the consideration of the great engagements to Godward that lay upon them all since such time as they were baptized and forasmuch as you say they had all obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine delivered unto them you therein contradict your self and confesse no lesse then we assert viz. that they were all
whole truth and are built upon the whole foundation or beginning doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles do yet ignorantly withstand it and some even of these bitterly band against it I shall the Lord assisting in all possible meeknesse brevity and plainnesse make good unto them and that in this one single long-winded syllogism onely least the presse which now presses on apace after me and is at the very heels of me all along at my penning of this whole businesse called Anti-ranterism should overtake me and stand still for want of such supply as it expects hourly from me least also I out run too much as I have almost done already the bounds prefixed to this interposed Treatise the Minor proposition of which argument being proved and cleared from those clouds of objection wherewith some strive to darken it will both evince and evidence the continuance of that service also in its right use to this day so sufficiently that howbeit much more might be spoken yet no more shall at this time at least by me Whatsoever was in the primitive times taught practised dispensed or submitted to own'd or observed as a command of Christ as one of the oracles or holy things of God as a part of that foundation on which the true visible Church is built as one of the very principles of the doctrine of Christ as a practical part of the Law Will and Testament of Christ concerning them in order to their receiving the holy spirit of promise according to the promise at their first beginning to be disciples at or about the time of their baptism and before actual fellowship in the visible Church in all the Churches and among all baptized believers even men and women without exception of any without the least hint of any limitation of it to those times onely and without the least intimation to us in the word of Christ that t was his will it should then cease and hath also plain injunction form Christ for its continuance for its being taught to and observed by the disciples that should be successively in all the world through all nations and generations of it to the end and hath also the same ends grounds and reasons why it was to be used continuing still to this day as much as then is certinly in the same manner as then to be observed to this very day But on this wise is that service of prayer and laying on of hands not onely on officers Deacons Elders messengers in order to their receiving of the holy spirit to impower them in a fuller measure for those severall functions but also on common disciples men and women in order to their receiving the holy spirit in such manner and measure as Christ Iesus shall be pleased to impart it in to comfort them under sufferings and make them fit for fellowship in the body or visible Church Therefore that service of laying on of hands with prayer on common disciples men and women as well as that on officers in order to their offices is now to be observed as in former daies The first proposition is so undoubtedly true that if any should be so irrational as to deny it as I judge none will but the Rakesham Ranter that regards neither God nor devil and reckons on all Christs commands as not worth a rush I shall be more rationall then to believe him to be a man fit to reason with or that it can be to any purpose in never so reasonable a manner to bespeak him As for the Minor wherein t is affirmed that the businesse of prayer and laying on of hands after baptism in water upon every disciple man or woman is such as was taught practised dispensed submitted to ownd and observed as an ordinance and command of Christ c. as it followes in the Major that remains yet to be cleared which by that time I shall have done in each of those particulars that are there asserted of it either expressely or by such plain and legitimate deductions and inferences from the Scripture as may be justly satisfactory to any sincere souls that love truth and allow others to draw inferences from the word without which who can prove that he shall be saved as well as themselves and by discovering the weaknesse of such exceptions as are ordinarily made against the present use of this rite or service t wil be more then high time for me to quit this subject also whereas therfore contrary to what is asserted in the very front of the foregoing argument viz. that laying on of hands was taught in the primitive times I find it intimated to us by way of query that some who even therefore as well as for other reasons by them rendred cannot practise it are in no wise satisfied that such a thing as laying on of hands on all baptized believers was ever taught by either Christ or his Apostles in proof of this that laying on of hands was taught I send such as doubt of it first to the name of doctrine of Christ by which in common together with the other five principles of it it is denominated Heb. 6.1.2 leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God and of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands which denomination of doctrine of Christ could not possibly belong to it properly but that it was somewhere or at sometime or other taught by either Christ or his Apostles or disciples in the judgement of any that are but so far learned as to know whence the word doctrine is derived which as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so is of doceo to teach but secondly whereas t is desired that we should if we know of any direct to some place of Scripture where ever Christ or any of his Apostles or disciples did preach this doctrine that all baptized believers ought to practise or submit unto laying on of hands for my own part I shall direct the enquirers to several Scriptures in one of which as it is expresse enough so in the rest its plain enough to such as are not more resolved to proceed in propounding questions then when they are answered to be resolved that some or other of the Apostles or disciples of Christ did teach and preach that doctrine the first of these is Heb. 5.12 where to that Church of the Hebrews or Iews the very platform to all the rest which as to its more compleat outward form and order and that denomination of the Church to which God added dayly such as should be saved had its first being and beginning under Peters teaching Act. 2. t is said thus viz. whereas for the time ye ought to be teachers ye have need to be taught again which be the first principles of the oracles of God Where note first from the words taught again that they were taught
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
the light that his deeds might be made manifest that they are wrought in God yet the means and courses by which truth should be tryed which are plain and not puzzling discourses upon the Scripture you smother by all the means and courses you can conveniently devise as for any entire discourses of such as are contrary minded to you though teachers of truth as t is in the word these you cannot away with at any hand nor permit to be used in publique before the people while you have any powar to shut your pulpit doors upon them you bid your people now or then prove all things that they may find out which is good and shun the evil but by your good-evil will they shall hear no more then what you tell them and chuse whether they 'l take that for truth or nothing you bid them cut where they like and yet you 'l be their carvers and force them to feed upon what you offer them or fast and welcome for no more messes must be meddled with though they have never such a mind to cut and try then what is of your dressing that oft is no more then some sugar sopt sententious Academical bespangled hide bound glasse measured spirit stinting stuff which may challenge the name of duncery baldnesse babling and prating more then that sincere milk of the word you commonly call so which hour of divinity when you have bookt down and cond with no little care is many times but Sed and someâ—imes but Red ore when all 's done neither yet oft times you crow couragiously upon your own dunghil you pay it soundly in your own pulpits with convincing and opposing the approach of heresies and argue so substantially against them that you carry the cause and win all but t is because you play there by your selves for if any chance to hear you that hath never so much wherewith to undeceive your deluded people yet they may not receive his interrupted reply to never so little when you in the first place have pleaded your cause the next thing to be done is for all them that hear and have ought against you to hold their peace they must not andere audire alteram partem least they be infected though wise men know there is no other way to be perfected in the knowledge of the truth and freed from that hobnob implicit faith which is wrongly acted when rightly objected then by hearing all that is to be said against it as well as for it yea the heathen herein may be thy Tutor O PPPriest Qui statuit aliquid c. You cry out they are not Orthodox that oppose you and so forbid all audience of them to your people whom you feed with a word and a blow a bit and a knock lest if they be not as well corrected into a refusal of all direction from others as directed by your selues they quickly discern difference between you and them yet you would fain be counted free and forward that all should have liberty according to their duty to try all but the niggard shall never be called liberall nor the churl said to be bountiful for me for he deviseth not the liberal things whereby the liberal shall stand yea the instruments of the churl are evil and he deviseth wicked devices to destry the poor with lying words when the needy spoaketh right things yea his heart works iniquity to practise hypocrisie and to utter error befor the Lord to make empty the soul of the hungry and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail Isa. 32.5.6.7.8 As for pro and con discourse or disputation you smother that likewise with all your might for as you desire no more of it then needs must so you decline it what you can and disclaim it too as far as you dare for shame be seen in such a service as disputing against disputing is declaiming against it as a dismal thing of some dangerous consequence poison means of infection contentionem scabiem and such like being sensible of your sores you come not to the stake to be questioned in your waies before your blind admirers but when you cannot with credit considering your over shooting your selves sometimes in hasty challenges make a cleanly come off without it though it be to meet with those that are inferiour to your selves save that the Lord is with them for surely you see somewhat further then a mole into a milstone that things are no better with you then they should be why else should there be such loathnesse like that of the Elephant that 's loath to drink in fair waters for fear of seeing a foul face to come to the light as we find there is in the most of you as well as in Dr. Gouge who would at no hand vouchsafe any publique discussion of inâ—ant-sprinkling whether it were of God or man nec per se ne per synodum in his parish with Dr. Chamberlain yet sometimes Euphoniae gratia for reports sake you make some pretty put offs in publike and put on tooth and nail for disputation but alas you curtail it into so narrow a compasse as namely half a day two hours or some odd end of an after-noon when two dayes is too little two weeks scarce enough two years not too much to discusse the truth in witnesse not onely Iude who bids the Saints of the last times saving Tertullian and Sir Henry Wottons dislike out contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints and Paul who for 2 years space disputed dayly in the School of one Tyrannus not such a Tyrant to the truth as you are it seems for if he had he would have admitted not a word out you confine it I say into such a corner of time that as Pilate askt what 's truth and when he had so said went his way without an answer so you hast to have an end not hearing half the half quarter that is to be said in opposition to your own opinions about that question And during that little while the busines lasts you carry all as much as you can above the reach and beyond the capacity of plain minded men and women that come together for resolution in Scholastick terms and conclave it from their cognizance under the lock and key of your Linsey wolsey Logick which is neither fine enough for the University from which you have a while discontinued nor home-spun enough for the Country which muddy way of mood and figure is neither suitable to the simplicity and plainess of speech in which the Gospel ought to be declared and discussed nor reasonable to reason in with Russet Rabbies that are otherwise reasonable enough to give you such reasons of their faith and practise as you can never rationally resist nor is it much more profitable to our honest hearted people then if you spake wilde Irish. And when you have done then you smother and cloud over all that was more plainly and punctually
would not obey the orders of the Church insomuch that who but the devill who so busie as he now to have Christian Bishops favoured cherished advanced honoured with all the honours that might be next to that of the very Crown Imperial it self who so earnest as he to have all the world brought about by all means possible and in all the hast to become Christians and to become one holy Catholick Christian Church and so within a while Deo permittente non approbante having set forth the beast or Roman Empire in another shape and christned it with the name of Christendome he scrambles up his Kingdome to himself again makes over his power seat and great authority to this beast thus transformed and this beast gives it all up to the Whore he sets him up a Vicar General and names him the Vicar of Christ the head of the Church Bishop of the Universal See and such like and by him and the Ministers of Christ that issued from him fills all the earth with abomination and reigns with as full force though not so open face but under a mask having all things in a kind of apish imitation of Christs kingdome to the suppressing of the truth as in former daies he had done and all this came to passe through this sin of self love in the Clergy which as it grew great so love to the truth grew smaller and smaller till it came to be totally extinguisht and the light of it wholly ecclipsed from the earth for when the good man Constantine in his zeal to the truth gave them great Revenues to which other princes added more still according to the voice that was then heard in the aire viz. hodie venenum infusum est ecclesiae so it sell out for the Clergy fell to make much of themselves and things of the earth to serve and seek their own interests fell to wrangling and jangling about Primacy Superiority who should be universall Bishop and such base unworthy abominable and self-pleasing practises so that the truth took no more place in their hearts from thenceforth for ever From thenceforth they began to grow in high esteem of themselves and not only to fancy but also to inveagle both Princes and people to fancy some perfection holinesse choicenesse spiritualnesse and purity in them more then in all other men and to distinguish themselves from the people by their garbs and titles of Holy men of God the Spiritualty the Clergy or Heritage of God the Tribe of Levi the lot of Gods own inheritance the Priesthood Ghostly fathers Divines shutting out the people from sharing with them in these terms of honour which belong onely to Gods people whom of all the rest in the mean time they villyfyed with the names of Hereticks as if God himself had no regard almost to any but themselves and did behold all manner of men but these Ministers afar off calling other princes and lords for the Clergy men were become lords and princes too now i. e. spiritual ones Temporall Princes Lords Temporall Secular men and the people the Laity Mechanicks that must not meddle with the Scripture so much as to look in it for so it was in old time not so much as to take upon them to be skilled in it much lesse to speak out of it or expound or understand any otherwise then as these Divines say is the meaning of it yea under the raign of these latter Lords the Protestant CClergy though they have it in such plain English before their eyes yet what a horrible thing was it but a few years behind fancied by Featley and still is well nigh universally by the CClergy here in England who appropriate all the wisdome about the Scripture to themselves what a horrible thing I say for the people to talk on or have more to do with Scripture then to take it as the Priesthood gives the sense of it The Shoomaker goes not beyond his last nor the Taylor beyond his measure quoth he only the trade and well might he so call it for by that craft they have their wealth as handicrafts men theirs by other crafts of expounding Scripture is a mystery which every Artizan arrogateth to himself the Physitian here will be prescribing receipts the Lawyer will be demurring upon Dubia Evangelica and every handicrafts man will be handling the pure word of God with impure and unwashed hands this the pratling huswife this the old dotard this the wrangling Sophister in a word this men of all profession and men of no profession take upon them to have skill in sic ille quid ni quaeso O Sacerdos what was the Scripture given for thee only to look in or wast thou set to keep people out from it under lock and key or may the spirit blow no where but where thou listest must not all people search it or must they search and find no more truth in it then thou findest or must they not take it into their mouths lest they defile it as Bishop Wren thought who prohibited the people to talk on it at their tables for fear they should prophane it It should seem so by Dr. Featley who cryed down the people as Asses Apron Levites Russet Rabbies the Clergy of Laicks c. wondering that their dores and posts and walls did not sweat upon which any note was fixed to give notice of the exercises of men of any manual imployment yea t is a thousand pitties quoth he that such owls and bats and night birds as if the Clergy onely were the children of the day and the people the children of the night and darknesse should slutter in our Churches and sile upon our fonts Pulpits and Communion Tables This was the cause of that great Schism of Corah Dathan and Abiram Numb 16. all the congregation is holy But this is the cause of that schism of Pope Prelate and Presbyter from the primitive freedome that gifted Disciples whether officers or no had to speak to exhortation edification comfort and that the congregation then had to admonish her Ministers upon occasion Col. 4.17 viz. all the congregation are prophane onely the Priesthood holy enough to draw neer within the rails and to preach to the people out of the Pulpit they are afraid I wot least the preaching of others there should sile and bewray it what need else of causing the pulpit to be washed as I have heard one of our Kentish Clergy men did his after two tradesmen had preached there in his absence they think they are men meliore luto of some better mould and taller by far in Gods affections then the People are This conceit makes them go apart look upon themselves as sons of Anack their Brethren as Grashoppers shun commerce and society with them as with publicans and sinners In detestation of whom as not consecrated they say Odi Profanum vulgus and in a kind of proverbiall spel procul hinc procul este profani and as
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
be supreme and overcome so the lord let him for a time that he might manifest his own power the more in the overcomming him for ever in the end yea power was given him to make war by the beast that bears him even all nations of Christendom which he overcame first against the Saints and to overcome them also and so to be filled with his own inventions he gives out when any disputes against him that his desire is to be satisfyed by disputing and so perhaps he would but t is with riches more then rightousnesse with tith more then truth for in truth he seemes if he must meet with such as charge him with error in his doctrine of baptism tith forced maintenance forcing conscience as if he would renounce his opinions and practises in these points if any can prove them to be corrupt but seeks onely opportunities to spread his odd opinions of what schism and sacriledge and robbing of God it is if submission be not acted and tithes be not offered to him among the vulgar among whom his Ghostly pretences produce a kind of aweful affrightment and dread of doing any thing against what he saies being resolved before hand never to be convinced of the truth as t is in the word for that overturns him in all his preferment projects and plucks him up from all the profits of his present princely posture which is such a right eye to him that he hath not faith enough to believe that it can possibly be more profitable to him to part with though Christ himself till him tis then to preserve and perish with it His disciples are for the most part not such as the noble Beraeans that would take nothing upon trust from the very Apostles mouths but searched the Scripture dayly whether the things were so or no not onely men but honourable women too not a few but rather meet idle implicit forefather faitht men simple and weak women who try nothing but keep their Church and believe as their Church believes and as their good churchman saies led away with diverse lusts and pleasures leaning onely on their Priests understandings pinning all their Religion upon their sleeves adoring all that their Orthodox divines deliver at a venture ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth as t is in the word whose honest ignorant devotions he hath won to himself by his cunning artifice of pretended piety voluntary humility seeming zeal to the truth long prayers or rather multitudes of short prayers and praises Pater Nosters Miserere Mei's Magnificats Te deums Gloria Patri's per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrums and such like devoutries and being once gained are so carried on with the streme of corrupt custome present fashion foolish affection that no reason in the world can reclaim them he deterreth lay people as much as may be from reading expounding or too much prying into the Scripture alledging unto them the perils they may incur by misinterpretations he hath laid his foundations so firmly in the dark consciences of men women by perswading them of his own infallibity Ecclesiastical Authority his Ius Divinum in the Government and guidance of the Church as here in Britain and even of his Temporal jurisdiction too as at Rome over both heaven and earth hell and purgatory of his power in the agony of mens souls to forgive sin that men and women are becharmed into beleif of him he hath woven himself so far into their credulity that all his sayings are received as oracles all his doings as divine all his traditions as truth it self all his Administrations as Apostolical all his doctrines as Orthodox all his Arguments though confessed by himself to be weak as unanswerable and all others Administrations Actions Answers Arguments though never so consentaneous to the true sense of Scripture valued at that price which he sets upon them as if the holy chaire of Papall determination Episcopal Convention Synodical constitution could not possibly be mistaken yea the Scripture it self is but a nose of wax with him of what shape soever the CCClergy casts it into of no more authority then Aesops Fables with the Papists if the Pope say the word so as to disdate digrade it or put any part of it out of commission of no other sense then the Bishops and Synod seem to say is the sense on 't with their good Protestants so altogether Oraculous is the Pope among his the Bishop among his the Presbyter among his and even all the three several CCClergies among their three several sorts of CCCreatures that their different ipse dixits are ipso facto divine directory and discharge enough too for these different doters on them insanire cum ratione to dote to and fro by Authority so as to do and undo and do and undo and do by In a word he is too bold to be born down not so much from such things as make the righteous witnesses to truth as bold as Lions before God and men viz. the goodnesse of his cause for that is stark naughâ— and rotten nor the clearnes of his call either to his Clerical function or any actions he goes about by vertue and in persuance thereof for t is clear enough that his orders emission commission as to the external etymology of them are more from the Pope then Christ and the true Church nor any good answer of a good conscience for either his conscience is so cloudy that he cannot or so cowardly that he dares not or so resolved that he will not see or else so clear that he is condemned of himself when truth shines plainly upon his face but rather from either his great interest in or directive authority over the civil power that hath long back as well as bellyed him as in England or his having it all in his own hands and dispose as at Rome where ecce duo gladii both swords are in the Clergyes clutches so that he can quickly correct those that contradict him he is too clamorous to be silenced calling out with such a heavy noise and divine ditty against the truth and condemning it with such an outcry of Schism Schism Sedition blasphemy Heresie Heresie before he hath half heard it and so soon as ever its opening its mouths to speak that all the parish pulpits in a whole Countrey and now and then their steeples ring out in such combustion to the tune of Great is Diana of the Ephesians Act. 19 28.34 that truth hath no way wherby to silence him but to be silent her self for when she begins to declare he with his Heresie Heresie soon stops men ears he is too arrogant to be convinced he hath controuled whole nations cut of the spirit of Princes bin terrible to the kings of the Earth and devinced invincible Emperors in his time therefore may well scorn to be convinced abominate detest disdain to be directed by Russet Rabbies Apron Levites Ministerian Mechanicks illiterate Artizans
according to the word it is because there is no light in them Isa. 8 19 20. Ask therefore the High Priest Christ Jesus and if you cannot be resolved so speedily as you desire to your satisfaction and content be content to stay till God shall reveal in the mean time while you doubt suspend the practise and do nothing doubtingly but exercise your selves the while in searching the Scripture and prayer to which pretious practise God hath made many pretious promises in his word as namely That they shall be undefiled in the way that seek the Lord with their whole heart Psalm 119.1 2. That if thou wilt turn at his reproof though thou hast been a simple one and hast loved simplicity a scorner that delightest in scorning and jearing at the truth and a fool that hath hated knowledge which all are high degrees of sin yet he will powre out his spirit upon thee which happily hath been thy laughing stock and make known his words unto thee Prov. 1.22.23 that if thou wilt receive his words and hide his commaddements within thee If thou incline thine ear unto wisdom and apply thy heart unto understanding yea if thou cryest after knowledge and liftest up thy voice for understanding if thou seekest her as silver and searchest for her as for hid treasure then thou shalt understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God Prov. 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Yet be assured of this humble ignorance in many questions debated in these daies by Divines and also in old time before us by learned Schoolmen and Casuists and by the Popish priests that reason about the unreasonable fopperries and refusely scum that arises out of the dead sea of their divinity is more acceptable to God then contentious curiousity yet not such humble ignorance about the ordinances of Christ as our Priesthood would hold men in as if the Law and Oracles of Christ which are all plain to him that understandeth were in things necessary to salvation so difficult and obstruse that poor mechanicks must meddle no more in t then they have leave from them in facili et apecto postta est salus the way of salvation is plain to be found in the book of God he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord for remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy spirit but the PPPriesthood hath led men the next way round about to salvation and framed a new Gospel for their followers which Scripture makes no mention of at all but as those Israelites that were led up and down the wildernesse so long God had sworne should not enter into his xest so neither shall those Christians that when the truth lyes plain before them delight rather to trace to and fro in the thicket of traditions received from their after forefathers then in the way of the first fathers of the Church and love more to wander then to walk in the narrow way of truth in the vast forrest wondrous wood and wide wildernesse of the PPPriests inventions 9. Consider sadly in heresie the sin the punishment the sin St. Paul places it among the works of the flesh Murder Idolatry Witchcraft Drunkenness c. and well may for t is onely in favour of the flesh and for some base fleshly ends or other that men depart from the way of truth and not of the spirit for that leadeth those that are resolved to be led by it as it speaks in the Scriptures into all truth as it is in the mind of Christ Jesus Iohn 14. The least heresie cannot be excused the nature of it is to gather as it grows it is to run downhil and that 's the cause why so many follow it and so few the truth for its an uphill a narrow way that leads to life therefore few find it but facilis descensus averni the way to the bottomlesse pit is an easie and broad descent therefore many there be that go in thereat even whole towns Counties Kingdoms yea the whole world 1 Ioh 5.19 Rev. 13.3 a few onely excepted that obey the truth whose names therefore are written in the book of life the heretick that hath begun it cannot stop when he will but when once he ceases to receive and retain God in his knowledge and the love of the truth that he may be saved through some base love of the world and the lucre and lust thereof that he may be pleased profited preferred a 100 to one but he is hardned for ever in blindnesse God also giving him over as well as he himself to deeper and deeper delusion and at last to the love of lies more then truth Ieroboams rent turned into idolatry and the rent of such as run from the primitive doctrine of Christ is come to no less the Rantizer and the Ranter also are both sad examples to us how fearâ—ul a thing it is to run away from the plain path of the word of Christ the one whereof when he ran down once but so far as to take upon him to mend Christs ordinances and teach for doctrine his own traditions never left adding more and more of his own odd constitutions till he sunk ore head and ears in a gulf of golden legends and a lake of lies the other when he had once declined the Scripture and denied all ordinances never left advancing himself into the clouds of his own airy conceits till his waxen wings melted with his soring so neer the sun and so he fell headlong into a sink of sordid sensuality The punishment is either temporal the Donatists of old as some say the Anabaptists as they are commonly cal'd of Germany who if ever they ownd the truth abode not very long in it are examples of Gods Iudgements in that kind spiritual blindnesse of understanding hardnesse of heart seeing and not perceiving hearing and not understanding and last of all eternal the worm that never dies Christ shews all mens labour in their religion is lost by reason of it in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the traditions of men the Apostle shuts heaven against it 5. Gal. and twice over denounces cursing to any yea angels from heaven that preach any other then what they preached and I am sure they never preached infant sprinkling yea whoever is an heretick vel dandi vel auferendi sacu in either excesse or defect by adding or taking away from the word God will add the plagues upon him that are written in that book and take away his name out of the book of life Saint Austin saith of Arrius how true that saying is I say not but t is an argument Ad hominem a good item however for every one that is any other way Antichristianus that his paines are increased in hell as oft as any one thorough his heresie is seduced from the faith therefore vae vobis Scribae Sacerdotes
is told to and by me and Iohn Brain Both being once of thine one children twain Thou seest yet wilt not see this but remain Silent least friends turn foes and thee disdain But some must shew 't or else they see 't in vain Through England Scotland Italy France and Spain Amen Hallelujah TTTripartita Tribus Tribulaes Tribulusque Triunus Discipulis Christi Triplexque Tricepsque Tyrannus Trico Tricornis Trifurcifer atque Triformis Tristificus Sanctis toti Ter damnifer Orbi Ter decimas sapiens capiens rapiensque Triarchus Reges ipsa regens ipsos super omne triumphans Te credens proh vana fides genus esse deorum RRRoma O RRRoma Tibi mulier formosa videris Attamenes MMMeretrix vix heu pendenda Triuncis Viribus ipsa tuis te perdis quo peritura es Tempus adest aderitque brevi tibi Terminus ipse Dixi haud magis malus Piscator ac tu ac tui O SSSacerdos estis Pessimi Pisces qui nisi resipiscamini Reiiciemini in eternum Mat. 13 48. In Domino viz. via Domini Salvetote FINIS * Witnes the Letter sent to me in the name of more from from one of the opponents which in fuller satisfaction concerning my call to this work is extant at the end of this Epistle * In which sad winter visitation I may not but take notice here in satisfaction to the deluded world how miserably I was misreported to have met the Divel in a field to have been out of my wits and senses stark mad bound down in my bed to have renounced and that with raging that way of the Gospel which throw Gods goodnesse I stand fast in to this hour of all which not the least Jota is true and this too not onely by much people but in part also by such of the Priesthood as lived neer enough to me to have given truer intelligence had they or their Earwigs been either of them any better then they should be * Dr. Featley Dr. Holmes Mr Marshall Mr Bayly Mr Blake Mr Cotton M Cobbet Mr Cooke Mr Symson of Smardens soveraign preservative against Anabaptism Mr. Baxters Plain Scripture proofs * Whose â— words in his return to mine are these viz. as for that most reverend Clergy whom in general you spatter with so much dirt with what fingers a blind man may discern I shall leave them to vindicate themselves and their profession from such immerited obloquiest Expedias persâ—ta co suum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 picasque doce as verba nestra canari That 's the dreadfull phrase whereby you also term your selves ghostly fathers to awe poor ignorants into the greater observation of you and yours express the holy spirit else the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be Englisht by the word spirit at all times as well as some both in translations treatises and discourses b Dr. Blechenden c Mrs. Chute as she was then cal'd now Mâ—s. Dean d Habent artificium quo prius persuadent quam docent veritas autem docendo suadet non suadendo docet Tertull. as cited by your quondam friend Mr. G. C. in his second letter to me e Dr. Austin and Dr. Blechenden e Infans of non fans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f See Mr. Blake in birth priviledge p. 5.11 g P. 87 88. of the way of the Church in N. England 1 Cor 10.1 2. 1. Argum. h Featleys dip dipt p. 178. 2. Argum. i See Mr. Baxter p. 109 297.298 k See Mr. Blake p. 4. 3 Argum. m p. 9. of his grounds and ends of baptizing children n p. 35.36 of his grounds and ends c. o p. 58. of his animad on Mr. Tombes Exercit. p p. 63. of the same book q Demonstratio est ex prioribus notioribus et causis r See Pareus p. 357. and Kekerman System log p. 12. tignum est quod seiâ—lum sensui et preter se aliquid animo ostendit or Râ—sâ— preter speciem quam iâ—gerâ— sensibus aliâ—d asiquid saciens incognitionem venire Taia enim debent esse â—t res invisibileâ— significent â—i enim debent esse adminicula fidei oportet percipi externo sensu quo movetur sensus internus quod enim non vides non est tibi signum qui facit signum invisibile implicat contradictionem et facit signum non signum res sunt invisibiles non signa alioqui signa non possent significare res multo minus confirmare quia incertum confirmaretur per aeque inceâ—tum hinc veteres sacramentum ita definiunt sacramentum est signum visibile invisibilis gratiae p. 212.213 of his reply to Mr. Tombs s Privatio sacramenti non damnat â—i non accedat contemptus christus non adimiâ— salâ—â—em eis quibus adimiâ—â—r baptismus t Quantum damni invexerit dogma illed male exposâ—â—um baptisma esse de necessitate â—alâ—â—is pauci animadvertâ—nt Ideoque minus sibi cavent nam ubi invalâ—it opinio perditos esse omnes quibus aquâ— tingi non contigit nostra conditio deâ—enor est quam vereris populi quasi restrictior esser Dei gâ—â—â—ia quam sub lege venisse enim Christus censebitur non ad implenâ—as promissiones sed abolendas quando promissio qâ—ae â—unâ— ante octâ—vum diem saluti confeâ—endae per se erat satis effiâ—â—x nunc absquo signi adminiculo rata non esseâ— Non arceri a regno caelo rum infances quibus è prae senti vita migrate continget antequam aqua mergi dâ—tum fuerit atqui jam vi sum est fieri nou leveÌ„ injuriam dei saederi nisi in eo acquiescimus â—csi per se infirmum esset qâ—um ejus effectus neque a baptismo neque ab ollis acestionibus pendeat * ubi vides ibi fides where we see it is there we say it is nati Discipuli sacti nati Eunuchi casâ—rati x p 37. to Mr. Tombs y p. 120 121. of his Animadv on M. To. Exercit. Non cum Iesu Itis qui Itis cum Iesuitis Reason Reasonless Reason Reasonless Reason Reasonless Reason Reasonless Reason Reasonless Reason Reasonlesse Reason Reasonlesse Reason Reasonlesse a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a In eundem in quem nostra nunc intendunt Scopum et vetera illa spectarunt nempe ut ad Christum diâ—igerent pene manu ducerent aut ipsum potius ceu imagines representarent ac cognoscendum proferrent b Eam promionem in evangelio datam per sacramenta nobis magis declarat Deus nempe per analogiam signorum cum rebus quae per ea significantur sicut similitudo declarat id cujus est similitudo haec enim
desirable then tongues which is so talkt on so it is defined to be no other then speaking to exhorration edification and comfort and also v. 31.32.33 where it s said you may all prophecy one by one and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets which shewes t was no gift of speaking infallibly but only preaching because it s supposed that they may be out and erre in their prophecy and must submit to correction in case they do from the other prophets Obj. Ans. Ob. Ans. * which I much marvel at sith this objection supposes a continuation or resurrection of that same ordinance of laying on of hands in the last daies after a whiles waiting for administrators but the questions subscribed to are all or most of them such as suppose the Enquirers to be much in the dark and in doubt about it what kind of laying on of hands that is that 's called a doctrine of Christ Heb. 6.1 whether ever such a thing was or is ever to be dispensed to all baptized believers c. as if they could not tell almost whether there be at least appointed by Christ such a manner of administration * viz. Seeing we are denied communion by some of those Churches or by some members thereof who hold the necessity of all baptized believers to practise submit to or come under the laying on of hands Therefore we desire them to acquaint us what we are commanded to say or do that we may be found faithful in that point or otherwise to be discovered disobedient unto a command by the Word of God which is the onely director here and that which shall be our judge at the last day * which is the wise query of some also and as learned a question as if one should ask whether at the supper we must put the elements to our mouths with the right hand or the left or in baptism ask how the baptizer must handle the person baptized and where he must take hold on him when he dips him and if he have not expresse Scripture concerning such nicities and trifles as these suspend the dispensation of both the supper baptism because Christ is somwhat short in his word not expressing punctually enough how his ordinances shall be dispensed nor what is to be said and done by persons at the doing of them so distinctly as they would have him But foolish and unlearned questions avoid knowing that they do gender strises 2 Tim. 2.23 p Viz. Seeing there be many that do desire baptized believers to require that hands should be laid on them Therefore we desire of them to shew us some place of Scripture if they know of any that doth expresse such a behaviour either of the administrator or the person on whom hands were laid * for such a behaviour as to reprove their backwardnesse and summon men to shew their forwardnesse to own Christs wayes may become any administrator whatsoever Act. 22.16 * Viz. Seeing many plead laying on of hands to be practised or submitted unto as a foundation principle or a beginning doctrine of Christ and that by all baptized believers Therefore we desire to know if any of them can inform us which of all these layings on of hands forementioned is called by Christ or his Apostles the foundation principle or beginning doctrine by some text in Scripture * if it be not somewhat an improper phrase to stile wicked men in their wrathful and cruel handlings of the Saints Administrators of any doctrine of Christ that is stiled imposition of hands as to me it seems to be unlesse wee l allow the name of an Administrator also to the devil himself when he tempts the Saints and puts forth his hands against them to smite them with any mischiefs in either body or spirit as by Gods permission he did Job Job 1.12 Job 2.6.7 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 21 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 5 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 8 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 19.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act 13.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 〈◊〉 4 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. ◠2. * Viz Seeing that Heb 6.2 speaks of the laying on of hands as plural as the doctrine of baptisms and doth not speak of any one laying on of hands fore-mentioned particularly nor of any other by distinction neither of any end purpose or event Therefore we desire to know what safety it is for any man to conclude that Heb. 6.2 is meant but of one of them onely †See Mr Blackwoods last book newly extant even whilest I am writing to you on this subject stiled a soul-searching catechism p. 58 in p. 54.55.56.57.58.59 of which he treats totally of this subject * Viz. Mr. Cotton Dr. Holm◠who as is shewed above in the 139 140 141. pages of this very volume I am yet in hand with borrowes Cottons and Calvins reading out of Antiquity concerning the practise of imposition of hands to all grown persons before admission to Church-fellowship wherby to prove infant-baptism which thereby he rather breaks the neck of * Viz. Mr. Cotton Dr. Holm◠who as is shewed above in the 139 140 141. pages of this very volume I am yet in hand with borrowes Cottons and Calvins reading out of Antiquity concerning the practise of imposition of hands to all grown persons before admission to Church-fellowship wherby to prove infant-baptism which thereby he rather breaks the neck of * consisting of 3 sorts of Christ'n creatures under a 3 sold CCClergy viz. papal prelatical presbyterian * yet some Ranters are not ashamed to say they are Christ and God and there is no other God then they and what 's in them and such like blasphemies whereby they declare themselves to be that generation that are to rise in the latter daies and make the man of sin even that wicked one that shall exalt himself above all that 's called God saying of himself he is God given over to strong delusion to believe lies that they may be damned because not receiving the love of the truth that they might be saved whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2 Thess. 2. denying the Lord that bought them and bringing on themselves swift destruction 2 Pet. 2.2 * Viz. touching of dead bodies Num. 5.2 eating or touching the carcases of any forbidden fishes birds or beasts Lev. 11.24.31 diseases as the leprosie Lev. 13.8 running of issues Levit. 15.2 and such like * for if he that despised Moses law died without mercy of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy that hath troden under foot the son of God Heb. 10.29 therefore we had need to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard least at any time we let them slip for if the word spoken by angels was sure and stedfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of
of sins and then to sign them with the sign of the Cross in token to them still that hereafter when it is impossible they must by what is now so clearly manifested to their senses understand and remember that they must not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. and then when they are grown up to set them to School to the Font again and wish them to learn by what was once done to them there that this and that is signified saying you must understand that Christ was crucified dead and raised for the remission of your sins and that you are now to leave your sins to dy to them live a holy life take up your cross and follow him and all these things I now inform you in by word of mouth you must call to mind how they were most plainly manifested to you and lively evidenced to your very external senses and thereby to your internal senses in your baptism which is a visible sign to you and a most sensible demonstration therof a most lively preaching and resembling of them before your eies these things you must remember by the same token that you had once such a most notable remarkable memorable matter done unto you so long since that you cannot possibly observe perceive discover remember that ever it was done at all but as we tell you Babist This reflects with no small disparagement on the wisdome of God in appointing the sign circumcision to be set to infants even in their infancy Baptist. No such matter for God did not appoint it to be set to infants for any such end or use as to be a sign of any thing to infants themselues in their infancy but when at age Babist Nor do we set baptism to infants for any such end as to signifie any thing to them in their infancy but when they come to years Baptist. Circumcision being a permanent mark in the flesh remained Gen. 17.13 and though set in infancie yet was a sign visible to the persons to whom it was set and to be seen by them as long as they lived but to baptism being a transient thing which vanishes soon after the dispensation without making or leaving any mark or impression upon the body whereby any one that notes it not while dispensed to him can possibly be capable to note it another time it is gone and lost and can be no sign to him any more for ever A permanent sign may be set at any time without prejudice to their use of it as a sign to whom it is set but the use of a transient sign must be made when it is set and it must be set at such times when its subject is capable to catch the meaning of it whilest it passes before the sences and upon occasion to recollect an Idea of what was done or else it perishes from being a sign to those persons from thenceforth even for ever Babist Then Circumcision might have been as well forborn till the persons were of years the use being not made till then yet God who doth nothing in vain and out of season did for all that enjoin it long before why therefore may not baptism by the like reason Baptist. Besides that baptism is transient and that permanent which is enough to satisfie in this particular there was much other use and end for which circumcision was rightly dispensed to the infants of the Jews for which there 's not the like reason in baptism as namely to distinguish and sign them out to be what they were viz. heirs of the kingdome by birth Babist That is the very end on which we baptize infants and no other viz. to sign and distinguish the seed of believers from the seed of unbelievers and sign them out to be what they are by birth and what when they come to years they learne that they were made in Baptism viz. heires of the Kingdome of Heaven Baptist. When you have the same evidence of believers seed in infancy that the Jewes had of theirs viz. that they are heirs of the kingdom then I will allow you to do as they did viz. to sign and distinguish them as such but of the one of these you have evidence in nonage not so of the other the kingdome that the Jews by very nature were heirs of according to the promise was that of the Earthly Canaan of which and that as a type they were apparent heirs by no other then very natural birth and that so soon as ere they were born and therfore full well within a while might they be signed But that which you take upon you so timely to sign persons as heirs to in baptism is the Antitype or heavenly Canaan which no creature is an apparent heir to according to the Gospel promise upon meer natural birth of any parents whether Jew or Gentile till he appear to us unless he dy before he hath deserved exemption by actual transgression and then Charity teaches us to hope as well of all as of one to be born by faith in Christ which birth if any infants were capable of it as to us none are yet because we cannot presume which have it and which not the workings of the spirit being so unknown to us that there can be no conclusion made we cannot by dispensation give right distinction but as in the type they sign'd them well nigh as soon as they were born with that natural birth of Abraham Isaac and Iacob after the flesh upon which alone they were heirs by promise of that earthly Canaan so we sign them so soon as they appear to be born with that birth of Christ by faith by which they are heirs of the true Canaan and that 's all the baptism of new born babes can possibly be found any where in the word this birth if it could be in any infant at all at least cannot appear to be in one living infant above another for either they dy before actual transgression hath barr'd them and then though our hopes are the same of them all yet are they past signing by baptism or else they live and are seen to believe or not believe and so as they do or not do they must without distinction or respect to naturall descent be signed or not signed alike Baptism therefore though a sign in its nature use and office to believing men and women yet is never so much as a sign to that person to whom it s dispensed in infancy But as for your signing it with the name of a seal I should wonder much more at your ignorance had not such a wonderful thing as ignorance been threatned to those wisemen that teach Gods fear after mens precepts Isay 29. in that you make both your sacraments to be seals for so runs your ordinary difinition concerning them viz. in oculis incurrentia signa et sigilla considering how clear the Scripture is against you for verily though you receive that denomination of a
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
be baptized are not the self same in sense and signifification shall never go for a wise man more with me and whoever shall say that the phrase of Philip to the Eunuchs question what hinders why I may not viz. if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest be baitized is as not exceptive of infants from baptism as that phrase of Paul let a man examine himself and so let him eat is exceptive of infants from the supper can seem no other to me then one whose reason is basely captivated to some carnal interest or other yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8.37 doth ful as much if not more imply an unlawfulnesse of their admission to baptism that believe not with all the heart as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.28 doth imply an unlawfulnesse of their admission to the supper who do not first examine themselves what ever exception therefore ye can find in the word of infants from the supper the self same will I find of infants from baptism and what ever ground of admission to baptism you shall find there for them the same will I bring for their admission to the supper Babist Those places where it s said if thou believest thou mayest he that believeth and is baptized repent and be baptized go teach and baptize imply onely an unlawfulness of baptizing persons at years without instruction belief and repentance and are phrases that relate to such onely and not to infants who may notwithstanding any thing to the contrary there exhibited be baptized without any of these Baptist. So you use to say still indeed of these Scriptures that they speak of persons at age and not in non-age and so say I too but I wonder then where are the Scriptures that speak of infants baptism if all the places of Scripture that speak of baptism at all speak onely of the baptism of adult ones and so you are fain to confesse they do when we come to examine them one after another yea I remember that at two publique disputes when we have put you to assign what Scripture infant baptism is commanded in Mat. 28.19 hath bin nominated as your warrant out of which when it hath been plainly proved that Christ commands no more in that place to be baptized then such whom he commands also first to be instructed reply hath been made to this purpose viz. that Christ there requires that such as are capable of instruction should be instructed first but that hinders not why infants may not be baptized before instruction but if so I say I wonder still where that place is that warrants it that infants may be baptized at all â—ith you are fain to confesse that that phrase go teach and baptize yea even you your selves sometimes who just before assigned it as the warrant for infant baptism that it speaks onely of persons capable to be taught and not of infants As you say therefore that these places speak of the baptism of men and women onely that are capable â—o learn believe and repent and not exclusivly of infants because they are not capable to do those things who yet may be bapâ—ized for all that so I say of these words let a man examine himself and so let him eat they imply an unlawfulnesse in men and women only to eat the supper without self-examination but not in infants who being not capable to examine themselves may any thing to the contrary there notwithstanding be admitted to the supper without it t is men and women onely and not children who upon non-examination of themselves are excepted As you argue therefore that every administration to an Nation includes infants as well as men unlesse the be excepted and therefore they must be baptized I conclude the same from those premises concerning their right to other ordinances viz. therefore they must be preacht to therefore they must eat the supper two administrations given to all nations from which infants are no more excepted then from baptism As therefore you take it for an implicit exception of infants from the supper in that they cannot perform what is required in that place to the receiving of it i. e. not examine themselves nor discern the Lords body though by name they are not excepted so if you be not partial your own consciences will compel you to take it for at least as implicit an exception of infants from baptism in that they are no way capable to perform those things which are required of persons in order to their admission to baptism in other places viz. nor to believe with all the heart nor to confesse sin nor amend their lives nor repent nor call on the name of the Lord all which were required of adult ones that come to baptism as we see Mat. 3. Act. 2. Act. 8. Act. 22. and also in the Rubrick where it being askt what is required of persons to be baptized answer is made thus viz. repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament though by name they be not excepted in any of these places Your cui signatum ei signum nisi obstet c. your thredbare Argument viz. to whom the thing signified belongs to them the sign unlesse there be some impediment or in capacity to perform what is required in order to the receiving of the sign if it had one farthing worth of force in it to give infants accesse to baptism would equally avail to give them accesse to the supper if we were minded in good earnest to plead their right to both in evidence of which I shall argue upon you with your own Argument thus To whom the thing signified belongs to them the sign also belongs unlesse there be some exception or incapacity to perform what is required to the receiving of the sign But the thing signified in the supper which is the same that 's signified in baptism viz. Christ and his benefits belongs to infants and there 's no more exception of them from it then from baptism nor more incapacity in them to perform that which is required to the supper then there is in them to perform what 's required to baptism Ergo if they may receive the outward sign of baptism they may receive the outward sign of the supper also But in truth as they are no more capable of one of these signs then the other so are they in very dead both uncapable of and plainly enough alike excepted from both Secondly is it so Sirs that infants being a great part if not the Major part of all nations must therefore be baptized because it s said baptize all Nations unless they bad been excepted then I answer again if you mean thus viz. unless they had been some way or other at least vertually or implicitly excepted then infants are most manifestly and clearly excepted in this very text it self Mat. 28.19 if there were no other in
all the Scripture to exclude them for first though that be Christs commission and direction to his disciples whom to baptize yet there 's no mention at all of children nor yet in Mark 16.15.16 where the same will of Christ is declared in other terms concerning the baptism of such as are converted to the faith by preaching and this D Featley himself more then confesses for he urges it with earnestness p. 62. in these words viz. there is no mention of children in either of these texts and if so that there 's no mention at all then they are not implied as both Mr. Marshal and himself to the contradiction of himself affirms they are in the word Nations for for children to be both implied and included in that word Nations and yet neither to be mentioned nor meant therein at all are inconsistent and such a bo-peep as is impossible and if they be not so much as implied and mentioned in the commission they must needs be understood to be excepted and excluded Secondly as there is no mention of children so there is such a plain limitation and restriction of baptism to such persons as infants in infancy are not capable to be viz. Disciples of Christ aliàs persons so taught and instructed by the ministration of men as to believe the Gospel that they are more then purblind who discern not infants for they are uncapable to learn by the teachings of men to be in that place excepted for it is said go ye and teach all nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Nations but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations as by the figure Synthesis which is oratto congrua sensu non voce I grant it may yet not the Nations by the lump but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persons in the Nations that are indoctrinated and instructed as infants cannot be i. e. them that you have taught and that have learnt and are become disciples by your teaching it is as plain as the light that not any more of the Nations are here bid to be baptized than those even those very individuals that are first bid to be taught or made disciples by mans ministery for the Pronoun them that is put after the participle baptized can possibly have no other substantive then those persons in those nations who ever they are that are both capable subjects of teaching and also actually instructed and discipled it is most evident that teaching of persons is here commanded before the baptizing them Babist The order of words by which teaching is here set before baptizing proves nothing for in Mark 1.4 that order is inverted and baptizing set before preaching thus viz. Iohn did baptize and preach the baptism of repentance Baptist. So saies Dr. Holmes indeed p. 7. and t is also a common saying among you all but I tell yod if you were not minded more to pervert then to preach the Gospel you could not be ignorant that that inversion Mark 1.4 is such as altars not the sense so but that t is in sense and signification the very same as we contend for out of Mat. 28.19 viz. that preaching is to go before baptizing for though it be said there Iohn did baptize and preach the baptism of repentance it must necessarily be understood thus viz. that he preached baptism to persons before he practised it to them for you cannot be so silly sure as to imagin that Iohn first baptized persons when they came to him before he opened his Mouth to tell them wherefore yet I know one that being in a streit did not stick to strein himself out by such a simple saying as that but for all that if that honest man who said thus I forbear to name him least I shame him were as true a Minister of the Gospel as he supposes himself to be and should go forth with his Gospel to a Nation as ignorant of the truth of baptisme as himself and offer but such a small matter as his rantism much more so worthy so weighty and burdensome a business to the flesh as the true baptism is viz. to overwhelm them in water without declaring to them first for what end and purpose either he would shew himself an Egregious and Arrant simpleton in once conceiving they would or they themselves but senseless Animals if they should so suddenly submit to him Moreover its apparent to any but such as are resolved to shift off truth as long as they can that the same passage of Mark 1.4 as t is recorded Mat. 3.1.5 Luke 3.3.7 shewes that Iohn first came preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins and then and thereupon people came out to him and were baptized of him in Iordan confessing their sins Out of that place therefore Mat. 28.19 which is so usually assigned by your selves as the main Scripture in which Christ commands infant baptism though upon examination it is oft asserted to be a place that neither mentions at all nor once meddles with infants and that by the self same persons that so assign it I argue thus in disproof of them who assign it as Christ precept for infants baptisme and in proof that its a plain prohibition of such a thing viz. If Christ there commissionates and commands his Disciples to baptize none but the very same persons whom he commands them also first to teach and make disciples by teaching then that place is a plain prohibition and not at all a precept to baptize infants for men cannot teach or disciple infants But Christ there commissionates and commands his disciples to baptize none but such as he also commands them first to teach and make disciples by teaching Ergo that place is a plain prohibition and not at all a precept to baptize infants The Minor which onely you can rationally require proof of is so clear that the blindest of you may see it in the text it self where the Pronoun them that is governed by the participle baptizing can possibly relate to no other substantive but to the self same persons that are immediately before commanded to be taught or made disciples and whether you will have the substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when it serves your turn so far as to furnish your selves by comparing this place with Act. 15.10 with matter of proof prate I should say for infants discipleship you will needs have it for upon this account Mr. Cotton Mr. Baxter and many more seem to proceed or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the figure Synthesis as some of you will rather have it t is much at a pass yea not a strawes worth of advantage to you take it which way you will for still it will amount to this that whether you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Clergy and their colours in order thereunto also highly inhauncing the price of three following forlorn-hope highway Hacksters and Hachny Arguments as not the last nor least though not the first three among the worthies that are engaged in it Whereas that poor blind Implicit-opinion'd people and Clergy-claw'd christen'd creatures may no longer to their utter erring from the way of Christs truth and their own peace trust in the lying words of their Prophets that profit themselves more then them by their traditionary doctrine I do here in the name of the great King Jesus who gave commission Mat. 28.18 to make persons disciples and to teach them first and then to baptize them proclaim it aloud to the whole earth that all these are either clearly against you or all things considered nothing for you First the whole region of Scripture in every coast and quarter thereof is up in armes against you neither is there any one part or place throughout it wherein you ever find that way of infant baptism much lesse your way of infant-rantism so much as probably to have been practised or the war you wage for it promoted by so much as one piece of a precept that such a thing should be done or inch of instance that ere it was done at all yea in all places where ever baptism was dispensed you find it done onely and downrightly in that despised way wherein we do at this day i. e. of dipping persons immediately after but never before converted and discipled all they of Ierusalem and Iudaea and Galilee that were baptized by Iohn in Iordan and by Christs disciples in his presence and by his appointment confessed their sins 3. Mat. were first taught and instructed or made disciples Mat. 28.18 Iohn 3.22 Iohn 4.1.2.3 all they who were baptized by Peter and others after his sermon at Ierusalem to the number of 3000. did first gladly receive the word Act. 2.41 all they that were baptized by Phillip at Samaria and betwen Ierusalem and Gaza were men and women that believed the things spoken by Phillip concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Iesus Acts 8.12.36.37 all they that were commanded to be baptized by Peter in the name of the Lord at Cesarea were such as were converted at the hearing of the word Act. 10.44.48 all that were baptized at Corinth by Paul Silas Timotheus were such as believed Act. 18.8 all they that were baptized by Apollos or any other at Ephesus before Paul came thither which were about 12. were every one of them adult believers Act. 19.1.2 c. Aâ—l that ever we find Ananias baptized at Damascus though there were other disciples there besides himself with whom Paul walkt a while was Paul that was baptized calling on the name of the Lord. All they of the Church of Rome to every one of whom Paul writes his Epistle Rom 1.6 that were baptized into Jesus Christ and buried with him by baptism into his death were such as had formerly lived in sin and actually obeyed it in the lusts thereof and yielded themselves up as servants to it and had now visibly obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto them Rom. 6.3.4.12.16.17.19.21 which things I take him to be little better then an infant in understanding that judges they were performed by any infants All they at Galatia who were baptized into Christ were such as had received and imbraced the Gospel and had put on the Lord Iesus Christ and such who through ignorance of God had done service to such as by nature were no gods but now had attained to know God by the preaching of the Gospel to them which things that are spoken to all the Churches of Galatia cannot be said of any infants Gal. 1.9.3.27.4.8.9.13 verses among all which this is most notable in that he saith As many of you as have bin baptized into Christ have put one Christ we see all along throughout the whole body of the new testament It was not the rule of Christ nor the practise of the primitive times to baptize persons till they had had first preached the Gospel to them and according to the commission converted them or made them disciples indeed so soon as ever they were thus discipled or made disciples that no infants can be so in infancy is shewed above as simply as Mr. Bazter seems to suppose believers infants are so from the very womb I agree with Mr. Baxter that their baptism was not to be delayed and forasmuch as he abundantly proves the period of time wherein persons were ever baptized in the primitive times by the will of Christ to be immediately after they were converted and made disciples he consequenâ—ly agrees as much with me as I desire him insomuch that in confirmation of this that I say I mean to declare this truth viz. that persons are not to be baptized till they are first made disciples in the same words wherein he himself declares it to us by the space of well nigh a whole page together in order to the making of his matter to serve our turn against himself and all you that baptize infants but especially against his fellow souldier Mr. Marshal and his critical observations out of which he tells us that infants are not disciples before but are made disciples by baptizing I shall frame this argument viz. If Christs Rule be that persons should be baptized when they are first made disciples without delay or immediately after they are converted and discipled then persons are not to be baptized before they are converted and discipled But Christs Rule is that persons should be baptized when they are first made disciples or immediately after they are converted and discipled Ergo they are not to be baptized before they are converted or discipled The Major is most clear and consequent for if it be Christs will that baptizing should immediately follow our discipling persons or converting them to the faith then consequently t is his will that baptizing should not go before our discipling and converting them if baptism must be immediately subsequent to teaching or making disciples by Christs commission then teaching persons or making them disciples must be Antecedent to baptism unlesse both these be the mind of Christ in his commission whom and when to baptize viz. that they should not baptize persons till they are taught and discipled and yet to go round again that they should not teach them till they have baptized them i. e. in Mr. Marshals sense initiated them first to be disciples by baptism and thereby admitted them to be taught as for the Minor which is this viz. That it is Christs rule that persons shall be baptized without delay when they are first made disciples or immediately after they are converted as I have fully proved it already above both from the commission for baptizing and from Scripture example explaining that commission and from the end and use of baptism so I shall further prove it
many run to ruin besides some he names were never baptized though neer it as Mr. Saltmarsh 5. Whether it be just to load them that still stick to the truth with the blame of all their blasphemies that go off from it T is true the way of truth will be evil spoken of by the Priest by reason of the madnesse of the false Prophet 2 Pet. 2.2 but that is ought let every reasonable man examine The Rantizer renounces his sprinkling and is baptized in truth and after renounces that and runs on to be a Ranter and then all is reckoned to his baptism poor truth may say quum nemini obtrudi potest itur ad me every one shifts it off from himself and truth must carry the scandal and baptism bear the burden of all the Priest and his people are they by whom the false Prophet and his people they by reason of whom the way we walk in is evil spoken of but vae illis per quos vae illis presertim propter quos veritatis via blaspemabitur quam optimum esset utrisque si nati non fuissent Mat. 18.7 26.14 2 Pet. 2.2 What force therefore is in this Argument to conclude against the truth of our way yea what absurdity is in all Mt. Baxters Arguments against us you see in all which he sits beside the cushion yea and indeed the whole bulk of them is nothing but a thing full of emptinesse Rantist I would fain see you answer that book as nothing as it is I believe it is more then ever will be answered by any to any purpose Baptist. First there is a great part of his book needs no answering from us being such an absurd aberration from what we hold and practise in contradistinction to him to other things which he undertakes to disprove though we and who doth not do join with him fully in them and do hold as he does as namely almost all those 7 or 8 Arguments from page 125. to page 138. wherein he spends himself mostly in declaring against judgements and practises that are no more ours nor any ones else that I know of more then his own for who holds Christians children quâ Christians children i. e. without their own personal profession of faith and Christianity in which case heathens children may be baptized also are to be baptized when they come to years any more then the children of heathens Again who holds or practises such a thing as naked dipping of women and maids not I nor any man breathing under heaven I imagin nor will any wise man be coxcombd into the belief of it that t is our practice I hope because Mr. Ba. disputes against it as ours yet these are the main matters argl'd against well nigh in all those pages yea if he prove the baptism of Christians children at years ordinarily to be against rule t is fully sufficient against the Anabaptists saith he if we had not a word more against them the man feigns adversaries to himself and finds himself work with them and takes on and layes about him like a Thatcher and fights and fences against his foes when he hath none at all about him Secondly much if not more then a third part of it viz. from p. 262. to p. 286. consists almost universally in a particular private publike prate to Mr. Tombs in vindication of himself fâ—om Mr. Tombs's valedictory vindication of himself from Mr. Baxs abuses of him which tedious mixt blattering recrimination and red-argumentation if any save Mr. Tombs himself whom it so personally relates to shall trouble himself with from better employment and the world with any more reply to then the Lord rebuke him he hath more time then wisdom profitably to improve it Thirdly much if not much more then a third part of the residue viz. from p. 289. to 338. he spends in division with other divines for pleading and practising baptism to infants from other grounds and principles and to other ends and purposes then himself doth as namely from Tradition and yet in order to baptismal regeneration as Mr Bedford who is fain to fly to tradition for proof of infant baptism and yet holds that baptism doth really as an instrumental efficient cause confer and effect the grace of regeneration of nature on infants which Mr Bedford Dr. Burges Dr. Ward together with Mt. Baxter himself and I know not how many more Divines in the meandrous multitudinous mist of whose pro and con opinions a man may sooner loose himself then find the truth are all ore the tops of the boots in dissentaneous discourses about a businesse called baptismal regeneration the quiddity quantity and commodity of which non ens of which nonsense as to infants is so curiously pryed into and learnedly inquired after by them that it is not for every ordinary body that hath no more learning then Peter and Iohn had who never Scholasticallized the plain Gospel out of the reach of plain men and poor folks as our Rabbies now adaies do to come within a mile or two of their meaning some divining on this wise some on that some one thing some another some that baptism is instituted to work the first grace in infants i. e. habitual but not in men in whom the first grace is prerequired as Mr. Bedford some thwarting that by this reason that baptism cannot have two different uses to men and infants and yet saying with all that it may be for some ends to the Aged for which it is not to infants as Mr. Baxter some saying that baptism is a Physical some a Metaphysical some a Hiperphysical instrument to convey real grace into infants the spirit working it in them thereby naturally or rather supernaturally as Mr. Bedford who holds that it really conveyes grace on all infants elect or non elect and Dr. Burges who yet differs and subdivides from him holding that it conveyes grace on the elect infants only and not on the non-elect some that baptism is onely a moral instrument and the spirit neither a Physical nor Hyperphysical but a moral Agent in baptism signifying and so working on the souls sealing and conveying no real grace but relative grace i. e. right to the real as Mr. Baxter who saith that real true grace and change of mind is to go before baptism as a condition both in the institution and every example of baptism through all the bible therefore not to be conveyed in it this Mr. Baxter proveth by the institution Math. 28.18 Mark 16. and by the examples of the Iewes Samaritans the Eunuch Paul Lydia the Iaylor the Corinthians who all did gladly receive the word repent and believe and then and thereupon only were baptized p. 300. and because all this is exclusive of infants who have no faith nor grace for to the utter confutation of the Ashford Disputers who say infants in their infancy have faith and the spirit of grace and that apparently enough the Scripture making it plainly
appear concerning them Mr. Baxter professeth that it is utterly unknown to any man on earth and unrevealed in the word whether God give infants any inherent spiritual grace or not p 301. Therefore to salve his baptism of infants that have not that grace and faith in them that is prerequired to be in persons to be baptized as a condition he very goodly tells us that by grace and faith being prerequired as a condition he means either in the party or another for him so then though infants have no faith in themselves yet o mirandum they have faith in the loines i. e. in the hearts of their parents and so are to be baptized thâ—y are buryed in the dipping of the Ministers hand saith Featley and believe by the faith of their Parents saith Mr. Baxter Thus oh how these men who more stink of the Schooles then skill in the Scriptures are at variance about their own inventions bending their brains some one way some another to botch up their businesse of infant-baptism and yet as fast as one builds up another of them saves us a labour and razes and pulls down to our hands oh what stoch what stuff what stirs what strife what stickling what striking flatly against each others principles what a ditty what a do is here among them as if the Divines were all mad so let all the fraternity of divines be divided o God and fall out ever about their own falsities till they find thy truth and never let them agree better among themselves on what account to baptize infants till they ashamed of themselves and people ashamed of waiting on the Seers for determination of what is truth be all driven to confesse as blessed be thy name Mr. Baxter doth already p. 301. That they find it a hard controversie to prove infant baptism it is so dark in the Scripture much more a hard task to prove different uses of it to men and infants as needs they must if they prove it to be of use to infants for it signifies not at all to them as it does to men and so to conclude to the freeing of themselves from that puzzle and perplexity and fire of contention that now they fry in for their hatred of that one onely plain way of truth that leades to piece that verily t is not thy will that any infant at all should be baptized and let Mr. Ba. who was once in doubt of infant baptism upon sight of the slender grounds that other divines did hold it from till satan seduced him back again to the belief of it again be perswaded if it be thy will on sight of the more weak and slender principles which with much ado he hath found out whereon to satisfy himself and others and to sit still in the shadow of that superstition to be not almost onely but altogether saving their sufferings from him such as thy servants are whom he yet vilifies what he can As then to Mr. Baxters Appendix of Animadversions on Mr. Bedfords Dr. Burges and Dr. Wards absurdities about baptismal regeneration of infants t is no matter to us yea I conceive it a likely means of it self to make wise men renounce Infants baptism that read there at what ods they are and how they wrangle among themselves that own it beside sith he that passing by meddles with a strife not belonging to him is like one that takes a dog by the ears Pro. 26.17 I le passe by for my part and not meddle with it at all Fourthly another part of Mr. Baxters book is a small slender tract of about one leaf long penned in proof of baptisms abiding a standing ordinance of Christ to the worlds end and therein so far am I from excepting and contradicting that I rather approve it considering the high head of contradiction that in this last loose age already is and within a while much more and mote headily will be made against it and how the subtility of Satan is such that sith he can uphold his kingdome now no longer by his old souldiers the Rantizers which changed the lawes and ordinances of Christs kingdome he seeks to do it by erecting a new moddle of men I mean the seekers and Ranters who rase the very foundations of it and how sith he can prevail no more to deceive the nations from the narrowway of truth by his old Spiritualty the spiteful Priest he hath spit a new Spiritualty out of his mouth from which as from a greater Carnalty then the other the earth that it may be ripe for the sickle as it must be at Christs coming shall abound with abomination i. e. they that separate themselves from the true Church after their separation with them from the false sensual having not the spirit yet pretending more highly to it then ever any considering all this I say I seriously side with Mr. Ba. as to that subject and to shew him who simply supposes we are all a people posting towards the pulling down of Christs ordinances because some do and because all of us as we are sworn to iâ— seek what we are able to pull down mens to shew him I say notwithstanding his conceits to the contrary how close we keep according to the counsel both of Peter and Iude in that behalf 2 Pet. 3.2 Iude 17. to the commandements of Christ and his Apostles in these last daies wherein they declare that others should depart from and despise them to shew him also how little reason he hath to charge us with their evils who are to use his own phrase p. 26 above ordinances i. e. above obedience to God and so Gods themselves I intend God willing beâ—ore this work escape my hand that is now under it to bestow some few lines on the same subject having been often requested to it by others in vindication to the truth Fifthly as for the forepart of Mr. Baxs book for more then a fourth part of it is worn out in Preamâ—ular passages apologies epistles to the Church at Kederminster at Bewdley which Churches alias parishes of Kâ—d and Bew for all the people till of late that some few have separated themselves together to Mr. T. are Church-members with Mr. Ba. in those two places p. 280. which parishes I say howbeit sowing pillowes that they may sleep the more seeurely in superstition Mr. Ba. by a dedication of his doings to the Church at Ked to the Church at Bew. would fain flatter into a faith that each of them is a Church of Iesus Christ yet I must crave leavâ— to inform those Churches from Christ that as yet they are no other then Churchâ—s of the Popes calling and constitution for the parochial posture of Christning and so inchurching of all that are born within the bounds and barely abide within the precincts of the parish had its order from the head of those Churches viz. the Vicar of Christ but not at all from Christ Iesus himself yea and though there may be many