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 Maâ—…or 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 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 menâ—…ion 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 oâ—… bond of iniquity and had no part or fellowship in that business yea the Samaritaâ—…s 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 prâ—…fessed 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 câ—… 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
instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized to take a small sucking babe out of their armes and dat him with a drop or two on the face and send away all the other unbaptized Babist The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child that could not speak for it self and expresse his good resolutions to forsake the divel c. and his desires to be baptized Baptist How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signifie things to sucklings while they understand them not and that too by such a vanishing visible sign that when they can understand they neither see nor never shall and such like Trumpioall transactions to which there are as few grains of reason concurring as there are inches in an Apes tail even your selves however it happens that you so contradict your selves yet that is no news with you as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism are even in this very cause found falling out with and fighting down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections which byyour own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism but I le spare you till I come thither 3ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof which you complain and grumble much p. 1. 11. 12. that t was set aside and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation is so utterly against your infant baptism that even this alone were it of any esteem with you had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it and laid the itch and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty is most manifest if by the Church of God and the Fathers therof you mean what I do viz. the Church of God in the primitive which were the best and purest times of the Gospel whose practise in this particular is set out in the word but specially in the Acts of the Apostles the fathers of which Church and of the Church in after ages too were the Apostles themselves viz. Father Peter Father Paul Father Barnabas Father Iames Father Iohn and the â—…est whose authority from Christ was great indeed and adequate with the Scriptures then written and the foundation for all the Churches to build on and such was not the authority of the Churches then much less since which are to be subjected to their word in Scripture this Church and these fathers never knew such a baptism as yours nor is there the least tittle of talk concerning any such matter to be found among them Or if by the Church and Fathers of it whose authority and practise you build on you mean those of the ages next to the Apostles Then first I marvel why you should put your selves upon the triall by succeeding ages and decline the first and purest age of the Gospel of all specially since there 's as clear history and more infallible testimony given in the word of what was done by the Church and the first fathers the Apostles then ever was in any age inferiour to it whatsoever and more specially yet since its being in after ages is no palpable argument of its being in the first age for the mystery of iniquity was at work from the very Apostles t is now Ergo it was then is not so good a wherefore to our why as we look for besides t is ingenuously confest by your own writers viz. Mr. Blake in answer to Mr. Blackwood p. 58. that faith can hang on the humane testimony of the succeeding fathers in whose daies infant baptism was no further then de facto viz. that it was onely and not de jure that it ought to be and Mr. Marshal p. 5. of his sermon that the practise of the thing in their dayes proves not the truth of it at all Secondly neither doth the second Century help you so much as to a proof de facto For First as much as you would seem to be verst among the fathers in which many Priests are better read then in the Scriptures and some to seem to be better read there then they are will quote the fathers when they have not read them but by snaches and pickt a few fine phrases out of them to make their sermons the more sententious yea and sometimes for those very sentences for which they might more truly quote the Apostles that primitively pend them witnesse one of your tribe whom I heard with my own ears say of Heb. 2. 16. he took not on him the nature of Angels thus viz. for as Saint Barnard saith when as he might as well have said as the spirit or as the Scripture saith He took not on him c. if yet he knew that t was in the Scripture as much I say as you are versed in the fathers you are desired by Mr. Blackwood a man better read in those fathers then either you or I yea you and Mr. Marshall also who quotes Iustin Martyr are defired by him in his storming of Antichrist p. 25. 26. 27. to prove if you can out of any place of Iustins genuine works who is the antientest father extant next the Apostles whose works are accounted on that there is so much as the name of infant baptism much more the thing yea he tells you ye may as soon find a Dolphin in the woods as any such thing save onely that t is once mentioned in a spurious book falsely called his out of which book Mr. Marshalls quotation is neither doth Mr. Blake gainsay this nor yet Mr. Marshall in their replies nay they rather seem to grant that it s to be doubted it was so which makes me as well as Mr. Blackwood not a little wonder that Mr. Marshall should quote it with so much confidence I mean so as to assert it thereupon as a matter manifest that the Church counting from the time of Iustin Martyr viz. 150 hath bin possest of the priviledg of infant baptism for the space of 1500 years and upwards for had he not doubted but that the words the cites were without question the words of Iustin himself he had not had sin but now he hath no cloak sith he demonstrates to all men Dubitatum per magis dubium and tells the world to make them believe that Iustin disputes the condition of children that dye baptized and unbaptized when yet it s not believed but much doubted by himself whether Iustin did any such thing yea or no as to the words Mr. Marshal p. 4. of his sermon cites
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 fellow ship in breaking of bread and prayers Acts 2. Therefore whereas Mr. Ba. in his Epistle to the parish of Bewdley challenges Mr. 〈◊〉 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 Aâ—…t 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 Câ—…urches 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 Cudgelis 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 fâ—…om 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 out 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 or dinary then to have words used out of their prime signification whereby 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 bapâ—…ism 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
it then stood in both which have fell out also accordingly so that there hath been a taking of all that dispensation of ordinances in their primitive purity totally out of the way therefore now we are to meddle no more with them at all at least unless we had some extraordinary Prophets as the Iews had after the treading down of their temple and and worship to satisfie and shew us that its the mind of the Lord we should set up that old fabrick and form again Baptist. This is the old tune which you and your followers have been used to sing in any time this seven year which yet I could never learn to this day distinctly to sing in after you and I am perswaded never shall unlesse I could hear more clearnesse and distinction in the sound then yet I do to whom while I sound how sutable your sense is to the sense of Scripture you are Barbarians when you speak thus That Christ now comes in the light and power of his spirit as a swift Roe and hart upon these mountains of division that now are between the PPPriests among themselves and between others and them and that abundance of light comes dispelling that fog and smoak of mens traditions which hath risen out of the bottomlesse pit and of a long time darkned the Sun and the air and the hearts of people all this I grant but that this coming of his doth put an end a ne plus ultra to any one of his own traditions or ordinances that were instituted by him and in his name delivered to the Churches in the primitive times as a part of his will and testament then this is as hard a lesson for me to learn as t is for some to learn that t is their duty to be baptized for assuredly nothing but Christs own personal coming shall put a period to any one tittle of his Gospel will and Testament or of that outward dispensation which by appointment from himself was then in force and therefore to neither baptism imposition of hands or Churchfellowship in breaking bread every of which most undoubtedly was a part of the preceptory part of Christs Gospel in those daies and of that new Testament ratified in his blood 1 Cor. 11. 25. which gospel testament and holy will of his that he as a great Prophet left in charge for all men to observe when he went away Mat. 28. 20. Mark 13. 34. Luke 19. 17. to the 28. and not any new one delivered since is the very same according to which he will judge all men at his return any part of which therefore in either promise or precept suppose but the ordinances of it for I am sure it was a testament and Gospel that had ordinances then wo be to that man or angel that shall once dare to declare as null yea let no man slatter himself and delude others with pretences of an Angelical Seraphical life to be led now in an higher kind of way then the Saints and Churches did in the primitive ages of the Gospel for I tell that man that if he were not only appearing to himself to be wrapt up above Paul but really an angel from heaven and not Christ himself who when he comes personally shall say indeed unto his servants come up higher he must be Aâ—…hema preaching and holding forth other then what the Apostles at first delivered to the Churches of Galatia who received the Gospel with the outward ordinances and Church order thereof Gal. 1. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. compared with 1 Cor. 11. 23. 24. c. in which Scriptures its evident that the whole intire Gospel which was preached then by Paul who received it together with the ordinances of baptism Gal. 3. 27. and the supper not of man but of the Lord was strictly required to be kept without hearkning to any other things then what were then delivered and received in the Churches though spoke by an angel from heaven or their very selves who at first preached them who if ever any such thing should have fallen out as their falling off from that truth and contradicting themselves for so doing must have been held accursed yea if Paul himself should have come some 100s of years after to the Churches of Galatia and gainlaid what he had said before saying you received the Gospel from me at first with ordinances but now you may let the ordinances of it alone it s enough for you to believe onely and live up to God in the spirit he had condemned himself to cursing out of his own mouth if then the Apostles that at first gave out the Gospel to the world were not on pain of being accursed to preach any other then what at first they preached what cursing attâ—…ends thee O wretched Ranter that deifiest thy self and takest upon thee not onely to deny but to defie the Gospel of Christ in the ordinances of it and the holy oracles of the living God Thou tellest us of a coming of Christ by his spirit into the hearts of men after which there need be no more use of ordinances that when Paul saies men must continue breaking bread till he come he means till he comes in spirit but I tell thee if the right eye of reason were not utterly darkned in thee thou couldâ—…t not but understand that till he come 1 Cor. 11. speaks of the same time as Christ himself speaks of when he saies to his Church in Thyatira Rev. 2. 25. 26. which were then in a Church posture and under the use of ordinances that which ye havâ—… already hold fâ—…st till I come and that that time was no other then the end of this world which he shall put a period to by his personal coming is cleared by the verse following he that over cometh and keepeth my works unto the end to him will I give power over the nations where by the end as he means the same period he pointed at before iâ—… that phrase till I come so he means the time of Christs second coming to judgement to raign at the end of this world mentioned Mat. 24. 3. and in scores of Places more and not the time of his coming by his spirit unto men for so he was come and hath come more or lesse well nigh as soon as and even ever since he went away yea according to his promise he soon sent his spirit to abide with his people in their observation of his commandements and not otherwise as a comforter in the absence of his person Iohn 14. 15 16. one office also among the rest of which spirit when he should come so far was he by his coming from disingaging men from obedience to any one thing that Christ spake while he was on earth was because many would be very subject to to forget and be willingly ignorant of Christs lawes to teach all things and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever Christ said unto his disciples while he was with them
and ride back at least a little way toward Rome or do you hold as some Presbyters do your ordination O Independents from the Magistrate if so he was ordained a minister of God in other cases but neither per se nor per alios to ordain and authorize Ministers for Christ Churches yet me thinks I sent you comming somewhat neer that when you propose onely that such shall be declâ—…red right constituted Churches whose Pastor shall be approved by the committee to be able godly and Orthodox which Independeht proposition I hardly know what to make of it is so odd what Sirs does the denomination of a right constituted Church depend upon the Pastors being approved to be able godly and Orthodox a right constituted Church is that which is built upon the foundation or principles of the word of Christ and the Apostles Heb. 6. 1 2. Ephes. 2. some of which you Independents yet want but go on in your light for me till you see it darknesse I can speak but obiter to you here yet know that if you settle not upon all the foundation even your Church will be a come down castle too ere long a right constituted church is that which hath right matter viz. baptized professors â—…right â—…cim i. e. free fellowship of such togetâ—…er in one body in breaking of bread and prayers whether they have yet a Pastor over them yea or no for the churches were rightly constituted first and had elders after ordained among them as they were found gifted yet with you the church that hath no Pastor and he not approved Orthodox is yet not to be declared a right constituted church what if the Pastor prove Heterodox does the church looâ—…e its true constitution or I would I knew what you mean by constitution for perhaps I do noâ—… and why do you talk in singulari so much of the Pastor and Pastor of a Church as if you were of the miâ—…d that a church might have no more Pastors and Overseers over it but one whereas tâ—…s most evident that there may be more Elders Pastors Overseers these are all one 1 Pet. 5. 1. in one Church and that not without need neither when that one flock or congregation grows numerous for then they oft grow out of the observation too much of one eye see Act. 20. Paul sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus whether any Church ever had but one Pastor or Overseer in it or no if any at all I know not but I am sure the use was to ordain more then oâ—…e to one Church Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. but one cannot Lord it so well if others be i th traces with him but however why must all this business of declaring which be right constituted Churches Orthodox Pastors which not hang upon the Committees approving or not approving of the Pastors what if the Committee should chance to be Heterodox it self or the Major part of it or the Major part sitting at that time when this Pastor comes for approbation what shall a true constituted Church lose or keep her name of a true constituted Church at a venture upon the vote of a Committee and what need at all that the Committees be so cumbered with the care of such affairs and what vanity to venture the determination of which be true Churches of Christ which the Scripture declares plain enough whether the Committee see it yea or no upon the verdit of a Committee to whom other affairs are most properly committed let all the Churches come before the Committee and all people declare their ways and their God and he whom the Committee saies is God let him be God and not the rest will you have it sâ—… if you will I will not take truth upon trust from the vote of any Committee man under the Sun and if you would not have it so you were better never trouble Committees with such matters at all then not commit them finally to them so as to agree to act at a venture as they determine in matters meerly of Religion and that the true Churches of Christ who know no King but Jesus in church and conscience will never do but prove themselves to be true constituted churches of Christ and preach the Gospell too as it is in Iesus where ere they 〈◊〉 people ignorant of it whether they will hear or forbear though all the Com mittees yea and all the Kings and Popes and Priests and People in the world should declarâ—… against them Beloved Friends me thinks you look too like a national Ministry to be of the right stamp yet I had hoped Independents would never have turned State Ministers and have lookt so much after State honour State help State approbaâ—… State preferment State Maintenance for ministering to either their Churches or to the purblind nation as I see they do but Sirs if you be true constituted Churches of Christ indeed I do not say you are nor is it my businâ—…sse here to prove you are not though you are not till you own his baptism but if you be as you imagine you are know that Christ hath set in his Church Aâ—…stles or Messengers to be sent forth not by the State but by the Church it 〈◊〉 â—…o preach his Gospel to the world at the Churches and not the worlds charges and 〈◊〉 preach the Gospel to the Parishes without pilling the poor parish people â—…king way for the Gospâ—…l and the truth by force and law whether they be free to have it to buy and receive it on such terms as you tender it on yea or no therefore send forth and maintain your messengers among your selves you are rich enough and let them preach the Gospel to them gather Churches but alas now I think out how can they preach the Gospel by the halves and gather true constituted Churches that yet own not as ye O Independents yet do not all the principles of the oracles of God nor all the first doctrines of Christ as that of baptismâ—… laying on of hands upon which together with the rest the true visible Church stands as on her foundation and are yet not onely unbaptized but unwilling to be baptized or to baptize with any other baptism then that Rantism that ran down hither through Rome You propound that when any of the Pastors of right constituted Churches dye or leave them to take up some other imployment they choose and present another Pastor within six moneths and may have one settled among them within 12 moneths by approbation from the said Committe or to dissolve or disperse themselves into other Churches Good Sirs what mean you by this shall the Parliament and their Committees never have their liberty to attend onely and perfectly the true liberties of the subject nor be at quiet from this wearisome work of approving and setling of ministers that are men mostly so unsetled in their minds that they 'l never if they have such liberty to leave as you
example is also hinted in your Review p. 16. of your Pamphlet just before to this effect viz. Iohn had the holy spirit from the womb therefore children have it and being answered to that thus viz. Ex puris negativis et particularibus nihil sequitur universale claps in this consequence to close up his discourse with viz. It doth not appear to you that children have not the spirit as much as to say they may for ought you know have the holy spirit therefore they have it To whom 't was repli'd that it would not follow that I was at Canterbury such a day because it did not appear to him that I was not and this as I remember though your Account doth very freely forget all this but I hope you will remember to be asham'd on 't was the very period of that mans Disputation with me saving what he added after in his recapitulatory moderation and after that in other emergent conferences with me and others to whose non-sequiturs as I have in faithfulness set down what I returned then so pace vestrâ I say thus much more now viz. that if I should go about to prove from the Possibility of things to be so or so or from their non-appearance to be not so though not yet appearing to be so that therefore they are so viz. more worlds then one or another world of men in the moon or as he from the particular case of Iohn Baptist to other infants so I should syllogize from the particular and extraordinary case of Balaams Ass to other creatures of that kind viz. Balaams Ass by a special power of God upon him did speak and reprove the madâ—…ess of the Prophet therefore very Asses can speak plain enough to reprove the madness of the Priests though I have learn'd Christ better then to record him as such a one for the like deduction yet I know who have so well learn'd the Featlaean language that in their Account I should have been an Ass for my labor Secondly and this I told you then too but your Account had no mind to mention what makes against you Tum dâ—…mum i. e. proprie et quoà d nos dicuntur res fieri cum incipiunt patefieri then things as to us are when they appear and not before and to talk de non entibus et non apparentibus is one as frivolous as the other yet such lazy learning and lowzy logick is at Rome with the infatuated Pope and such of his Creatures as trouble themselves so much about Tyth that they have no time to study Truth nor understand either sense or reason that whilst wise men indeed whose wisdome is not as theirs is already turn'd into foolishnese do argue from the Appearings of things to be to their being from the evidence that they are to their existence they magisterially impose things to be received as truth because Ipse Dixit and both assert them to be and make men believe they appear plain enough so to be when their say so shews them though no inquisitive sincere self-denying Christian can in the word find either how or where of but a very little better stamp is your way of arguing here who being hous'd by custom under a cloudy confidence that insants have the holy spirit will needs have it appear whether it doth or no but for my part it appears not yet to me yea I reply Secondly to this part of your Report that I did indeed then say as you have here truly related that it could not be made appear that Infants have the holy spirit to the making of them subjects of baptism yea I testifie the same still that it cannot notwithstanding all your undertakings which of what little force they are to such a purpose I shall try more at large when I handle your Account over again not as an Account but as your Argumentation for Infants having the holy spirit and so right to baptism Nevertheless Thirdly that I acknowledged any such thing as this in the least that the Scriptures above named did seem so much as to intimate such a matter as that infants might have the holy spirit as it had been most contradictory to that which here you say I said immediately after it and is most contrary to my Judgement to this present so I deny it disclaim it and testifie again it as another of your abominable abuses of your selves my self and the world into which you have feigned forth this Account and as an opinion that neither then or ever since nor everbefore since I found the way of truth hath had the least entertainment within my bosom And so I pass on to your other juggles among which Nigro Carbone notandum est this would not be let slip without a Selah in that some few lines below this you relate thus Report That my Answer was that in Scripture children were indefinitely taken but concerning this or that particular child no proof could be made Reply Which thing I confess I said yet take notice I must how you let slip your memories being willfully weak as I find them very often to be something more of my then speech which had you not declined to set down would have shewed a little more plainly and yet its prety plain as t is but hardly quite so plain as the nose on a mans face how you strike quite besides the iron stear to a wrong point and in your following undertaking upon that my Answer stickle clearly to another purpose then that proposed by me for my speech was not concernng this or that particular child only but of this or that particular child above another viz. proof could not be made of this child in its infancy suppose a believers more than of a Heathens if one of these and one of those be lookt on together whereupon also I then added but you have absented it in your Account that if two Infants viz. a believers and an unbelievers as yet unknown which is which should be presented to you whereof but one secundum to o Sacerdos may be baptized It would put you very shrewdly to it to disceâ—… of your selves which of the two is the believers Infant by any more manifestation of the spirit in it than in the other yea I now tell you over again that such a presentment would fumble and puzzle both the Priest and his whole Parish to find the Spirit more in one infant then in all but you have omitted all this least it should do you too much right and too much lay open the rottenness of your Principles and yet you have set down enough to shew to any clear capacitie how you syllogiz'd besides the business I ingaged you in my speech to speak to as well as meerly bawbled in the very business you found your selves yea how odly did you shuffle over the thing you undertook to make Appear shewing not an inch more of ground to prove it in one or two or three little Infants
these not onely of the liberty and legality but the duty also of their continuance together in that civil marriage relation notwithstanding their different religion as well as if they were in Religion one and the same The Corinthians had written to him it seems verse 1 about many cases wherein they were scrupled and among the rest about this viz. whether a husband or wife comming into the faith and leaving their yoke-fellows still in unbelief might lawfully own and cleave to them still as their true and lawful yoke-fellows as before they did when they were both in unbelief or as they may one to another that are both in the faith or whether they must not rather leave them now and disown them as to that old capacity because of this spiritual difference that now was between them in answer to which he tells them that by all means if the unbelieving parties will be pleased still to abide with them as before the believing parties must not depart nor put away and to satisfie them further in so doing he renders them this good reason viz. for the unbelieving wife is sanctified in or to the husband and the unbelieving husband to the wife which is as much as if he had said you are as true man and wife in the account of God as before your marriage is an honourable your bed as undefiled as before your unbelieving husband or wife sanctified as a lawful companion to you as well as before your living and lying together is as holy and unblameable in the eyes of God as before and to put this more out of doubt yet least any should remain unresolved he minds them further by another argument ab absurdo the absurdity which they it seems were too inconsiderate of that would follow upon it if this were not so for else saith he your children are unclean else that is if you deny your selves in this case of different Religion to be lawful man and wife together you heed not for wise men do not at all times see the ill consequences of things at present as Mr. Tombes well observes and as stark mâ—…d as Mr. Baxter saies page 87. of his Baby-book the Corinthians were if they did not mind this you heed not what mad work you will make by so doing hereby you will deny your children to be a lawfull issue you will bring the blame of baseness upon your begettings and the blot of bastardy upon your off-spring for all men know though at all times it may not come into their minds nor then possibly when ther 's most need it should that by the same reason that the parents are not holy in their coming together nor sanctified one to another by the ordinance of God viz. true and lawful matrimony the babes begotten and born of them cannot be that godly seed Mal. 2. 15 but must be base born and unclean and this the Apostle here hints unto them in this clause else were you children unclean thereby evincing or evidencing to them who doubted of it the warrantableness of their abode in their marriage contract but now saith he i. e. though you are one in the faith and the other in unbelief yet your children are holy and honestly born for all that as else they could not and you consequently holy pure and honest in your communion And here I cannot but note by the way how egregiously Mr. Baxter pedles in a long prate to Mr Tombes page 86 87. about an impossibillity of the Corinthians knowing their seed to be legitimate and yet doubting their marriage to be unlawful whereas they might in general know it and yet in special at this time not be so serious in considering it and how impossible it was for Paul rationally to argue from the effect to the cause so as to go about to convince them of the lawfulness of their marriage by a consideration of the lawfulness of their seed which flowes from lawful marriage and is a consequent of which that is the cause whereas in cognitione praesertim confusà effectus sunt prioreâ—… causis in order to such knowledge as the Apostle seeks here to beget them to which was but as it were a certain remembrance of what they might have easily gathered of themselves had they not been so forgetfull as to need a memorandum 't is not irrational to clear the cause by the effect as to say there 's smoak therefore there 's fire yet the fire is the cause of the smoak these infants are no bastards but legitimate therfore their parents were married is the very same This therefore I say again is all the holiness here intended As for that federall holiness you fiddle men in the ear with as the only holiness here aim'd at I confess I once rawly uttered it in discourse my self when being a sprinkler of infants as you are and as stiff a stickler for that practise as the blindest among you I was made choise of to defend it against the Baptists who not by force of Armes as the Priest-hood once did but by force of Arguments at last overcame me totheir way but as I was then pretty well faulted for fastening such false constructions as of a faederal holiness on that place so upon a more serious search into its sense I have found it my self so faulty that if I had said a fiddlestick holiness iâ—… had been but somewhat more ridiculous so far is Paul from dilating on any such kind of holiness in that Scripture where to convince them of a meeâ—… civil sanctity and to shew that different Religion destroies not any civil relation is verily the very utmost of his errand To inculcate this yet a little more upon you let me press you to lay to heart these few considerations First that as here in this fourteenth verse he shews that the civill relation or institutive holiness of the state between man and wife is not nullified by a difference about the faith so but that they may abide together therein though one be a believer and the other an infidel without any sin or guilt contracted to the believer by such continuance in their contract so in the following verses he shews that the civil relation or civil sanctity of the State between Master and Servant is not nullified thereby so but that they may lawfully live together in that state though the Servant should be a believer and the Master an infidel or the Master a believer and the Servant an Infidel ve 21. art thou called being a Servant i. e. to an unbelieving master care not for it i. e. distract not thy self about it scruple it not solicitously as if it were an unholy unclean unlawfull or sinfull state for thee to remain in for v. 22. he that is called in the Lord i. e. to the faith being a Servant i. e. in bondage to a Master not yet called is Christs free man i. e. acceptable to Christ even in that state and relation to such a Master
outward Ordinances and institutions and from thenceforth i. e. from the several periods of their presence with them establish them in a more compleat posture then before and each Church severally in its own proper order Moses then was the Mediator of the Old Testament established upon Earthly promises and so gave precepts accordingly but Christ the Mediator of the new which is called a better Testament established upon better promises Heb. 8. 6. and so gives his precepts not by the mouth of Moses but as he pleases Besides all this though the Covenant of Circumcision made with that fleshly holy seed began before Moses yet whether that denomination of a holy seed a holy Nation and people did begin so high as Abraham or before such time as Moses and Aaron had according to Gods command to them ceremonially sanctified by the bloud of sprinkling and dedicated both the Book of the Covenant and all the people and all the vessells of the Ministery and all other things pertaining to that Tabernacle for both that holy people and all their ceremonially holy things whereby you need not be ignorant unless you will that the holiness of that seed and their sanctuary was the same and began and were to end both together were first consecrated didicated purified sanctified all at one time under Moses Heb. 9. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. c. whether I say the holiness of the seed began so high as Abraham is a thing so out af doubt to me that I dare say that as the holy land was not relatively holy till they came into it so the holy seed as well as the other holy things of that Covenant were not ceremonially consecrated nor form ally sanctified nor vouchsafed that title of a holy seed though vertually they were a choise seed before till a little before they were to enter it and howbeit I challenge no man yet I intreat any man in the world to shew me if he can where they were denominated and distinguished from all other people as unclean by that term of a holy people till God intituled them so by Moses Exod 22. 31. ye shall be holy men unto me neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts ye shall cast it to doggs which place compared with Levit. 22. 8. 9. Deut. 7. 6. chap. 14. 2. chap. 26. 19. doth so plainly shew these two things First That the holiness there spoken of began but thenceforth Secondly that it was but a certain ceremonial distinction and a holinese opposite to that kind of defilement which might be contracted by eating of unclean beasts and so fully ceased in Christ that I even blush to read Mr. Blake and have been ashamed in my mind to hear some Independents also bring those Scriptures wherein God called Israel a holy people to himself to prove that an inchurched believers meer fleshly seed is now by nature holy in the same sense Now then let us hear the conclusion of this whole matter of the things that have been spoken this is the summe viz. that there are three kinds of holiness of which when you say children of believing parents have holiness and consequenrly the spirit you undoubtedly mean one viz. Matrimonial Ceremonial Moral The Middlemost of which because your fellow laborers against the Gospel intend that chiefly in their books I have treated on last and most largely and I now say three things of it in special First That it is a Holinesse which once was but now is not in being Secondly That it is a Holiness which of it self when it was in being as it was at the beginning of the Gospel before Christ crucified could not without faith and moral holiness interest the persons in whom it was seated in any of these three things viz. Gospel Promises Gospel Priviledges or Gospel Ordinances 1. Not the premises for they were made to Abraham in Christ and his spiritual seed not his own fleshly seed upon such terms as bare birth of his body or such holiness and righteousness as was under the Law intituling to Canaan Rom. 4. 13. 14. Gal. 3. 16. 29. 2. Not the priviledges viz. Gospel immunities and Church-membership for those that could plead they were under the typical freedomes of the old house or Church under the Law as Abrahams seed only were are denyed by Christ to be that holy seed that should stand in the Gospel house that was now to be built or share in that spiritual freedome which the sonne gives which is the only freedome indeed unlesse they did Abrahams works Iohn 8. 32. to the 40 ta 3. Nor yet the Ordinances no not so much as Baptism the initiating ordinance it self for when that old holy seed remaining yet under their relative and denominative holiness unabolished did plead it as to baptism they were put back by Iohn and not permitted barely upon that account upon which they stood in the old house without faith unless they now believed and amended their lives whose repulse of them when they came to his baptism was this viz. begin not to say we have Abraham to our Father c. Mat. 3. 7 8 9. Luke 3. 7. 8. Thirdly suppose baptism were entailed so to that holinesse and a meer fleshly seed of believers or of believing Abraham himself as truly as t is true it is not yet how grossely were you overseen Gentlemen in undertaking to prove the holy spirit by it to be in infants for that 's the probandum the very thing which by the holinesse of infants you went about to make good for the minor of your first fylogism which was this but little children have the holy spirit being denied was proved say you first by their faith secondly by their holinesse thirdly by those Eulogies given them in Scripture if then by holinesse you mean this kind of holiness I mean ceremonial which once was in the Iews by nature you have a wet â—…le by the tail then indeed for ask but Mr. Blake and he 'le tell you that that holinesse was in thousands who yet had not the holy spirit yea in truth all the Iews had that holinesse of whom not a Tenth even then when they had it were either in infancy or at years morally sanctified or indued with the holy spirit and as I have said these three things in special concerning that one kind of holinesse so I have three things in general to say in short concerning al these three sorts of holinesse viz. First one of them was in infants of old and now is not but is vanisht and when it was it proved not the spirit viz. ceremonial Secondly another is but nothing to your purpose I mean the proof of the spirit though it be in most infants viz. matrimonial Thirdly the other is not yet come for ought yet appears to infants viz. morall which if it did appear to be in them positive qualitativè as an inherent quality not negative onely so as to be without sin or absolutely innocent for
view of the very vulgar if you should so express it for he that hath but half an â—…ie 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 â—…ant 〈◊〉 a fair Conclusion concerning those particular infants you dispute about â—…less than that can amount to so much as ingeâ—…uty and then it must run thus viz. Those that believe and have the holy spirit and so right to the Kingdom of heaven 〈◊〉 to be baptized But the Scripture doth in general declare little children to be such as believe hâ—…e thâ—… spirit and right to the Kingdome Ergâ—… the infants of Believers and these infants onely are to be baptiâ—…ed 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 pâ—…ulars only from universals or to these individuals from indefinite declarations and verily take your Minor term little children which you so frequently Syllogize by indiscriminatim not expressing what little children or else indefiâ—…tely and more restrictively for some only not naming which it s equally ridiculous to argue thus viz. The Scripture gives good report of little infants in general Therefore believers infants only have faith and the holy spirit and thereby right to baptism and not any other infants Or thus The Scripture speaks well of little infants indefinitely i. e. of some at least though not all and we knâ—…w nâ—…t which as having faith the spirit and right to baptism Therefore undoubtedly these little infants whom we baptize are well spoken of in that kind and must be baptized As â—…is to argue thus The Scripture declares that John Baptist had the holy spirit Eego all the infants of believing parents must be supposed to have it in infancy and may thereupon be baptized Yet these are but as it were the several streins which you dispute in which put all together into a bag and shuffle as much as you will that which comes out first wil be a sensless non sequitur do what you can But you offer concerning this that particular infant viz. a believers of whom I denied that if it were brought unto you together with a heathens the spirit could more appear to you to be in it than in the other â—…ou offer I say to make it appear that that infant should appear to have the holy spirit above the other for that was indeed the business I then put you to prove and this you do as well as those may be said to do who by mending make their mater worse than t was before whilest there is not a tittle to be found in your Argument which doth not as fully prove the holy spirit to be in all infants as in any at all on this wise it runs Disputation Da That which to doubt of is breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear â—…i But to doubâ—… these little children haue the holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity i. Ergo that these little children have the Holy Ghost doth sufficiently appear The Minor is proved thus To doubt that these little children are such as the Scripture in generall hath declared them to be and that they have right to the kingdome of heaven c. is a breach of Christian charity whose rule is Praesumere unumquenque bonum nisi constet de malo the Apostle saying 1 Cor. 13. 3. 5. it thinketh no evil charity believeth all things especially since it cannot appear that those have by any actuall sin bard themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of litle infants declared in Scriptures Ergo To doubt that they have the Holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity Disproof Besides the salsity of both the premises there 's no more at all concluded from them concerning any one infant then might if they were true indeed be as truly concluded from them concerning all First O the rottenness and infirmitie of the Major it is most manifestly fals for there are many things which to doubt of may be a breach of Christian charity which yet do not at present sufficiently appear To doubt that this or that particular infant will hereafter live holily and imbrace the Gospel may be a breach of Christian Charity whose rule is ever to hope the best till it sees the contrary and yet that this or that particular infant will live holily and imbrace the Gospel when he comes to age doth not yet so sufficiently appear but that as more plainly as things appear with you in infancie then at age by particular profession it may more sufficiently appear when they are grown up yea till then it appeareth not at all The Minor also is false for to doubt that this or that infant hath at present the holy spirit is no breach of Christian charity at all sith what hopes soever we may have of them as to the future yet at present there is no evidence that they have it nor yet any promise at all that it shall be given to them in infancy nor at years neither till they believe and obey the Gospel and as there is no promise of it to them in infancie so in meer infancy there is no such use of it to them as t is promised to be of unto believers neither doth it either quicken inlighten convince convert comfort or any other way officiate as a seal of redemption and remission of sins to such as have no sins as yet to be remitted Secondly if both these premises were as true as you suppose them yet would it follow no more from them nor from all you say toward the proof of either of them that believers infants have the holy spirit then it would that unbel evers infants have it in the evincing of which I shall only transcribe your Syllogism and proof of the Minor and instead of your term these little children write little children of infidels and so leave you and all the world to judge whether your own Argument doth not as clearly conclude unbelievers infants to have the holy spirit as the infants of believers and so consequently that all have it if any at all as well as some That which to doubt of is a breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear But to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost is a breach of christian charity Ergo that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost doth sufficiently appear The Minor is thus proved To doubt that little children of infidels are such as â—…he Scripture in generall hath declared them to be and that they have right to the kingdome of heaven c. is a breach of Christian Charity whose rule is presumere unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo The Apostle saying in 1 Cor. 13.
to believe therefore we passe no other judgement then that of charity onely on them to be the subjects of baptism herein you grossely mistake our grounds of baptizing for though that of charity onely is the judgement whereby we judge them to be believers yet that is not the onely judgement whereby we judge them to be the subjects of baptism but as to that we go upon a judgement of certainty and infaellibility also for though it be not infallible to us that every one that professes to believe doth as truly believe as he professes yet this is infallible to us concerning him that professes viz. both that he professes and also that professing to believe with all his heart so that we in charity may judge him so to do whether he lie or no he is by the rule of the word quoad noâ—… a warrantable undoubted and as no infant is infallible subject of baptism for the word requires us to baptize such as after our preaching the faith to them do truly professe to believe whether they believe as truly as they profest or no for that indeed is not so infallible to us but it warrants us not to baptize any infants who can neither believe nor professe Moreover sith you say let us pass the same judgement upon little infants as you do of whom in generall say you the Scripture gives so good a report and against whom in particular no exception can be raised and so the controversie shall be at an end I tell you we do passe not the same but a far surer judgement then that of charity upon infants dying in infancy and have an hundred fold moreclear and more tender opinion of them then your selves whilst we have from the word well grounded hopes and assurance that no dying infant is damned but you with over pleading the bare outward priviledges of some most ignorantly damn 20 dying infants to one But as to your judgement of charity concerning infants believing and being thereby inrighted to baptism or that same judgement of charity which we act toward professors of faith you may dream as long as you will on such erroneous Enthusiasm but those that are awake to righteousnesse and resolved to sin no more by popish superstition know well enough that infants though nere the worse for want out yet cannot believe in Christ of whom they are not capable to hear much less can they professe so to do and thereby give that good ground which right charity must have whereupon to build her faith of this i. e to believe that they do believe and believing are certainly to be baptized so that we have charity well grounded concerning infants and such as comparatively to which your tender mercy to millions of them is meer cruelty and yet the controversie is not ended nor is likely to come to an end in such a way Give me leave therefore a little to play upon you here with your own weapons and to call for an answer from you to your own queres and so it may be in a fair way towards an end in time whereas then you plead the baptism of believers infants and no others upon such a sufficient appearance that they have faith and the holy spirit I ask First how do these make it appear that they have faith and the holy spirit since they cannot do it by profession Secondly how far forth do they make it appear to you infallibly or but probably your selves say not infallibly for the spirit is not bound to all the children of Christian parents nor barrd from any of the children of infidels Thirdly what judgement do you passe upon believers infants to be the subjects of baptism rather then other infants that of charity or that of certainty that of certainty you disclaim p. 18. in these words no judgement of science can be passed till the Acts of faith themselves be seen and examined and in these also viz. unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound nor barrd there can be no conclusion made That of charity then is the onely judgement you passe on these and whereby you judge believers infants and no other to have faith the spirit and right to baptismâ—… which charity teacheth us praesumere c. to believe and hope all things hope the best concerning all till ye see the worst especially since little children of believers have not by any actuall sin barrd themselves or deserved to be exempted from the generall state of little children declared in Scriptures Well then to close up all let me but desire you to passe the same judgement of charity on all little infants as you do on some even upon the little ones of unbelievers Infidels Turks and Pagans whilst infants of whom in general and indiscrimmatim the Scripture gives a good report not commending believers infants above them and against whom in particular no exception can be raised more then against the other saving that one fault of theirs onely that they were not born of believings parents which I hope you have so much charity as to pardon Hope I say as well of the infants of unbelieving parents that they have faith and the holy spirit specially since it cannot appear that these have by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved any more then the other to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture and then the controversie between you and me which is whether little children born of believing parents only may be lawfully baptized is like to be at an end for then certainly you will either agree to it that all infants in the world even of infidels Turks and Pagans there being in the judgement of Charlty as undeserving damnation as others may be and are dying in infancy though this with you is as heinous a thing as to say the Divels may be saved p. 7. in as much possibility to be saved and so at least in as much right as the others to be baptized or else that no infants at all it being not possible to be presumed certainly which have the spirit and which not and charity judging a like of all till it see a difference are at all to be baptized both which being the very truth I am content for my part to agree with you therein with all my heart To which Dilemma I am well enough assured you can answer nothing in the least measure satisfactory as the most judicious readers if you Ministers inquire of them will undoubtedly affirm also and so I proceed to your other Arguments Dispuration That opinion which makes the Covenant of the Gospell worser then that under the Law contrary to the Apostle in Heb. 8. 6. is a wicked and false opinion But the opinion of the Anabaptists which denieth baptism to little children whereby a moity of the Christian world is cut off at once
so far from conceiving much more expressing any such thing that where I speak in publique of that point of baptism in prevention of that prejudice and opinion of our harshness which your publike balling at us begeâ—…s in your heareâ—…s I commonly deliver my self to the contrary But now Sirs as for your selves who so falsely father this doctrine upon me as mine and that with such abhorrency of both it and me for it and with such patheticall expressions of your zeal against it as that you even set your teeth an edge as it were and whet the spirits of all men to abhor us for it if they had nothing in all the world against us in point of doctrine but that not to let their souls intermeddle with our secrets whose rage is so fierce and whose wrath is so cruel what if I go no further then your own Account of the Disputation at Ashford to prove that your selves are the men that hold this doctrine that though persons believe yet if they be not baprized they must be damned and not we are you not then condemned out of your own mouths to perpetual abhorring now therefore Quid rides de te fabula narratur thou O Accountant art the man of whom this tale may be told more truly then of us who hast plotted so well as to plat a whip here for thy own back yea I appeal to the whole world of wise men â—…o judge whether I do not bring proof out of your own paper if your true Account be yours and be as true an Account of your judgements as t is pretended to be of your disputation that it is your own judgement and not mine that baptism is so necessary to salvation that even such as believe and yet are denyed to be baptized notwithstanding that very belief of theirs shall be damned go bur back with me therefore to the 7th page of your Pamphlet and compare it with what you say in the third and fourth pages concerning childrens believing and see what an Account you have there given of your own minds in this matter In the fourth you conclude from the like in the children of the Iewes that the children of believing parents have faith in the third page you conclude from Mat. 18. 6. that little ones do believe now look but in the seventh page and let all the world judge whether you do not there say of these same persons viz. of the infants of believing parents of whom you asserted before they were believers that if they may not be baptized and that 's none of the childrens fault neither as the neglect of baptism is in men it destroies the hope that the parents can have of their salvation for it leaves them in no better condition say you then Turks and Pagans and their children the salvation of whom is with you as hopeless for ought I see as of the Devills which things let that or any judicious Gentleman spel and put together and see if it be not tantamount to such a testimony as this viz that those that believe and are not baptized shall be damned for to be damned and not saved are all one and as for children of Turks and Pagans dying in infancy you record it it as a monstrous thing that I should say that for ought I knew they might be saved yea by the reply that was made to that speech of mine by one who said perhaps I thought the devills might be saved it appears that your party thinks it as possible that the devils may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans and yet of the children of believing parents who in your opinion do also believe themselves you say the opinion of the Anabaptists which denyeth baptism to little children puts the parents out of hopes of their salvation und makes them to be in no better condition then Turks and Pagans yea you say believing parents may say of their children that dy without baptism what hopes of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels and really they say true if the state of infidels dying infants be so damnable as you saie it is is it you or we Sirs whose doctrine damnes believers if they be not baptized I le conclude this matter with you much what in your own words and form of speech Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven whosoever believeth not shall and be damned this doctrine of yours that little infants are believers and yet out of all hopes of being saved if not baptized shuts out believers if they be not baptized i e. if they be not rantiz'd for that is the best baptism you use and by consequence if your doctrine which you delivered in this Account â—…s judiâ—…ious Gentlemen that read i will affirm be true that even believers not baptized shall be damned you had need baptize your believing infants indeed i. e. to do more then criâ—…rosse two or three drops of water on their faces or else for all your plea for their baptizing on pain of their damnation they l be damnâ—…d if they be no more then sprinkled for want of true baptism when all is done for that is not so much as the Ceremony it self in truth which you are so hot for without the substance yet would I not have you be an abhorring for all this but pittyed and prayed for rather that you may in time for this and all other your follies and false accusations of others of things whereof you are more guilty your selves abhor your selves in dust and ashes that you may not be an abhorring as he is more then half blind that doth not see who will be once amongst both God and men Rev. 17. 16. Rev. 19. 2. And thus I have done with your first Argument Review The second is this little Children under the law received the Seal of the Gospel covenant for circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith which is the Gospel-Covenant The Law saith Do this and live the Gospel only believe in the Lord Iesus Christ and therefore God calls it an everlasting covenant and the Apostle saith the Law that came 430 years could not disannull it Gal. 3. 17 and he saith expresly the Gospel was preached to Abraham ibid. ver 8. nay more the carnall seed of Abraham Ishmael and Esau men branded for Reprobates in Scripture yet because they were born in Abrahams house received that seal by Gods appointment Why then should not children under the Gospel receive baptism which the Adversaries confess to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant Re-Review This poor forlorn wretched Argument hath been handled and laid sprawling once or twice before where both its consequence is denyed and good reason gien of the senselessness of such syllogizing as is here from the Law to the Gospel therefore it is but needless to defend our selves any further against it it being a demi-dead man that is disabled from being dreadful to us already
men at years but infanâ—…s being uncapable to act faith and it being not required of them therfore they may be baptized without it which conclusion you make without book to for the word warrants you not to make it why may not we when you call so universally for faith to every ones salvation or else saying assuredly they are damned return the like viz true no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it and of whom it s required but infants being uncapable to act it and it being not required of them therefore they may be saved without it Babist This conclusion is spoken without book and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours is sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith as of baptism upon faith and as little of salvation without faith as it doth of baptism without it therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptized without faith as you have to assert they may be saved without it Baptist. No I shall leave you behind here for sith the Scripure speaks of the impossibility of infants believing and yet with all of their saluation as your selves confesse in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdome of heaven but no where at all of their baptism it shews that they may be saved without believing but shews not that they may be baptized without it besides to hold any of them to be damned before they have by actual sin debard themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty and breach of Christian charity with you who yet confesse that all of them have not faith p. 19. but to hold they need not to be baptized cannot bear the like construction sith t is acknowledged by them that deny their bapâ—…ism and by them also who absurdly assert to the contradiction of themselves that the denyal of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless though they die unbaptized so that whether we who hold that to them all belongs the kingdome of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptized before they die or you that hold no salvation to them without faith and yet hold that all of them have not nay that very few of them for how few are believers infants to others have faith whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all or at least innumerable infants dying contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture and sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdome of heaven and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by your selves which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate till he appear to be in a bad and by actual sin to bar himself and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is this that they have right to the kingdome let the most simple but honest Reader judge between us As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5. 18. Rom. 11. 7. who urges the last of them I know not for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or ours therefore I shall not trouble my self with it but the first of them which you say is so directly against us t is because you are blind if you do not perceive it to be an express downright declaration of a general justification of all from Adams sin as to life i. e. a resurrection from that bodily death which that sin brought upon all mankind and from which as there is now a universal return of every individual by Christ so there had never bin any returning for any one man in the world but by Christ to all eternity world without end 1 Cor. 15. 21. 22. Yea as universally as that judgement or condemnation to that first death came by Adam upon all men so that it spreads its black wings upon them all and brings them all down to the dust from whence they came so universally is justification unto life i. e the benefit and resurrection from that death from which else no one man should ever have risen come by Christ upon all men really and truly and not onely so but a capacity also and possibility of eternal happinesse and well being after that resurrection and all this whether persons believe it yea or no yea and a promise and certainty of it in case of belief in this Christ otherwise indeed a losse of the Resurrections becoming a mercy and benefit to them and a lyablenesse even after that escape of the first death that came by the first Adam to a sorer even that second death that lake of fire which by the second Adam by whom comes eternal blessednesse on believers comes upon all unbelievers and that for ever So that if there be no salvation to infants without justification yet ther 's justification of infants without faith or baptism either And whereas you argue from the cart to the horse from the justification and salvation of infants to their faith I argue from their non capacity to believe to their justification and salvation without it no salvation or justification without faith say you but infants are justified and saved therefore they believe if no justification and salvation without faith say I infants who cannot believe can neither be justified nor saved but infants so farre as they need justification for they have no sins of their own are justified and saved also for the kingdome of heaven belongs to them therefore there is justification and salvation for infants without faith To conclude therefore this opinion of you adversaries to the truth which allows no salvation to infants without faith puts you miserably to your shifts viz. either to find out a new way of coming by faith which Paul saies comes onely by nearing or else to damn innumerable dying infants who whilest they lived were uncapable to hear the word preached and so to believe or else as you do p. 18. to dream out a new kind of hearing whereby infants come by their faith viz. an inward wonderful miraculous hearing of some voice of the spirit within such a sigment of your own brains as the Scripture is wholly silent in and no true Church of God nor rational man but your selves who dream dreams and divine false divinations and things of nought deceits of your own heart and tell them to the deceiving of others did ever dream of and whosoever shall consider the impertinencies of your proofs in a cause of so great consequence shall have just cause to suspect all your other doctrines and to take heed how they take any thing any more upon trust as the whole world hath done now of old from these new masters the Clergy who instead of being ministers in truth or servi servorum dei have bin domini dominorum Lords
it doth not alwayes signifie into but sometimes unto and why may it not in this place be thus read viz. they went down both of them unto the water both Philip and the Eunuch Baptist. No it cannot for they came unto the water before and so it s expressely spoken in the text ver 36. where its said and as they went on their way they came unto a certain water t is probable some foord or brook that they were to pass through and the Eunuch said see here is water what hindereth me to be baptized if they were come unto the water already as the word saies they were they could not be said properly except they had gone from it first to come unto the water again after they were come unto it therefore the next motion was into it without question yea the very Dr. himself with whom we now deal confesses no lesse then this that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptism of men hath been used if then they were used to be baptized in the water they went down first certainly into it not unto it onely for then they could not be well said to be baptized in it As therefore to that other quirk whereby the Dr. seeks to evade all baptizing in water and pleads for a baptism with water onely viz. that the praeposition 〈◊〉 which commonly is put after the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not in but with and is so translated and this is one of Mr. Cooks Crotchets too p. 12. of his book the Drs own grant quite cashieres it while he saies that Iohn and Philip baptized Christ and the Eunuch in the river for though I deny not but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be and sometimes is truly enough translated with especially in Rev. 19. 21. the place quoted by Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook who both strive to enervate A. Rs argumentation from that praeposition which is used Mat. 3. 7. Mark 1. 8. where Iohn saies I indeed baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in water saith A. R. with water â—…saith the Dr. and Mr. Cook yet if it be granted as it is by the Dr to be in the River then it cannot be denied but that it is in water however and so the Dr. thwarts himself in that Neiâ—…her is there such inconsistency in my conceit between baptizing in water and with water as that either this or that should be held exclusively of the other for they rather necessarily stand both together yet so as that the advantage stands still by it on our hand for whoever baptizes at all yea he that baptizeth in water baptizeth with water also and likewise he that will baptize wiâ—…h water must necessarily baptize in water too i. e. obruere over whelm or plunge persons over head and ears therein or else if we go to the truest signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reality he baptizeth not at all Let it be rendred therefore baptize in water or with water which you will it s all of a price to us sith the one of these includes the other And whereas the Dr. and Mr. Cook both make such a matter of the words that follow viz. He shall baptize you with the holy spirit and fire the Dr. pleading that the Apostles were baptized with fire not dipt in to it and Mr. Cook that one may as well say Christ baptized in the holy spirit and in fire or put the party into the holy spirit and fire as that John baptized in wâ—…ter the praeposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being there also I answer we may as well say so indeed for t is a truth as well 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 tâ—…ose 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 found 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 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 alltogether 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
head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three daies burial which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning 2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures those few that were in the Ark only excepted were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion not by dipping so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping and to the preservation of Noâ—…h and those that were with him in the Ark on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptism as its Antitype Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16 17. And then again p. 19 20. 21. he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large and to prove that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things that are signified therby then it may be as well nay must be rather by washing pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water sprinkling and infusion being as if not more agreeable to the nature and institution of baptism then dipping or immersion for as the word used i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing so the thing represented sigâ—…yed and sealed saith he in the wonted implicit phrase in baptism is a washing 〈◊〉 Cor. 6. 11. ye are wasted c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10. 22. t is a cleansing and purging 1 John 1. 7. blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9. 14. blood of Christ shall purge your conscience which things viz. washing clonsing purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping and though it were granted saith he that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water and being dipt therein that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now then the examples of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying but it may be objected saith he that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there the face or head onely I answer first saith he the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly with as good reason one may plead thus that t is most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as his stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who would endure saith he such reasoning These outward elements of water bread and wine are for spiritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing yea the spirituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism viz. The application of Christs blood and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring sprâ—…kling and that probably if not certainly with allusion to the administration of baptism Isa. 44. 3. Joel 2. 28. I will powre out my spirit upon all flesh Ezech. 36. 26. He spâ—…inkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean this clean water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Christ represented in the water of baptism so in the new testamet Act. 2. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12. 24. Now saith he let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken of and withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to iudge whether sprinkling be not as if not more agreeable to the nature of this sacrament as dipping or immersion In this manner Mr. Cook delivers his conceptions in his to A. R. we will onely see what his parallel saith who argues as Mr. Cook doth epitomizing as it were the labors of Mr. Cook unto his own turn against C. B. wee l first fully receive his charge also and then fully return what in right reason remaines to be returned to both If by baptism saith he we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death and also made partakes of his resurrection will it follow therefore that there must be some ceremony in the application of the water to resemble it if you may take this liberty of argument give me leave saith he to attempt the like and with as good reason to conclude that baptism must be no other then sprinkling that there may be proportion between it and that sprinkling of blood and water that did foreshadow it or baptism must be onely by powring of water there being a lively representation between that and pouring out of the holy spirit or that baptism must be by washing with water only there being a lively proportion between that and washing away of sins by Christs blood you see saith he what you will gain from these disputes from Analogy and proportion To this purpose Mr. Blake p. 6. as if he had stopt all our mouthes by this at once for ever yet I hope he shall see that he hath left us room enough yet to breath in and by which to breath out some reply Now to give the more plain quick cleer and condign check to these two palpable controulers not to say contramâ—…lers of the present piecious and apparent Truth reducing Mr. Blakes sharp and snap-short Syllogisticalls unto that long circumferaneous collation of Mr. Cook out of which for ouhgt I find he fetch it and in the answering of which Mr. Blake is answered as well as he I most earnestly intreat both those two and all other opposites to that one and onely true way of baptizing we plead for viz. of total dipping seriously to advise what is granted and denyed what is asserted and argued and by what weak Mediums and on what crazy grounds those things are that are
was the way and outward meanes of salvation but not in this respect as it was rained on nullum simile currit Quatuor Fourthly which washings purgings sprinklings of Christs blood and clean water typified of old and foreshadowed by the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hysop wherewith Moses and the high priests after him sprinkled the old Israel so that they were typically and ceremonially counted holy and clean thereupon in a fleshly sense onely are all expressions spoken not with such allusion to baptism as Mr. Cook imagines nor are so neer a kin to it as he laies claim to for if they are all to be resembled and respected by us in our baptism as things some way or other signified to us therein yet are they not at all the main or principall things or such as are immediately or primarily but onely remotely and secondarily signified to us therein and so not necessarily to be either all or at all so much resembled as something else But the death burial and resurrection of Christ which is the rise and root the originall and meritorious cause of all the rest being that which though you would shut it out altogether from its interest and right of being represented in baptism of all the rest is mainly and most immediately signified and primarily to be eyed and respected and all the rest but consequently and through that therefore its necessary that this should be resembled most lively that it may take the deeper impression upon us Yea these matters of Christs death burial and resurrection are such cardinall things to be considered as quibus non mediantibus without the mediation of which we cannot conceive clearly nor lay claim to any of the other as ours For as in the supper remotely heaven it self and all spirituall excellencies are signified to us to be ours yet all the things signified cannot be represented to the eye but onely such as are the more immediate significations of it and are the rise and proper cause of all the rest viz. Christ crucified and our feeding on him by faith theseare and are to be lively set forth unto us and resembled before our eyes in bread and wine broken and powred out and received and applied to us but not all the fruits of his death and our faith even so it is likewise in baptism and indeed the main signification in both is Christs person crucified dead buried and raised and that is to be resembled in both and other things viz. the benefits of his death as remission of sins and purging c. to be consequentially gathered from that neither can nor are nor need all those to be resembled But as for Mr. Coâ—…k he pleads stifly to have all these resembled viz. washing purging powring sprinkling of the spirit and blood of Christ but excludes the main thing altogether viz. Christs death and resurrection which are the very rise and ground of all those And yet if he will needs have all those to be resembled are they not as much and much more resembled by dipping and plunging a person in water then by powring and sprinkling a little water upon him and is not swilling under water a more effectuall way of washing and clensing then sprinkling which though it be a Diminutive way of wetting yet in truth is no way of washing at all If therefore he will have washing and such a washing as well deserves the name of clensing to be resembled in baptism can he have even that done in a better way then by dipping or dousing for verily plunging is a washing and a more eminent way of washing and purifying and so more lively resembling ablutioneâ—… peccatorum the purging away our sinnes by the blood of Christ then aspersion or bare infusion either of which without some after rubbing is a way of washing and clensing seldome used by men or women unlesse it be among slatternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them and I am sure there 's no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling which is any ingredient to your dispensation for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed not on but off and so as that is no washing so if it were I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of baptism Besides both sprinkling and powring are vertualy implied in plunging and burying in water but these are not at all supposed in the other every lesser wetting being contained and included in the greater not so the greater in the lesse Fiftly which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. daies under water answerable to Christs 3 daies buriall if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death burial and resurrection is so fond that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile currit quatuor no similitude answers in all things besides t is the truth and substance of the thing not the circumstance or quantity of time of abode which is to be respected here for a burial is as true a burial when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element wherein he is buried as if he abode 3. daies and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water as if one continued under altogether and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive then if one lay till he were altogether dead Sixthly and lastly which assertion of his uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body is so much the more favouring of either ignorance or forgetfulnesse in him or both by how much one of the very Scriptures that are quoted by himself as speaking in reference to baptism doth require it for its said Heb. 10. 22. let us draw neer with a true heart c. and having our bodies washed with pure water which clause if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is requires not a sprinkling but a washing and that 's more then your sprinkling is and this too not of the face only which is the only part you sprinkle but of our bodies which word whether we shall take properly to signifie the whole body indeed or run to figurative acceptations when we need not and take the body by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part to signifie so small a part as the face only I need not wish a wise man to determine for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies Rantist But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must before I believe or receive it that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all that 's the thing I wait to see proved for let Mr. Cook make what
so no lesse absurdity is it to understand that speech viz. And immediately the spirit caught away Philip and immediately after Christ was baptized he went into the wildernesse so strictly as if there was not staying so much as to reassume any garments they had laid aside in order to the more conveniency of their baptizing One thing more I cannot but take notice of in this clause as t is Mr. Simpsons and that is what little proportion if not contradiction it holds with the words of Mr. Simpson or rather of Mr. Blake used by Mr. Simpson immediately precedent to these in his letter for he will not give way to it at any hand that Christ and the Eunuch went into the water or at least that they were put into the water by Iohn and Philip or taken thence but onely in the phrase of Mr. Blake at the third hand of Mr. Cook that they went to the waâ—…er and came thence and yet here he forgets himself so far as to the confutation of himself and them to speak in the phrase oâ—… Scripture concerning Christ and the Eunuch viz. that they came out of the water which if they could do and neither went into it nor were put into it then I know not how to understand plain English Rantist Well this is all but by the businesse let us go on and consider what more Mr. Bl. brings to disprove dipping to be the primitive custome he tells you further p. 9. it was the Apostles way to baptize disciples as soon as they were become Converts the same day rather sometimes the same houre as we see in the Eunuch the Jaylor and Lydia and multitudes of others but conversion of Disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping the Element of water being over Cold for that service If any object that in those Conntreyes there was no danger in the coldest times He answers the commission being for all Nations disciples were made in all Countreys how soone saith he came the word to this Nation c. sometimes therefore saith he the water and weather was too cold for dipping Secondly the Number of Converts were so numerous 3000 5000. in one day that there was no possibility of baptizing in that Manner Acts 2. 41. and the 44. Thirdly Sometimes the Baptizers were in that condition that they were unable for that work in that way as Paul and Silas men newly taken out of the stocks in the Inner Prison with such stripes that their Convert was fain forthwith to wash them in this case they were unfit to wade into the water for that work and had they made any such adventure the Scripture would not have been silent Fourthly Sometimes the baptized have not been in case for dipping and plunging which was Pauls case upon the Aparition of the vision he was lead into Damascus where he continues without meat or drink three daies and upon Ananias his comming in and instructing of him he is baptized and when he had received meat saith the text he was strengthned will any believe he went out in this case with Ananias into the water over head in water before the taking of any sustenance Baptist. That persons were baptized as soon as ever they became Converts and could be discerned to be disciples even the same houre commonly without delay is an undeniable truth for that and no other was the very period of time at which what ever their parents were they were deemed to have true title to baptism for neither if their parents were wicked were such excluded as were nor if the parents were godly were such admitted as were not converted upon the Account of the fathers goodnesse or badnesse but as they believed or not themselves and this makes me the more amazed at it that it is come to passe since that the faith of the father can now intitle the child to baptism though the child have no faith at all of his own and yet I muse more sith you all count infants at least of believers to be disciples from the womb why yet you delay their baptism so long and do it not at the same houre of their birth for whether they be Discipulinati or discipuli facti if they be disciples as you falsly suppose they are if the primitive rule were to baptize persons as soon as ever they appeared to be disciples then unlesse you have any special instinct whereby you know them to begin to be disciples and in the faith as many of you count them about that very houre you baptize them in and not before you will appear to be a little tardy in your dispensations by your own rule though in truth you are too hasty for all this Now as to Mr. Blakes terrible conceit concerning the coldnesse of the water specially in some weather when yet if dipping were the way there would by means of mens conversion occasion be ministred to dip in sith I see occasion will be ministred to discourse more of winter dipping when I come to Mr. Baxters grand Arguments with one of which this is coincident I shall say nothing to it here but there speak to both under one save only that I must here tell Mr. Blake that conversion of disciples necessarily happened when there was no season for dipping without danger the Climate being by reason of persecutions that rose against that way much more over hot then the Element of water can at any time be over cold for the owning of that service must it therefore be forborn for fear of hazarding our lives if no exemption from a hotter service why from a colder for the lifes sake which whoever will save shall loose but whoever will loose for Christs name sake and the Gospels shall preserve it to life eternal as for the rest under that head I fully agree with it viz. that whatever that is there is commission but for one manner of baptism for all nations As to the multitude of Converts three thousand five thousand converted in one day which shift word for word Mr. Simpson covers his nakednesse with adding thus much theâ—…eunto viz. could Peter and those few with him the dispensers of this ordinance have stayed so long in the water or by dipping every one dipped so many in so short a time I answer how many and in how short a time does the man mean as for the 5000 it is doubtful whether they were all converted in that one day or whether he speaks not rather oâ—… the whole multitude that believed before which were 3000 together with those that afterward were added which might be some 2000 and so 5000 in all but if there were fully 5000 that then believed and that they were all at the same time baptized too which is not said and t is more probable for done it must be that t was done at another time or else by other hands then by Peter and Iohns for they were laid hold on in the Temple as they were speaking
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 baptizâ—…d 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 sit 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 deductionâ—… 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 where is 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 doctâ—…ine 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 â—…o proceed in propounding questions then when they are answered to be resolved that some or other of thâ—… 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 once before all the principles of the doctrine of Christ whereof this laying on of hands is said to be one and not only so but secondly from these words you ought to be teachers that by this time they should have been of ability to teach these principles to others which also shews that these principles ought all along still to be taught Moreover if it be queried where or by whom these Hebrewes were at first taught this A B C these principles of the oracles of God there spoken of is it not as clear as the sun to any serious understanding considerate spirit that it was by Peter at Ierusalem in his first preaching there in obedience to Christs commission Mat. 28. after power was come upon him from on high in Act. 2. which I direct to as a second place wherein we may find it preached did not Peter there lay this foundation of the principles of the doctrine of Christ among them in preaching as they did themselves in
practising Heb. 6. 2. and howbeit the whole form of the doctrine he there delivered is not set down as none of the doctrine that Philip preacht at Samaria is nor of that Paul preacht at Philippi Act. 16. 14. nor at Corinth Act. 18. 8. yet is it not by sundry passages as evident that he taught that principle of laying on of hands among all the rest as it is and how evident that is is shewed above that they in those other places preached baptism shall we think that Peter taught the principles of the doctrine of Christ all which he was to lay as one foundation among them by the halves did he build them upon one part of the foundation and not on the other part did he constitute them partly upon it and partly beside it did he teach them all the rest of the principles every of which its said Heb. 5. 12. they had been taught viz. faith repentance baptism resurrection and judgement and did he leave out that one onely of laying on of hands specially since it s said that with many other words he exhorted that people who are said there also to continue in the Apostles doctrine what man that devotes himself to the comparing of Scripture with Scripture can imagine it and if not why not be satisfied that it was preacht by some at least of Christs Apostles to all baptized believers A third Scripture I direct the inquirers unto is Act. 8. 5. 12. 14. 15. 16. 17. whence first its evident from the Apostles administring and the Samaritans submission to it that the doctrine in the purport and tendency of it was first declared unlesse we shall judge the Saints at Samaria were such idiots as to act by implicit faith as men were not to do but by comparison of what they said with the Scriptures under the ministry of the Apostles themselves Act. 17. 22. and to yield blind obedience to they knew not what the Apostles also justifying them in it which if they did then you that professe your selves to be yet ignorant in that service and that you know not the meaning of it may submit to it as safely though as senslessely as they from the hands of such as do which yet when all is done I am sure you may not but Secondly more evident yet if you weigh some passages of that text it self the words whereof are on this wise viz. then went Philip down unto Samaria and preached Christ to them v. 5. and when they believed the things spoken by Philip pertaining to the Kingdom of God they were baptized both men and women when they at Ierusalem heard that Samaria haâ—… recâ—…ved the word of God they sent unto them Peter and John who when they were come prayed for them that they might receive the holy spirit for as yet he was fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus then laid they their hands on them and they received the holy spirit It s said that Philip preached Christ and spoke of the things pertaining to the the Kingdome of God and that they received the word of God which they did not surely so much as to believe what was to be done till he had preached it now can any rationall man think that he preached Christ and the things pertaining to his kingdome and the word of God and not preach so much as all the principles of the oracles of God not so much as all the first Rudiments or whole beginning word of Christ but left out imposition of hands onely among all the rest as none of the word of Christ nor of the things pertaining to his kingdome as not to be preacht no not in that juncture wherein immediately after it was to be and accordingly was so universally submitted to by them and dispenst unto them or if you say they received not that word of laying on of hands from Philip but from Peter and Iohn I answer t is true practically from the hands of Peter and Iohn dispensing it but by faith so as to believe it to be a practicable doctrine that was their duty to own from the mouth of Philip dispensing the doctrine of it or suppose that Philip spake nothing of it till Peter and Iohn came which is non supponendum yet is it likely that the Apostles that were sent to them from Ierusalem though nothing is said of that they said that therefore they said nothing to them at all yea will right reason ever receive this for truth that the Apostles were sent to Samaria upon the account of some service whether solely that of prayer and laying on of hands it matters not so long as that was one part of it at least and yet neither acquaint them whether before acquainted with it or no to what end and purpose they came and what was the end and purport of that service they onely or mainly came for he that can receive this let him receive it for my part I professe I cannot A fourth place from whence it is easily gathered that the doctrine of laying on of hands in order to their receiving the holy spirit was wont to be preached to all baptized believers is Act. 19. 1 2. 3. where Paul speaking to the whole company of disciples that he found at Ephesus the number wherof were then but about twelve among whom the doctrine of laying on of hands in order to the receiving the holy spirit had not been preached at the time of their baptism seems to reprove and blame the neglect of it enquiring whether they had not received the holy spirit supposing surely at least that the promise of it had been to them and prayer made for them in the usual way with laying on of hands that they might receive it but marveiling much that they being baptized believers had not been informed about these matters nor had so much as heard of the holy spirit have you received the holy pirit saies he no nor so much as heard of it say they no unto what then 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
that it have as mutuall protection from them as it yields subjection to them for this is the good will of God concerning them as such and whether they be Heathens or Christians they are Gods Ministers to attend continually upon this very thing viz. to render unto all men their dues as men viz. a room in quiet in the world of what wayes of religion soever yea though Indians and redress of any civil wrongs as they expect to have all men of what religions soever within their power to render to them their dues of tribute honour custome fear for for this cause pay they their tribute also because Magistrates are Gods Ministers to the world ward and to the Church as part of the world and in no other sense then as to the rest of the world to attend continually on this very thing to dispense praise or punishments for civil good and evil among men not spiritual for then they may punish evill thoughts proud looks ignorance non-profiting by the word not Gods Church-ministers to dispense good or evil for good or evil done in the Church but as the same actions may have reference to the state also as theft or the like civil abuse which comes one way under the Churches censure and another way under the Common-wealths they are not I say Church Ministers nor Ministers to the Church qua Church as the Priests principle seemes to make them for then they may claim not only Tribute but Tith also as well as the Priest but that he will be loath to part with though in truth it belongs to him for his Church wasting work full as little as to the other I humbly beg therefore I say of the Powers that truth which hath been trod under foot may be tolerated among them in their several civil States Common-wealths and Kingdomes and to the end it may undoubtedly be so let all that which the Powers in the several Nations do judge in their own consciences to be truth in point of Religion have toleration and protection and no more countenance by them as Magistrates but bare protection from injury as other waies also may have and not such extraordinary supports from a power Heterogeneal to that of the Church nor such extraordinary gratulations gratuities revenews incomes preferments and portions out of the common State-stock let their own private purses be as open to them such as professe it pay to its Ministry as much as they will for besides the partiality of this thing of making other Religions and wayes that judge themselves to be the truth as well as that pay and be tributaries to the true one and the grumbles it will ingender in mens minds this proves the greatest mischief under heaven to the truth when the Ministers who should expect nothing but shame and suffering with their Master who was Beelzebub are slusht with the outward pomps and vanities of this world till they forget themselves so as scarce to know what ground they stand on and howbeit Magâ—…trates may mean honestly in their high honourings of them as that good man Constantine the great did yet as his high embraces and graces done to Christi in Bishops proved besides his intent the stirrup whereby those Lord beggars got up on horse back and rode to the devil for so hath that Romish whore rid both her self and the beast under her which is Christ'ndome so though I hope it never will yet it may possibly be so again if care be not taken against it witnesse the two other more seemingly modest and maidenly Minions Episcopacy and Presbitery which qua Ministry came out of her loines wâ—… have not brought the world so far out of that old Babilon towards Sion as they pretended to do by reformation as else they might have done being slugged luld asleep by benefits and benefices in the way for posit â eadem causà ponitur idem effâ—…ctus sublat â tollitur golden cups ever yet made wooden Priests and ever will do let truth have liberty and peace it will desire no more of the State if it be truth indeed And Secondly let all other wayes and religions besides that which the Magistrate judges to be truth that judge themselves to be in the truth save that of those whose very way as abovesaid is no way but dishonesty and whose way isto root out all wayes but their own by civil power be also tolerated practised and protected from outward violence and oppression as well as that for this besides the knitting of the hearts of men of all wayes under one civill power in intire love and strong affection to that Power that domineers not ore their conscience besides that I say this tolerating all practices in point of religion save that practise of non toleration of any but it self in civil states must needs tolerate the truth among the rest whether it ly in this way or that and so the Power shall be out of all danger and hazard of coming under the guilt of truth treading which the P P Priesthood hath engaged the civil power in for 1260 years together as else it cannot for if toleration be of no way but one then if that chance to be the wrong and themagistrates are no more sure then other men that they are in the right yea 100 to 1 they are not if they use civil violence to others First because the false wayes are many and bread and easie and fine and the true way but one and that so streit and narrow mean and base that not many noble and mighty and men of power ever find it 1 Cor. 1. 26. Secondly because as King Iames said persecution is a certain note of a false Church then truth is unavoidably smothered by them and will first or last pull vengeance upon that power Rev. 6. 11. 12. though it be under the name of Heresie onely that he suppresses it and plucks it up under the name and notion of weeds and taâ—…es that would else choak the wheat besides therefore a most strict charge that Christ gives Mat. 13. that in the world i. e. the civil States and Common-wealths of it the Tares should stand together among the wheat untill the harvest which alone is an Argument putting all out of doubt in this controversie he gives this good reason viz. least in plucking up the Tares the wheat also chance to be rooted up with them t is for the wheats good therefore for the Tares to stand and for the wheats sake that Christ wills they should though not in the Church yet in the world to the very end thereof And because the Divine cannot yet divine that to be Christs meaning in that scripture that false worshippers hereticks c. may lawfully if not civil offenders be licenced to live in civil States let us consider how sinister his own conjectures are upon it I have met with some and some of chiefest note in this County of Keâ—… who have shifted it
blushing at the lives of those men who stiled themselves their successors I have done with the câ—…uses of his heresies and come to his design The design of the Heretick even this Heretick of Hereticks the CCClergy is to propagate his Error and as his grounds are wicked so are his manners in mannaging of them intrat ut vulpes regnat â—…tleo he pretends verity but intends onely vctory that he may reign over the kings and people of the earth and that they might all stoop to his commands directions and under pretence of verity at first he did get victory at last over the whole world so that Pape Oh strange the whole world wondered after him and doted upon him as their Lord God and became slaves in chains to his Priestly will yea as he loved to 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 doctâ—…ine 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 sc'â—…ism 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 meer 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 Meâ—…'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 Adminstrations 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 mae the righteous witnesses to truâ—…h as bold as Lioâ—…s before God and men viz. the goodnesse of his cause for that is stark naugh and rotten nor the clearnes of his call â—…ther 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 wâ—…en tâ—…uth 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 â—…e duo gladii both swords are in the Clergyes clutches so that he can quickly correct those that conâ—…radict him he is too clamorous to be silenced calling out with such a heavy noise and divine ditty against the truth and condâ—…ing it with such an
2. 12 1 Cor. 12. 7. Eph. 4. 11. Eph. 4. 30. a Eph. 1. 13. b Act. 2. 39. 40. c Prov. 1. 23. Joh. 7. 38 39. Luke 11. 13. Act 5. 35. * Iohn did no miracle but all the the things which Iohn spake of this man are see true Joh. 10. 41. Iohn 7. 48 〈◊〉 ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe Iohn 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed but blessed are they that have not seen and yet believed Herod hoped to have seen some miracle done by Christ but he would not so much as answer him Luke 23. 8. 9. He did not many mighty work there because of their unbelief Mat. 13. 5. Lord why could not we cast him out Iesus said because of your unbelief Job 1. 16. â—…f his fulâ—…es we have â—…ll received grace for grace Iohn 16. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 13. 14. the communion of the spirit be with you all Gal. 5. 22. 2 Cor. 5. 5. God who hath given us the earnest of his spirit Ephes. 1. 33. 14. in whom after ye believed ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance c. whereby you are sealed to the day of redemption Ephes. 4. 30. * if any doubt it as some do and say prophesy is a gift of speaking infallibly by revelation from God as t is spoken of 1 Cor. 14. 1. the 2. 3. 4. 5. verses of the same chapter confute him where prophecy as it is determined to be a far more eminent and profitable gift and greater and more desirable then tongues which is so talkt on so it is defined to be no other then speaking to exhorration edisication and comfort and also v. 31. 32. 33. where its 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 som what 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 strifes 2 Tim. 2. 23. p Vâ—… Seeing there be ma ny that do desire bapti zed 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. 23. 16. * Viz. Seeing many plead â—…aying on of hands to be practised or submitted unto as a foundation principle or a beginning doctrine 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 calleâ—… by Christ or his Apostles the foundation principle or beginning doctrine by some text in Scripture * iâ—… it be not somewhat an improper phrase to stile wicked men in their wrathful and cruel handlings of the Saints Administrators oâ—… any doctrine of Christ that is stiled imposition of hands as to me it seems to be unlesse weâ—…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 smiâ—…e them with any mischâ—…efs in either body oâ—… spâ—…it as by Gods permission he did Job Job 1. 12. Job 2. 6. 7. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Viz Seeing that Hâ—…b 6. 2. 〈◊〉 of the laying on of hands as plâ—…al as the dâ—…ctrine of 〈◊〉 and doth not speak of any one laying on of hands sore mentioned particularly nor of any otheâ—… by distinction neither of any end purpose or eveâ—… Therefore we desire to know what safety it is for any man tâ—… conclude that Heb. 6. 2. is meant buâ—… of one of them onely †See Mr Blackwoods last book newly extant even whilâ—…st I am writing to you on this subjâ—…ct sâ—…iled 〈◊〉 soul searching catechism p. 58 in p. 54. 55 56. 57. 58. 59. of which he treats totally of this 〈◊〉 * Viz. Mr. Coâ—…on Dr. Holms who as is shewed above in the 139 140 141. pages of this very voluâ—…e I am yet in hand with borrowes Coâ—…ons and Calvins reading out of Antiquity concerning the practise of imposition of hands to all grown persons before admission to Church-â—…ellowship wher by to prove infant-baptism which thereby he 〈◊〉 breaks the nâ—…ck of * consisting of 3 sorts of Christ'n creatures under a 3soldCCClergy 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 whe reby 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