to children of believing parents as to persons at years for we have Gods testimony concerning them in this matter whilest you have but mans testimony concerning himself yea Christ hath amply declared his good will to them in Scripture whose testimony is not onely Tanta-mount but to be preferred before mens from which it more plainly appears that infants have faith then the testimony of any particular person can make it appear for himself Baptist So you say indeed both before page 5. and behind p. 19. but how dare you assert then that you go not about to prove certainly but only probably that believers infants do believe for verily if it be so as you say that God himself gives testimony for them in Scripture that these little infants do believe then never say no judgement of science can be passed no discovery made of the habit of faith nor peremptory presuming what infants have faith and what not till you see them act it for Gods testimony is more credible then mans indeed hath he said it and is it not so yea verily let him be true but every man a lyar for mans own word can create but probability and charity and not so much neither unless he speak it from Gods word that believers infants do believe and infidels infants do not but if God have said so then cursed be he that will not believe it to be so for if his word be not perfectly demonstrative and scientifical and past all doubt but I confesse I find not a word of his concerning such a thing then I le never trust self confuting Clergy men any more 2. Whereas you answer that in those children where there is lesse promptness to acts of faith then in others we cannot argue ad negationem habitus because they work not equally What is this to the present question and position concerning no more inclinablenesse to holy actions in children of Christians then of infidels for those are such of whom your selves assert the one have faith the other have none but these you speak of now are adult ones such as in whom there is some promptness to acts of faith appearing differenced only secundum magis minus some inclining more some lesse to acts of faith concerning all whom sith those of them that have least promptness have at least an apparent promptnesse to acts of faith who denies but that they may have faith though they work not equally but what 's this to the proof of more or lesse inclinablenesse to holy actions among infants who are so far from having some more some lesse that even none of them have any promptnesse thereto at all 3. Whereas you fiddle it on a little further and think to coop us up by your crosse interrogatory you may well call it a crosse one indeed for its a net that catches your selves let us answer it which way soever you would have us For if we say heathens infants are inclined to acts of faith and should make that good against you as we shall hardly ere trouble our selves to do unlesse we did believe it to be truth can you give any just account of your denial of baptism to these yea who can forbid water why they may not be baptized that have and are inclined to act faith as well as the other and in whom as in those of believing parents the work is palpably at least possibly and probably the very same But if we say no infidels infants are not inclined then we must take what comes on it for you are resolved to hit us home indeed and so you do while you do that at last cast which had you done at first you had saved your selves a deal of hurt which you have done your selves by circumlocuting so long in way of proving the very Minor proposition of that last Argument which Reason urged against you viz. that Christians children are not more inclined to actions of faith then those of infidels for at last you fall flatly as your safest way to deny that Minor and assert contrarily thereto that children of Christians are more inclined to holy actions then other children which if it be true First how grosly do you contradict that you say in the lines above where you seem to grant that there may be more inclinablenesse in infidels children and promptnesse to holy actions then in Christians Secondly I wonder how you come to be experienced in it for if you Clergie men be all Christians and so you are in your own account your children excepting some that by the breeding you give them grow up to the same stamp of Christianity you print upon them do for all their native holy inclinations not seldome prove the lewdest and rudest of any mens children in a Countrey for not onely through the Priests and Prophets own practise but from their posterity too oft times prophaness goes out into all the world or else the Popes had never filled it with iniquitie as they have done The nexâ— objection of Reason is as followes Review 7. Faith comes by hearing Little children cannot hear must lesse understand Ergo they have no faith They might also conclude they have no faculty of understanding neither for that comes by hearing but infants have an hearing the spirit opens their ears he must do it in adultis or for all their hearing they will never believe He is not tyed to means though we are without the outward hearing of the Word he works faith in little children The manner of his working is miraculous as it is in the conversion of every soul enough hath been said to that before nor ought it to be objected if miraculous then not ordinary for the work of the spirit in the conversion of men is both Re-Review Had Reason had the managing representing and writing of this Argument her self she would not have set it down in so weak absurd and silly a manner as Reasonlesse hath done it in in this place Reason never held such a thing yet as is asserted in this Minor viz. that children cannot hear much lesse understand for abstract hearing from understanding and take these two in sensu diviso as you do here and children can hear but in sensu composito they cannot it cannot rationally nor truly be said they cannot so much as hear much lesse understand but they cannot hear so as to understand or they cannot hear understandingly as those must that hear in order to believing and whose faith comes by hearing a hearing t is true infants have for they are not destitute of that sense more then of seeing and the rest Auriculas Asini quis non habet the same hearing that an Asse horse or other bruit beast hath which is only the sound of words without the knowledge of the sense who hath not save he that is deaf but the hearing they have is neither such as Paul speaks of there nor yet that heating you say they have viz. an inward hearing
onely excluding all other infants from it in doctrine though not all in practise which are no less then an hundred to one whereby not a moity onely but all save a small moity of infants in the world yea in the very Christian world in which the most by far are unbelievers are cut off at once from not the Church on earth onely but all share in the Kingdom of heaven also which of all these I say viz we he or you are most cruel and desperate and do most justly deserve the censure which you Priests put upon us p. 15. of your pamphlet of damning infants dying contrary to evident testimony of Scriptures and of damning innumerable innocents such as infants of infidels are whose right to the Kingdome of heaven our Saviour declared I propound it to be considered by your selves and all other men at leasure at present seeing this Argument of yours makes also more against then for you whose plea is for some infants against other if your Minor in it viz. that denial of baptism to infants destroyes all hope of their salvation were true as it is not and speaks for a necessity of baptizing all infants and not a few onely I 'le Syllogize it back upon you in much what your own terms and so pass hence to the other That opinion which destroyes all hopes of the salvation of many dying infants to one in the world yea in the very Christian world too is a most desperate ungodly uncharitable opinion But the opinion of you Priests who deny all hopes of salvation to those to whom baptism is deni'd and yet deny it doctrinally your selves to all unbelievers infants which are many to one in the Christian world and dispute for its dispensation to believers infants onely is such as destroyes all hope of the salvation of many dying infants to one as well in the Christian world as elsewhere Ergo the opinion of you Priests is a most cruel desperate ungodly uncharitable opinion Another fine fancie whereby you would fain juggle men into a belief that believers infants and these onely are to be baptized runs thus else say you the Gospel Covenant is worse then that under the law forasmuch as then litle infants were circumcised Now Sirs when I come to meddle with this Argument ore again I shall shew you plainly the imbecillity of it to prove the baptism of any infants at all and the melâ—ority of the Gospel-Covenant above that of the law though infants be not now baptized as Circumcised then at present I am to shew how if it would prove any thing it would prove the right of baptism to unbelievers infants to whom you deny it as well as to believers infants whose baptism onely you seem to plead by it I say suppositively that this is to make the Gospel-Covenant worse then that of the law to deny baptism to infants now sith they then admitted infants to Circumcision then the denial of it to believers infants which is your own opinion makes it worse then it was under the law as well as the denial of it to infants of believers for under the law the infants of unbelievers which were many to one believer among the Iews Is. 53.1 were both de jure and de facto circumcised as well as those of the believing Iews and so by your own rule ought the one to be baptized now as well as the other Again by the denial of baptism to the infants of unbelievers not onely a moity but the most of Christendome as in which are by far more unbelievers infants then others are cut off at once from baptism and membership I conclude therefore thus If that opinion which denies baptism to little children makes the Gospel-covenant worse then that under the law then the opinion of those Priests who deny baptism to all unbelievers infants whereby not a moity onely but most of the Christian world in which the most are unbelievers are cut off from being members of the Church makes the Gospel-Covenant worse then the law But though not veraciter yet secundum te O Presbiter that opinion which denies baptism to little children whereby a moity of the Christian world is so cut off makes the Gospel-Covenant worse then that under the law Ergo thy opinion which denieth baptism to all unbelievers infants whereby more then a moity of infants is so cut off makes it worse under the Gospel then under the law Another curious conceit whereby you undertake to clear the right of baptizing the infants of believing parents above others is the being and plain yea more plain appearing of the holy spirit to be in these children then in others or then in men whom we baptize that make profession which plain and sufficient appearance so you stile it p. 5 of the spirits being in these children is made say you many waies First by these infants faith Secondly by these infants holiness Thirdly by those Eulogies that are given to these children in Scriptures not inferiour to those of the best Saints Fourthly by that Scripture in special 2 Cor. 13. know you not that the Spirit that Christ you should have said is in you except ye be reprobates lastly and mainly by these childrens non-appearing not to have the spirit by these childrens not appearing to be evil by these infants not appearing by any actuall sin to have barr'd themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture by all which on pain and guilt of the breach of Christian charity whose rule is praesumere unumquenque bonum nisi constet de malo we are bound to believe that these infants of believing parents not of others have evidently enough the holy spirit Now Sirs the Lord help you to your eye-sight if it be his wlll for I le be bold to say these Seers are as blind as a beetle what ever they seem to themselves to see who by any thing at all that is here brought do discern the holy spirit to be in any infants but this which is to the present purpose may be more safely asserted that all this proves it not one jot more to be in the infants of believers then it proves it to be in unbelievers infants to whom you deny baptism as well as we in plea pretence and prate at least but not altogether in practise for verily these have as much promise of the spirit as the other those parents Acts 2. being yet unbelievers while Peter spake to them saying the promise is to you and your children yea these have as much capacity for the spirit as much manifestation of the spirit as much capacity to believe as much holyness as much Eulogie in Scripture for Christ commends not the infants of some parents above the infants of others but indefinitly the whole age of infancy alike as little appearance yet of being reprobates and so consequently as much appearance that Christ is in them as in the other
onely before they have learned ever a letter but some years before they are capable to be taught a tittle as for circumcision which was so timely dispenst its intent was not to admit the subjects to be taught as Mr. Marshal vainly contends saying that they were then discipled when circumcised i. e. then first initiated and admitted immediately to be taught but somewhat else as I have shewd above for when it was dispenst to infants it was set to a subject utterly uncapable to be taught and when to grown men that subject was to be instructed before it and as for baptism to which from circumcision Mr. Marshall analogically argues the same that is not by intent and institution the first admission of persons to be taught though persons are to be further taught after it in other doctrines Act. 2 42. Mat. 28.20 but it was one of these doctrines of Christ it self which was to be taught before dispensed and as it were a certain sermon wherein the person submitting is to be instructed and shewed many pretious things viz. Christ dead buried and raised while dispensed and though it is one of the six principles or first doctrines of Christ that is to be preached believed and practised by new born babes and I mean not in your sense but another by beginners in Christs School yet is it not the first among the six in order but the third to which two other Doctrines viz. faith and repentance ought to be Antecedent Heb. 6.1.2.3 Act. 2.38 Mark 1.15 Mark 16.15 16. And if it be so as Mr. Marshall saies Spanhemius affirms giving good reason though it s but bald reason as I shall shew by and by for his Analysis viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make disciples doth not signifie simply to teach for then there would be found Tautology in Christs words because he repeats teaching again after baptizing but to baptize and teach both so as that Christs meaning is this as he saies viz. go and make me disciples out of all nations by baptizing and teaching and so as that this businesse of making disciples is to be accomplisht or attained by two and not under these two actions at least viz. baptizing and teaching as he saies t is then let all the world judge whether infants be not still by that opinion as uncapable to be made disciples as before for whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make disciples be a matter or end attainable simply by that one action of eaching onely or whether not under these two mediums viz. baptizing and teaching both still no men in the world are able to make infants of a few daies old disciples for howbeit they are capable to have one of these actions acted on them viz. to be baptized yet till they come to years they cannot be instructed or taught rill when as Spâ—nhemius sayes well the end of making them disciples is not attained By those very testimonies therfore whereby Mr. Marshall would prove infants to be disciples o how is the understanding of the prudent brought to naught that infants are not capable to be made disciples in Christs sense and present Dialect he hath in print proved it to the world and that for ever Moreover what if notwithstanding all that Mr. Marshal and his curious Criticks conceive his Rabinick phrases as he calls them viz. his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are in sense the same be both found to signifie otherwise then his learned Spanhemius and reverend Rabbies do render them viz. not meerly to admit to be taught much lesse to disciple one barely by baptizing as Mr. Marshall would perswade us quite contrary to his own quotation out of Spanhemius in this very application of it for Spanhemius saies and so he quotes him that to disciple is to baptize and teach both but he that baptizing onely is discipling I say what if they be found to signifie neither baptizing onely nor baptizing and teaching both nor admitting one by baptism to be taught or consecrating or initiating into Christs School by baptism or any such like thing as you Divines dream on but rather mainly if not onely the acts of teaching and instructing persons till they have learn'd what is taught them abstract from the acts of baptizing and admitting into the Church will it not appear much more plainly then that infants are not capable to be made disciples and yet to the contradiction of Mr. Marshal and all the rest Mr. Cotton declares this to be his opinion viz. that the true meaning of the word disciple is taught or learn'd or if Mr. Cotton may not be credited if Mr. Marshall will take Christs own word for it which is more worth then either Mr. Cottons or those Rabbies and from whose use of the word and not theirs its best to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make disciples before baptism and not by it and though baptism is necessit .te praecepti and for many ends viz. the visibility of the thing to others and fuller evidence of things believed to themselves necessarily and immediately to follow after i to teach an instruct men in the Gospel for there can be no other way of making disciples but this of teaching assigned as Antecedent to baptism and in proof that that phrase so signifies in Scripture see Iohn 4.1 where it s said of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he maketh and baptizeth more disciples then Iohn which phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you see by the conjunction copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set down as a distinct action from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he made disciples and then baptized them therefore he did not make them by baptizing them but by something he acted towards them before viz. by preaching and instruction so it must be for else if you talk of tantology here had been tantology in the Evangelists words indeed for if he had said thus viz. he made or baptized as it must have been if the words he made Disciples and baptized had been Synonimaes in sense just one and the same then you had had some couler for your conception but sith he saies he made Disciples and baptized them it shewes plainly that he made them before he baptized them and that these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not one and the same in signification for then there had been tantology in using them both and though the expression be different yet the sense is no other then if it were said thus viz. Iesus baptized and baptized more than Iohn I appeal also to your own consciences whether what Christ speaks in this very text we are yet upon viz. Mat. 28.19 by the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not without any violation of the sense be read imperatively by the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus viz. teach all Nations and baptize them and if so whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
are called Disciples p. 8. I shall say a little to your folly in that also and so leave you to consider it at your leasure And because Mr. Marshall is the main man I had last in hand and the man that frames the most formal argument from that Scripture whereby to prove infants to be disciples I le single out whâ—â— he saies and see what may be said in answer to it and in him you will all stand or fall in this particular the form in which he reasons Serm. p. 39. is this Babist All they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision are called disciples But they would have put the yoke of circumcision upon infants as well as grown men Ergo infants as well as grown men are called disciples and to be called so Baptist. The Minor which is so undeniable that it needs no proof for who denies but that they who taught the brethren or disciples at Antioch would have put circumcision upon the necks of their male infants as well as of themselves for after the manner of Moses though not of Christ so it was to be he falls pell mell upon the proof of that but as for the Major which is so palpably and apparently false that it needs no disproof that saith he is undeniable and so he slides away without once offering to make any proof of it at all I shall therefore shew you how plainly he perverts the text how false his foundation or Major proposition is and consequently how rotten and weak his whole building That Scripture hints onely thus much to us viz. that they would have put the yoak of circumcision upon the necks of the disciples out of which but how inconsequently a very Idiot may understand he publisheth this proposition viz. All they upon whose necks they would have put the yoak of circumcision were called disciples but what monstrous solaecism what ignorant incongruity is to be seen in these two sentences if laid together what naked arguing is this they would have put the yoak of circumcisiin upon the necks of the disciples therefore all they were disciples upon whose necks they would have put it I appeal to Mr. Marshals own conscience to judge whether it be any better then this viz. Caesar put the yoak of Tribute upon the necks of Christs disciples Ergo all they upon whose necks Caesar put that yoke were Christs disciples I am hardly perswaded within my self that such a man as Mr. Marshall could first preach this ore Secondly print it ore Thirdly repeat is reprint it ore again with so sleight an answer to it as he gives to Mr. Tombes p. 217. of his reply and not see the nakednesse of it which if he doth see I charge him as he will answer it before the Lord Iesus at the last day that he declare it to the undeceiving of 1000s that for ought he knows may be dangerously deluded by it and that he do not dare any longer thus to darken counsel by words without knowledge as for that sorry allusion whereby he puts off Mr. Tombes who denies his Major for this reason viz. because it is not said they would have put the yoak of circumcision upon the disciples onely it s but a further delusion of himself and others I hope saith he you will receive the same law you give therefore when your self do plead meaning against infants baptism Iohns and Christs disciples required confession of faith and sins of those whom they baptized I answer saith he that its nowhere said they baptized only such But Sir though it be not said totidem verbis they baptized onely such yet it is said in terminis aequivalentibus in words that can imply possibly no lesse for when it s told us by way of true narration Mat. 3.5.6 that Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the Region round about Iordan were baptized confessing their sins it is in sense as if he had said that all they of Ierusalem Iudea and about Iordan that were baptized were baptized thus viz. confessing their sins and consequently that onely those who confessed their sins were baptized and when it s told us for truth to the end that we might know who and how many that day were baptized and added to the Church Act. 2.42 in these termes viz. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added meaning to those 120. that continued in supplication Act. 1.14 about 3000 soules those termes they that gladly received the word must needs be exclusive of all others that did not gladly receive the word consequently of infants that could not or else we are clearly cousen'd by that story for if I undertake to relate truly by way of Chronicle who and how many were executed at such an Assize or slain in such a battel on such a day as Luke doth in Act. 2. to shew who and how many were baptized on that day and expresse it in such terms as do include the third part of them only for the several housholds to which those 3000 souls did belong would surely have amounted to thrice as many more had all those whole housholds been baptized with them I should be reputed as no better then an Impostor but the case is not the same in Act. 15.10 for the end and intent of Luke the historian and Peter the spokesman in that place was not to relate how many they would have yoaked with circumcision but the drift of Peter was onely to reprove the false teachers and of Luke onely to declare how Peter did reprove them for offering so to subjugate and subvert the brethren for so they are called ver 1. even the very same persons which are called disciples ver 10. which shews also that by the word disciples he means not infants for they were persons capable to be taught yet this is the strongest hold you have whereby you argue infants to be disciples and taking it by force from thence that infants are disciples you run headlong with it to Mat. 28.19 where Christ saies go teach or by teaching disciple the Nations baptizing them and from thence rest an argument for their baptism but I am ashamed that I must take occasion unlesse I le betray the truth to reprove the rudenesse of such renowned men and conclude all their conceits to the contrary notwithstanding that Mat. 28.19 is no commission nor command for infant baptism It follows not therefore from the wonted circumcising of infants from which you Ashford Disputants dispute it that therefore they are to be baptized for this reason viz. because there was a command for the circumcising of infants but as I have shewd above none at all no not from Mat. 28.29 nor Mark. 16.15 much lesse from any other piece of Christs will and Testament that they are to be baptized now But Mr. Marshal fetches it about another way yet and because Christs own Testament is somewhat barren of provision by
presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists without ground or reason from Scripture the Covenant of the Gospel being the righteousness of faith To which I contradictorily reply that there is another way revealed for the salvation and justification of little infants from all the guilt that lies upon them in infancy which is no other then that which comes upon them for the sin of Adam onely and from all that mischief which comes on them onely meerly and simply for that sin then that way of faith and that is the presentment of the righteousnesse of Christ to God on their behalf without faith and this way is no figment of the Anabaptist as you No-Baptists do foolishly fancy but that which hath such strong ground and reason from Scripture as you will never overthrow while you live although to men at years that have acted transgression in their own persons and are capable to act faith and other good as well as evil the Gospel is granted to be a Covenant that gives righteousnesse by Christ in no other way then that way of faith and obedience to him We usually put cloaths upon infants but men put their clothes on themselves and so must we put on Christ by faith in order to justification when we come to years of discretion Gal. 3.27 and not before I know the multitude of Scriptures that speak in general or at least in such indefinit terms as are in sense equivalent to universal concerning salvation to all them that believe and nothing but condemnation to all them that believe not as Mark 16.15.16 Iohn 3.15.16.18.19.36.11.26 Act. 10.42 Act. 13.43 Rom. 1.17.3.22.25.26.28.30.4.6.24 a most monstrous mistake of all which as also of the whole Scripture makes you miserably misbelieve this matter viz. the way that all dying infants are saved in for you deem or rather dream that the Lord by these expressions whosoever believeth in me shall never dye he that believeth not shall be damned he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life c. delivers his will and testament not onely concerning persons at age but concerning infants in their very infancy also whereas if you Divines had not Divin'd your selves to very dotage you could not but understand that little infants are not intended in any of these or any other places that hold out faith as the way of our salvation for do but judge in your selves were it not shameful senslessnesse to read thus out of those places viz. God so loved the world c. that whosoever infants in infancy as well as men believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life those infants that do believe on him are not condemned but those infants that believe not are condemned already and why because they have not believed in the name of the onely begotten Son of God And this shall be the condemnation of infants as well as men that light and life is come to them and yet infants believe it not neither will come unto Christ that they might have life but but love darknesse more then light because their deeds are evil for thus you may read it if infants as well as men be there meant and so were it not sottish to read thus out of Rom. 4.23 it was not written for Abraham onely that faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse but for infants also to whom it shall be imputed if they do believe on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead c. so would it sound any whit savourly in the ears of one that 's of a sound judgement to read Mark 16.15.16 so as to understand infants together with others viz. go preach the Gospel to every creature who ere believeth and is baptized shall be saved but whoever believes not man or woman old or young infant or suckling shall be damned would not this grate harshly upon charitable ears but surely infants are not spoken of here nor are they in any other Scripture for ought I can find with the best sight I have where faith is spoken of as the condition on our part without which nothing is to be expected but condemnation I am sorry Sirs to see you Clergy men cloath your selves with such darke conceits and confusednesse of mind as not to know of whom and to whom things are spoken in the word nor whom in general the Scriptures you professe to be so profound in concern and preach to and I beseech you be not too wise in your own conceits to learn one lesson at least from him that is a fool among you for Christs sake viz. whereas you say infants must believe or not be saved the Scriptures declaring no other way to salvation but faith in Christ that the Scriptures were written only for our instruction that are at years to understand them and not for the use and instruction of infants in infancy in the way of life the Scriptures were given as a coppy of the testament and the will of God concerning men and women to declare to them what he requires of them and in what way he would have them to wait upon him in order to the attaining of that salvation he hath purchased by the blood of Christ and will freely confer on them for his sake viz. the way of faith repentance baptism supplication submission self-denial obedience both active and passive perseverance therein to the end and in a word attendance to the law of Christ the voice of that prophet that he hath now raised up in all things or else to have no part among his people from all which conditions and performances I say from every of them as well as any one of them from believing as well as obeying in baptism or any other part of his will or any other works of God under the Gospel among which belief is a chief one Iohn 6.28.29 little infants as being yet uncapable subjects to obey in any of these are universally exempred in their infancy otherwise I dare a vouch no dying infants in the world shall ever be saved for can they do any of these things in infancy so such as are to be baptized are called to do Act. 22.16 and who ever so doth shall be saved and whoever doth not shall perish Ier. 10.25 if the way wherein men are to be saved must be walkt in by all infants too in order to their salvation then wo to all infants that die in non-age for alas how shall infants call on him in whom they have not believed and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not yet heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher and who can preach to them before they can understand Rom. 10.14.15 so then they cannot believe for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God some way or other outwardly as well as inwardly preached Babist The spirit here speaks de subjecto capaci onely viz of the way how men
in the world meaning not infants but such as are at years of discretion to whom the Gospell comes in any measure are of some or other of these three sorts viz. 1. Either such as neither believe at all nor so much as in words profess so to do Or 2. Such as in words say they believe and indeed do not Or 3. Such as both profess to believe and do indeed believe as they say Now I suppose we all hold the first sort viz. professed prophane ones so living so dying will be damned and unless we will deny the Scriptures we must needs hold the second sort whose professed faith is a dead faith shall not be saved for what doth it profit if a man say he hath faith Jam. 2.14 and have not works c. whereby onely faith is proved to be true indeed as it is professed can that faith save him as for the third sort viz true believers I subdivide them in my thoughts into 2 ranks First such as believing in Christ truly for salvation believe also baptism in its true way of dispensation and not rantism to be Christs will concerning them and these I am certain will submit accordingly and obey him in it for such as say they have faith and live in rebellion to what parts of Christs will they know they ought to obey him in have not faith to salvation what ever they say Or Secondly such as believing in Christ neither see nor believe nor practise baptism in that only true way wherin we dispense it and all this meerly for want of meanes to discover it to them or by means of the invincible ignorance of their times and ages wherein they lived and wherein according to the will of God permitting it so to be the mind of God in that thing hath been hid and as we know it hath in many more things for ages and generations together remained undiscovered which times of ignorance I believe God much winked at in those who sincerely owned truth and obeyed it so far as it then appeared and as they saw it though now he commands all men to return from Babylon in these daies of light wherein men may see but that they will not yea many prophets and righteous ones in the height of Popery have desired to see and hear what we do or may do yet could not the Scriptures lying lockt up as unlawful well-nigh for any to consult with therefore look you to it who say you do not this or that because you see it not for I testify to you that it is a time wherein the true light shineth so cleerly that men need not erre if they love not darkenesse more then light because their deeds are evil And the same measure of light and reformation and truth which might have denominated you reformists had you lived 100 years ago will not serve to denominate you so now since the smoak that darkned the sun and the aire is much more perfectly dispelled then in that twilight in this form I mean of such as could not see not because they would not but because it shone not do I rank all the Martyrs and those honest men whom you doâ—e on as Fathers and all true professors and believers for many hundreds of years together who witnessed to truth and suffered for it too so far as it did appear to them in their times to this sort of men I am more charitable and tender in my censures then you can possibly prove your selves to be and so I am also to infants for all your prate of pleading for them against our cruelties neither doth any doctrine that ever I delivered damn any of these to the pit of hell as your doctrine of so rigid haâ—sh fierce and cruel rejection of all infants from salvation save those of believers doth damn an hundred to one of them that dy in innocent infancy and where it should be that that Gentleman told you I preacht that doctrine That all such as believe and yet are not dipped shall be damned I know not but this I know that I was ever 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 hearers 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 baptized 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 beliâ—ving 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
of themselves is as seems by your selves a faith and practise against Reason why else doth reason object against it Indeed the Papists aâ—e so unreasonable in sundry articles of their faith that they hold some things not onely above but against Reason and that 's tâ—e worst that can be said of the most absurd and â—bominable tenets that are amongst them and that is so bad that even thereupon the Protestant priesthood finds occasion enough to abhor them witnesse their Tenet of transubstantiation or real presence of Christs very body in the supper of which when we say how can this be its not onely against other articles of faith viz. his bodily ascention session and local mansion in heaven but also against common sense and reason it being in reason impossible that one body should be at once in two places as well as in consubstantiation it is for two distinct bodies viz. the bread and Christs body to be at once in one place they say much what as you say here and in the lines above viz. that howbeit its difficult to understand how it should be so in Reason yet if we had learnt to believe the Scriptures which in plain terms assert the thing saying of the bread this is my body we would believe it and leave the manner of its being so to him who saies it with whom all things are possible as we do in the articles of faith e g. the resurrection of the body not asking how it can be because the Scriptures have declared it The Reformists tell them again that the resurrection of the dead is a thing not onely in respect of God who can do all things save such as imply imperfection as to lie and die c. and contradiction for its impossible utterly that pure contradictories should be both true but also in respect of the thing it self possible to be effected but the ubiquity and the actual universal eating of one and the same numerical body and so smal a body too as that of Christs and at one and the same time in so many several places are matters and fancies savouring of such contradiction and so adverse to the very nature of God that as Kekerman system log p. 42. saies Ne deus quidem producere potest et logica eas e suis excludit ordinibus such as God doth not and Reason knows not O but saith the Papists nothing but humane reason judges this impossible and repugnant to other articles of faith to whom among other things our Divines use to reply that in matters of religion and faith and things of God reason is not to be laid aside as if we were to bring bare bruit sence i. e. blind implicit faith onely to the word of God but to be used by us that we may thereby as without which we cannot distinguish truth from falshood yea to speak yet in the very words of your own author in this case I mean Vrsins Catachise to which you send us whose these words mostly are which I have already spoken see page 414.415 For even therefore was reason given us of God that we might by the light of the mind discover contradictory opinions and clearly understanding what is agreeable to the word of God and what repugnant to it may imbrace this and refuse that Hoc nisi firmum maneat nullum erit dogma tam absurdum c. Vnlesse this stand for granted no opinion though never so absurd and impious yea nothing in the sincks of all hereticks though never so impure and monstrous can be confuted out of the holy Scripture for hereticks and deceivers will reply their opinions do not contradict the word of God but onely it seems so to humane reason You see then how among your own writers the foundation of faith and true religion is laid not onely in the Scripture as the rule and fountain whence we fetch all but secondarily in sound Reason also improved in way of trial of things by it as without which no use can be made of Scripture so that though some Divines proclaim it to the whole world for so do your selves in this place that Reason it self is against them in their way and consequently that their way is against Reason and many Divines confesse their faith and religion in some articles and particles of it to be above Reason which is but a gentle-gigg too if by above Reason they mean so as that Reason cannot comprehend how they are at least conceive them possible so to be yet however farewel such a faith for ever for me as Reason fights with and far be it from me either to do or believe any thing against reason for as they that see not good ground in reason to believe what they believe can never be alwayes ready as every Christian ought to render a reasonable answer to such as ask them a Reason of the faith that is in them and are at best but implicit in believing so they who believe not only without and beyond but even against Reason it self opposing them in their faith are most unreasonable believers indeed and such as shall find that Reason as easily as they think t is answered will make good what objection it makes against the most unreasonable of them all but to leave this and to come to the discourse or ratiocination it self which followes between Reason and reasonlese for what else can I fitly stile such an Antagonist as stiffens himself against Reason and counts it nothing to refute it yea t is done here in your Review for satisfaction to the Reader as you say but t is undone again in the Re-review to the undeception of the deceived and the deceiver The objections of Reason and replies of reasonlesse and re-replies of Reasons friend are as followes Review 1 Infants have no knowledge of good or evil Ergo no faith By the same reason they should be denied to have the faculty of understanding the exercise of their faculty they have not no more have they of their faith not the act but the habit as was said before Re-Review Good Sirs consider what a reasonlesse reply to reason this is For if by faith you mean only a faculty of believing what ever in time may be told them which is the adaequate object of faith in general that is in all reasonable creatures and is de esse to them universally innate in them as a part of the rationall soul as well as the faculty of remembring what in time they may hear and of willing and chosing what in time may be propounded to them and of understanding what in time may be taught them but what is all this to your purpose who plead faiths being in some infants onely not in all when as faith in that sense is as much in all infants as in some and would if it could at all entitle such as have it to baptism entitle all mankind to baptism as well as some sith all have the faculty of
wine powred forth Circumcision or cutting off the superfluous foreskin of the flesh did not only signify but lively represent the signatum the Circumcision oâ— the heart i. e. sanctification the paring off and putting away the fleshly superfluities of the heart and can you give us think you or give your selves either any good account why baptism onely of all the rest should be exempted in this case from bearing semlably with the rest an Analogy proportion and similitude to its signatum i. e. the thing mainly notifyed therein which originally is the death burial and resurrection of Christ and our communion therewith and plantation into the likenesse thereof is not the manner of administration of that to be such also as may resemble and so onely the way of dipping doth a Death Buriall and Resurrection Rouse up and reckon but with your consciences a little and see if they will tell you otherwise if they do they give the ly and that you who deify your Orthodox Divines will be loath to do to all divines both antient and modern who so far as I find except onely Mr. Blake do teach us that the end of all the institutions of the Old and New Testament to which you allow the name of Sacraments are ex instituto to resemble as well as signify their signifyed objects Kekerman referres aâ—l the Sacâ—aments to the signes of that sort that do signifie cum Analogia i. e. that bear a likenesse to the things signifyed System log p. 12.13 Calvin and Vrsin that are men of much note in your Account are thus opinioned both as you may see in the institutions of the one and the Catechism of the other whether we are directed by you for sufficient furniture for infants baptisme Calvin saies thus of the Sacraments Institutionum lib. 4. cap. 14. sect 20. The Sacraments of the old Testament did tend to the very same end and purpose as ours now do namely that they might direct and lead us as it were by the hand to Christ or rather that they might represent him as certain images or pictures and set him forth to us to be known Vrsins Catechism saies no lesse but much more and that much more plainly to this purpose and what is spoken there too is not spoken as the opinion of Pareus or Vrsin onely but as the mind of one that may be more taking with you then any of these viz. Saint Austin who is stiled Malleus Hereticorum one that mauld the Hereticks in his daies who also is fainted up in so many pages of your Ashford Pamphlet that you cannot for shame unfaint him so far as not to believe him but to rehearse a little what is there said in the 358.359 pages of that book after mention made of the promise of the Gospel you may find these words viz. That promise that is given us in the word God doth more plainly declare to us by the sacraments namely by that likenesse which is between the signs and those things which are signified as a picture or image declares that of which it is the image for when the picture is understood that even that of which it is the picture is made cleer and verily farre more cleer then without a picture and as a true picture is not well understood if the likenesse or lively resemblance of the picture be not observed so neither are the sacraments unlesse the likenesse of the outward signes and things thereby signified be understood in this sense the Appollogy of the Augustinian confession doth divers times call the sacraments by the name of pictures And again p. 363. shewing wherein the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified consists it stands saith he in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel similitudine signorum cum rebus signatis in the analogy and likenesse that is between the signes and things signified And then he goes on quoting Austin thus De qua Agustinus Si inquit sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sâ—cramenta non essent and then again p. 365. speaking of those sacramental locutions as you call them whereby the sign is oft called by the name of the thing signified and said to do and be that which onely the thing signified is and doth in truth This saith he is by a sacramental metonimy and the meaning of it is not that one is changed really into the other but because the sign doth so lively resemble the thing signified Next to which he cites again the very same sentence out of Austin which is rehearsed in latin just above together with somewhat more all which I English thus viz. If the sacraments should not have in them some likenesse to the things whereof they are sacraments they could not be sacraments at all but by reason of this likenesse it comes often to passe that they bear the very names of the things they resemble By the way I cannot but take notice what an argument here is against infants baptism as well as against the form of Rantism for if true baptism must resemble as well as signifie to the very eyes and so mediante oculo to the understanding and minds of persons to whom it s dispensed is it possible for that baptism that was dispenst in Infancy to represent lively and cleerly to my sense and reason when I am at years the things therein signified for to call that a sign much more a lively resemblance of a thing before our eyes so Buchau saies of baptism ante oculos objicit which we never saw at all or if we did t was when we could not apprehend it and so long since that we necessarily and universally forget it and that so farre that our fancy can never possibly recollect that outward appearance of those inward things is no better then meer childishnesse and very vanity to me Rantist This shewes indeed that t was the opinion of these Reverend men that there ought to be of necessity as cleer a resemblance as may be of the thing signified in the administration of the outward and visible sign in all sacraments or else they are no sacraments but that is nothing binding to us without some good ground out of Scriptures to believe it therefore le ts see it appear from thence and if you will from the Scriptures you began upon Rom. 6. Col. 2. in which I see nothing on which you can ground that in baptism there must be visibly and representatively a death burial and resurrection though I grant all these are signifyed thereby Baptist. I rejoice much to see you renounce that implicit faith whereby you have formerly lived it may be more upon the mouth of Calvin Vrsin Austin and other Authors then on the mouth of Peter and Paul or the mouth of Christ himself in his word neither do I urge any thing out of these Authors to be taken upon trust without trial yet prove what they
baptized by them for we do not read that any of the Apostles or Apostolike men did ever baptize any but such as are newly converted to the Christian Religion but I and such as I am have from our infancy imbraced the Christian Religion and no other now if our Adversaries did rightly infer that because there is neither precept nor example in Scripture for baptizing of infants therefore it is a needlesse thing in like manner I may as truâ—y conclude for asmuch as their is neither precept nor example in Scripture for baptizing such as have been bred up in the Christian Religion and never professed any other I and suâ—h as I am have no need at all to be baptized Baptist. That some are sent to baptize is proved above and sure enough if it be as we see t is Act. 2 39-10.47 48. mens duty to be baptizd or else Christ hath required a service of every man and that sub poenâ too and yet though never so willing to be baptized left them in no possible capacity to perform it for want of provision of administrators but that you and such as you are yea and that though some are sent to baptize have such a Supersedeas from being baptized as you pretend to be vouchsafed you by Christ Jesus because you have been long of it and been bred up in the Christian Religion is such a strange piece of businesse as I know not in any wise what to make of who in foro hominum ecclesiae at least take baptism to be the visible badge that so distinguishes between those that are of the Christian Religion and other people that who so shall say he is of the Christian religion and yet never was nor will be baptized must excuse me if according to the tenor of Christs Testament I own him not as yet to be a Christian. What you call the Christian Religion in which you say you were bred up I know not if you mean the doctrines of faith repentance and good manners alone as yet and abstract from baptism this whether it be a great while or but a little while since you began to put it in practise the matter is much at one for degrees as to the length or shortnesse of the time since we were converted do not vary the nature of the case this I say is so far from exempting that t is the onely thing ingaging you to baptism and howbeit you say there is neither as I am sure there is not for baptizing infants yet you cannot possibly but see that there is both president and precept for the baptizing of all believers and of all in any Nations that are discipled so that if you have been converted not lately but long ago and remained till now unbaptized you have so much the more need to hasten to it and instead of being held excused from now doing it at all because you did it not when first you should to be exâ—uscitated in the words of Ananias to Paul saying and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. But if by the Christian Religion which you say you were bred up in you mean either that Christian Religion of the Rantizer that teaches men to change the ordinances of Christ that of baptism specially as to its form and subject and to make void his command through his tradition of a new baptism to all or that Christian Religion of the Ranter that so rebells against that law of Christ that he will give way to have now no water baptism at all these two Religions as Christian as you count and call them are both but Anti-christian with me Ranterist You make such a deal of do about water baptism as so needful that there may be no Church-fellowship held without it but for ought I see yet t is a matter of no such weight but that we may serve God as acceptably to the full without it for in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love Gal. 5.9 circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandaments of God 1 Cor. 7.19 Baptist. T is true that when Paul spake this which was when there was an abolition of circumcision so far as was consistent with the Jewes ability to bear it and when it was now de jure to grow out of date then circumcision was nothing and uncircumcision nothing so that t was altogether needlesse to be circumcised but as nothing as it is now yet so something was it once when that testament it was the sign of stood that every soul of whom it was then required that was not circumcised was to be cut off from having fellowship with that Church and people and as nothing as this baptism or no baptism is with you now yet no lesse then this at least must we say of the unbaptized that every soul that shall refuse to be baptized is to have no fellowship with Christs Church and people Acts 2.41.42 Secondly as nothing as circumcision and uncircumcision baptism or no baptism are with you yet faith which worketh by love is something as Paul himself also doth seem to hint and the keeping of the commandements of God which love to the Lord Jesus he that saies he can expresse without keeping his commandements among which baptism in water is not the least and without counting those commands of his not too grievous to submit to makes either Christ a lyar or elle himself Ioh. 14.23 1 Iohn 2.4.5 1 Iohn 5.2.3 Thus farre concerning water baptism to which in the primitive times there were and in all times also wherein it is or shall be truly dispenst and sincerely submitted to there assuredly are or will be two other baptisms concomitant viz. First a baptism with sufferings Secondly a baptism with the holy spirit to support under those sufferings in order to the being baptized with the last of which baptisms there was then an ordinance or administration of Christ viz. prayer and laying on of hands which was practised toward all believers after baptism in water which as it was kept on foot from the Apostles daies and downward among the Churches of Christ in after ages and is as to the substance of the service kept on with far lesse corruption and alteration then that which yet cleaves to their baptism among all but the Presbyterian part of the national priesthood and people so that it is of right to be used in order to the self same end and in the self same manner now as then it was because the present use and practise thereof is so openly not to say obstinately denied not onely by the Ranter who rases the whole foundation and the Presbyâ—erian and Independent Rantizer who rase down that or at least do not raise it but also by several societies of persons baptized who to the great grief of such congregations as own the
illuminated Tradesmen Christ the Carpenter Peter the Fisherman Paul the Tentmaker Aquilla and his wife Priscilla from which kind of poor folks and babes to whom it seems good in gods fight to preach the plain Gospel and reveal by his word and spirit what he hides from wise men when they will not see this prudent PPPriesthood if he were not proud might learn more truth and Gospel purity then ever was taught him by his Grand-father the Pope or any of those Clerical Councells or Ghostly fathers which he consults more with then with Christ and Scriptures The Reason of all his obstinacy against tradesmens teachings is this he knows that his trade of teaching for hire and divining for money Must fall if tradesmen begin once to turn divines and to teach truth for nothing ye know that by this craft quoth he Act. 19.25 c. we have our wealth moreover ye see and hear c. he is well aware and so are we that if he lose the lives of persecution for conscience and sprinkling of infants Iachin Boaz the two main pillars grand Supporters of his kingdom his Temple will quickly rend in to more pieces then 3 PPPs from the top to the very bottom and all his matchlesse magnitude and numberlesse priestly Prerogatives drop directly to the ground viz. his Lieutenantship to the prince of this World his Lordship over the heritage his headship over the Church his dominion over the faith his title to the tenth of every mans estate his merchandize of slaves bodies and souls of men his leave to trample the holy city and slay at pleasure the truth tellers that torment him his rich revenues dignity glory power seat and great Authority together with all the priviledges profits liberties immunities thereunto belonging All this his royalty must fail if he give ground but a little and would have failed ere this time If he had a face could blush at his own abominable blindnesse or ingenuity to confesse himself hurt or own the plain truth while his lungs will serve him in reply or Amor sui constrain him to cry heresie against the truth therefore this Diotrêphes that loves to have the preheminence over all for ever because he hath had it for a while receiveth not truth but prates against it in the pulpit and elsewhere with malicious words and though he contradict himself ever and anon in his own Sermons and discourses yet if he say any thing at all he thinks it much when wisemen weighing it find it little to the purpose Tertullian thus describes Hermogenes Loquacitatem facundiam existimaret Impudentiam constantiam deputaret c. so he when he bumbasts the pulpit and slashes the Saint Schismaticks in their absence before his people supposes he hath spoken with no small grace when t is for want of grace that he did it and that when he is most audacious against all reformation as at Rome and even that he hath sometimes sworn himself and others to as here in England when he finds it more crosse to his credit then he thought of when he undertook for t he counts them fickle unconstant that change their minds and mend their manners and himself only stable and constant to the CCChristian Religion Hence it is that the effects of Disputation with him have been not onely fâ—ustrate but dangerous dangerous I say to him no otherwise then as it overturned his Kingdome that the truth of Christ might take place but to them that disputed with him in this respect as it hath been no lesse then their pretious lives were worth once to oppose or open their mouths against him witnes Wickliff Hus Ierome of Prague and all the executions done in Queen Maries daies upon such as durst dispute against the Pope or meddle against the mass and those done in Queen Elizabeths upon Barrow Greenwood and Penry who were hang'd by Episcopal malice for professing against them and the Common-prayer which now well nigh all England hath renounc't as a corruption and what should have been done upon such as disputed against or depraved the Presbyterian directory is well known for that Clergy hath shew'd themselves so much in their Fathers colours that ere long all England will renounce both it and them and in this respect it hath been also frustrate as to peoples conviction for truths witnesses to dispute never so clearly against him for as much as he hath still stopt their mouths with the stake prison or gallows and kept his own wide open against them in the pulpit when he hath secured them from all capacity of storming him there for The common sort are apt to think those have the victory that live to speast last and that their CClergies cause is never wrackt by the cause of Christ as long as one is left alive that can speak a word in that against the other And by how much error takes with our corrupt nature more then truth by so much there is more danger of its spreading where the Roots i. e. the self love vain glory ambition covetousnesse pride Lordlines universality and cruelty of the CCClergy who are plants that our heavenly father never planted Stocks from whom stemes out a stench from whom abomination branches it self out to the corrupting therof in al quarters of the Earth Rev. 11.18.17 5.19.2 are not plucked up and rooted out for from the Priest and the Prophet profanness heresie hath gone out into all the world and spread it self like a leprosie or some raging canker and for the most part such is the resolvednesse of the CCClergy to bind the people still to a blind obedience to their blind guidance of them beside the word that Disputations with them if not carefully I mean clearly and also coolly proceeded in with love to their persons and almost without zeal against their evils which yet we must not abate them an ace of for all their anger pacem cum hominibus cum vitiis bellum they Raise more evil spirits of wrath and divellishnesse in them then we can lay because they see them raise more good spirits of doubts and earnest enquiries after truth in the people who before were wont to take their ware on trust without trial then then they can lay again while they live by all the shifts and subtleties they can devise for when once people are resolved to believe things to be heresie by hearsay no more but to fancy them according as they find them in the word and to see into the plainness of speech that is in the Scripture with their own eyes they see so much disproportion between the national Church wayes and those of the primitive Churches of the Gospel that they commonly resolve not to see at all adventures through the unclear eyes of CCClergy men any more This makes them fret and fume and fain and fiddle hither and thither which way to fasten their Heretical opinions further if it be possible on them in whom they they
was as to his coming thither by accident so he did too i. e. unappointed and unsent for in which sense I 'm sure some of you came not by accident but as specially bespoke in the name of a great Patron of your Party both to be there and undertake the business and appointed if not primarily yet secondarily or upon their refusal for whom some too confidently undertook they should undertake it who yet say of your selves page 3. you were not the men appointed to undertake it if by accident you mean thus as well you may for a man may come by accident enough to a place though he doth not drop out o th' clouds or slide down thither from the moon that worthy friend and beloved Brother under which name I the rather own him here because I had a letter from a prime one of your Party that speaks somewhat scoffingly of that compellation and besides though with Dr. Featly and his faction he is one of the Clergy of Laicks and an Apron Levite yet as his name is Temple-man so I take him to be a better Church-man then many a one who for not troubling his people with too much truth goes under the Denomination of a good one this man I dare say as far as he said he came by accident so farre he came by accident as he said and this proves your hearsay for its like so you had what you here say to be Heresie if an erring from the truth may as I know not why not be so stiled in civill matters as well as spirituall And this conducts me to another figment wherein you father as false a thing upon my self as any of those you seigned of me before which is at the bottom of that discourse which you record as passing between your selves and him concerning justification of Dying infants whether it be by faith or without it in which discourse though the folly of your opinion in that point and truth of his which is also mine namely that dying Infants are justified without faith I shall shew in due time and place yet I cannot but take notice by the way before I speak of that which more concerns my self of some Legerdemain and illogicall dealings of yours with him Report Reporting him asserting thus viz that there may be justification which is not by faith you report your selves replying thus page 9 that it is the grossest piece of Popery to hold justification by works and not by faith onely and the greatest controversie between them and Protestants Reply What shameful Sophistry have you shewn here in foisting in a foolish phrase and term that was neither used nor touched on by him in any of his fore-going speeches nor yet in that which your reply most immediately relates to viz. Iustification by works whereas you know well enough even as well as he and I and the rest that were there for your wits could not be so far gone a wool-gathering as to need Hellebor here that he neither spake nor meant of Iustification by works whether without faith or with it but of the Iustification of Infants without either faith or works neither of which as your selves confess they are in infancy capable to act although you say but if a man will not believe you he may chuse for there 's neither Scripture sense nor reason for it they have the habit this I say again you know to be the sence of such as you call Anabaptists witness your selves in two places viz. p. 8. where you give account of our opinion thus viz That way of the presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists also p. 15. thus the adversaries are put to their shifts to find out a new way for the salvation of infants dying in their minority viz. the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith in both which places you give the world to understand that you know our opinion to be that infants are justified by neither works nor faith which is a work but if at all by that which your selves hold is the material cause of the justification of men that act faith and of whom they being capable to act faith it is required as instrumentall viz. the righteousness of Christ secondly you know that this opinion is farther off and more flatly contradictory to that Popery that holds Iustification by works then yours can possibly be found to be for the very Iesuits may have some colour for saying that you say the same with them whilst their Tenet is justification by works yours by faith which say they and truely too is a work theirs by faith and works concurrent yours by faith that hath works concomitant and necessarily consequent thereunto between which two doctrines neither of which need be so much condemned each by other for ought I find as they are provided that all merit on our part be cashiered for there Rome errs besides us all for you will find them both true in the end viz. that both are instrumentally subservient and not either of them alone to the justification of not Infants but men and women of whom both as well as one are required in order unto life beâ—ween which two I say there 's not so vast a difference as you deem there is much less so great as is between these viz. Iustification by works and faith both which is that of the Papists and Iustification without either faith or works which is that of ours when we speak of justification with reference to infants only for between these there 's not the least colour of coincidence yet this was that justification that Inquirer spake of viz. of Infants by Christ without faith or any other work either which you know is no part of Popery yet first you reply besides the business which he spake to and define it gross Popery to hold justification by works as if he had held it yea secondly which is worse and down-rightly injurious you are not ashamed to tell-tale him to the world in the words below that he fell into this popery and that for asserting of a Iustification of Infants so farr as they need any neither by faith nor works but Christ without either so much as instrumentall on their part then which you see nothing more fully contradicts it if ye were blind indeed you had not sin'd so much in this but sure you cannot but see how you shuffle therefore without repentance your sin remaineth Another thing I take notice of by the way as I travel toward that fiction I mention above as referring to my self is this Report That when the quere was put to you by the inquirer as you call him what need infants have of being justifyed at all since they have no original sin which whether it were put for satisfaction in the thing or meerly to hear how readily you would resolve it I cannot say you bring in one of the Ministers in the name of the rest
of believers only are to be baptized Sirs what if a man were minded in jest to become a fool so far in order to the convicting you of folly as to maintain against you who deny it that not believers infants onely but those of unbelievers also must be baptized and should argue this ab exemplo might he not as Dr. Featly saies to us in another case kill you with your own Dudgen dagger for seriously Sirs as far as that example is of force it overturns your turn who use it in the thing in order to which you alledge it and overthrows you clearly in your question as you state it and in your tenet of a right to baptism for only believers infants exemplifying rather if the example were to be heeded the baptizing not of such infants only as are born of believing parents which we are against but such as are born of unbelieving parents also whose baptism your selves are against as well as we Ad hominem therefore I conclude and ab exemplo on behalf of unbelievers infants as your selves do from the same head on behalf of believers infants only thus viz. To hold that the universal Church or Christian world hath erred in so necessary a matter as baptism for so many hundred years is little less than damnable blasphemy But to hold it an error to baptize the infants that are born of unbelieving parents is to hold that the universal Church or Christian world which hath baptized in suo genere such as well as others hath so long erred in so necessary a matter as baptism Ergo to hold it an error to baptise the infants that are born of unbelieving parents is little less then damnable blasphemy Another Argument whereby you strive to evince your opinion viz. the baptism of believers infants above other infants and to evade ours viz. the denial of baptism to them both alike as desperate and ungodly is drawn from the danger of their damnation if it be denied them and the destructiveness of that denyal to all that hope that else may be had of their salvation which if it be of force doth it not cry out as loud against your desperate and ungodly cruelty on behalf of those millions of innocents of infidells dying infants to whom in opinion and doctrinally you deny baptism as well as we as it doth on behalf of believers infants who are no more innocent then the other to whom we deny it also for if it be such a business as not we but you and the rest of the right Romish Priests seem to make it the denial of which de jure facta damnes so down-rightly the infants dying without it that there 's no hope to be had of their salvation so you say or else my shallow noddle cannot reach the profoundity of your purpose in pettering out that pure pious piece of sense which with this Argument of yours is stuffed pag. 13. then it s high time as high a degree of charity as you would be thought to have towards a few infants viz. one of a hundred for scarely so many are true believers infants to the rest to plead for the baptism of unbelievers infants too and stand up in the cause of those innumerable poor babes that cannot speak a word for themselves against your Cruelties who deny baptism to them and deny all hope of their salvation to whom they so dying it is deni'd yea verily Sirs perswade us to that once and make us believe that popish trumpery that the deniall of baptism to any infants doth so much as doctrinally damn them and then I 'le plead for baptizing of infants in a larger way then you who confine it to believers infants onely viz. for the baptism of all babes and sucklings in the world and that least they die and so be damn'd before it be dispensed to them so soon as they are well out of the womb so far are we from that cruelty to infants which you commonly though not properly charge upon us tha if we thought as you think but Sirs mistake us not for we have good ground to act more charity then your selves do to all dying infants could we think I say that their salvation did so depend upon their baptism that their damnation would be the issue of denying it we durst not be so desperately cruell as your selves nor limit it to some one infant of an hundred know Sirs we are tender in our construction of the condition of all that die in such minority as you sprinkle in before they have known or done either good or evil and are well assured there 's no damnation to such of what parents soever descended and as little need of your Rantism to their salvation but for you who are so seemingly compassionate and charitable to a few how churlish are you to a hundred to one whilst your cruel doctrine excepting such as are born of believers onely curses all the rest unavoidably to hell you talk much of your own charity to infants and our cruelty but truly Sirs I dare tell you that your tender mercies to that age of infancy are meer cruelty so long as in your childish dotage on some you send so many packing to perdition and as unchristian as our cruelty is it hath more tender mercy in it to the whole infancy of the world then all your Christian charity doth yet amount to for as you prescribe it p. 5. 't is our rule indeed but not your own presumere unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo to presume and hope well even the best things and things that accompany salvation of all infants as well as some specially since it cannot appear that any of them have yet by any actual sin bard themselves or deserv'd to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is a right to the Kingdome of heaven but your Christian charity hath not carried you out so farre yet as to hope and presume well of infidels infants unbelievers infants or any unrantized infants though it cannot appear that any of these have by any actuall sinne more barr'd themselves then the other or more deserved to be exempted from that general state of little children declar'd in Scripture then the infants of the best believers in the world Whether therefore we who though we baptize no infants at all nor see warrant in the word so to do yet believe and that not ungroundedly nor as being more merciful then God shews himself to be to them the salvation of all that die in infancy or one who imagining as sillily as your selves that no baptism no salvation should thereupon for pitty dispute against you limiters of Gods grace for the baptizing of all infants in the world or your selves who supposing the same i. e. no hope to be had of their salvation to whom baptism is denied have yet no more pitty in you then to dispute for the baptism of believers infants
speak plain yet cannot so much as poetically much less properly signifie Infantissimum such a one day old infant as you talk of nor such a six dayes old suckling as you sprinkle but properly it expresses at least one capable of erudition and how beit it hath not its derivation from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as setting the cart before the horse I say not ungraciously for many a gracious man is no good Grecian but ungraecianly you greek it out yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath its derivation from it for to say the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the primitive of the two and though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puer which is the primitive to them both yet this is enough to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be used and yet not infancy meant by it neither but childhood which is a distinct age from the other for there 's difference between Infantiam and pueritiam as inter adolescentiam inventutem all which have their severall and proper periods yea in truth it signifies child-ship at least capable to be taught not such meer babeship as you baptize Secondly if it did yet what 's that to your present purpose which is to prove by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fourth verse that Christ means the very same viz. little ones literally taken in the sixth as much as if you had said nothing at all for verily as it follows not that he doth so its evident enough that he doth not mean the very same in this phrase verse six viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he means in the third by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for who doubts on 't but that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third verse natural little children are to be understood the intent of Christ there being to shew how his disciples must be like them if ever they enter into heaven but in verse six owning his disciples to whom he tells that they must be such as already such in some measure as they should be he speaks of them under that very same name and notion and this was no unusual term for Christ to denominate disciples nor yet for them to denominate one another by for besides that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self is the title by which though not here yet elsewhere all believers and new converts to the truth are often stiled by yea and your word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. sucklings too which you make so much of a little below yea and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child which word you make such a matter of when you find it Acts 2.36 in proof of all which consult Iohn 21.35 Gal. 19. 1 Iohn 2.1.12 13.18.28.3.7.18.4 4. also 1 Pet. 2.2 even this very phrase that is here used viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used by Christ himself to his disciples Mat. 18.42 and a place wherein as no little infant as here was apparently present so compare it with the two foregoing verses in which the same who are call'd little ones and disciples ver 42. are stiled Prophets Righteous men and I 'le say you sell your selves to stark soâ—tishness if you expound it of any other then of such as are from Disco their having learn'd the truth as infants yet have not stiled Christs Scholars or Disciples But above all the most undoubted reason of all the rest which to me doth and may to any one most plainly clear it that he means not infants is even this very expression viz. which believe in me whereby he denotes and denominates his disciples distinctly enough from all little infants who are in no wise capable to do that he here ascribes to the other i. e. to believe in Christ for this infants being utterly uncapable to do it shews plainly that he means not them whereas Mr. Willcock whose argument this was and whose urging it ore again in print if this be it shall not trouble my conscience if it do not his own whereas he I say argues thus viz. These little ones which believe in me therefore infants do believe I argue quite contrary from the same Scripture thus viz. these of whom Christ speaks Mat. 18.6 did believe therefore they could not be infants who cannot possibly believe And if you ask me how I prove it that infants cannot believe I might answer out of the mouth of Paul Rom. 18.14 how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard but sith you have a reply to this p. 18 I le onely hint that here and handle it further as I have occasion given me to do by your answering it as our objection when I come to review your review and at present prove the matter out of Mr. Willcocks own mouth that infants cannot believe for to believe is to act faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Docere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legere c are speeches that point at the act and not the Habit or faculty denoting actum secundum non primum This Mr. Willcock knows as well as I yet the same Mr. Willcock page 8. asserts as plainly and truely so clearly to the contradiction of himself in this place that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith have it not in actu secundo c. but I spare him in hope that he will consider it of himself verbum sat sapienti but suppose it were meant of infants literally yet however it could be but a Prosopopeia i. e. a figure whereby that is attributed to certain creatures as done by them which yet is neither really done nor so much as capable to be done by them at all by which figure that is sometimes attributed not only to infants but even to but sensible and bruit and sometimes to insensible things which can properly be done by none possibly but men at years as not onely David is said to be made to hope in God while he hung upon the breasts because God indeed was even then the God that did defend him yea as well in as from his mothers womb though he was never sensible of nor acquainted with it so as to hope it in the womb but the whole creation also figuratively Rom. 8.19 20 21 22. is said to groan wait hope desire expect deliverance because it stands in need of it from the bondage of corruption and God also hath determined the time wherein by Christ to redeem it though many creatures under the curse are no more sensible of it or capable to groan then the fruitless fig tree Christ cursed and the Ox Ass Horse Sheep and sensible creatures that may groan are capable to hope for and expect such a glorious day as shall once come to the creation thus figuratively indeed infants may be said to believe on Christ
have not the priviledge to be admitted to it yet at all if the promise to believers and their children run only thus viz. you shall stand under the title of the holy people of God under right to outward ordinances when others shall not not only you but also your children shall be baptized and inchurched but neither you nor they ever the sooner saved as born of you further then together with you they shall believe and obey me in all things in which case of faith and obedience all unbelievers in the world and their children shall be saved as soon as either you or they it is as much as to say the promise of a liberty and freedome to partake of the ordinance is to you and your children above others but the promise to partake of the inheritance is as much to all others and their children as to you and yours what most comfortless comfort is this to men cast down under sense of sin and guilt what a pittious plaister is here applied to men wounded in conscience and smarting under the direfull apprehensions of Gods wrath besides what exquisite non-sense do you make the Apostle speak if his words be taken in your sense for they must run thus viz. first by way of precept repent and be baptized you and your children in the name of Christ for remission of sinnes and then by way of incouragement thus viz. so this great priviledge of being baptized shall belong to you and your seed which impenitent unbaptized ones and their seed shall not enjoy but the promise of salvation and remission of sins is made no more to you then unto them this is to restore them from their contrite and weather beaten condition and to invest them cum privilegio with a witness yet this is all the priviledge if the promise here made to these parents and their children be of no more then being outwardly incovenanted i. e. inchurched by baptism as you say it is But undoubtedly it must be otherwise then thus for all your saying and the promise take it which of these two waies you will viz. for the meer tender or proser of the thing as the word promise is sometimes used or for the thing it self profered or promised in which last sense its mostly taken it must needs be of some more excellent matter then meer outward membership in the Church on â—arth abstract from all true and immediate title to remission of sinnes and salvation yea verily its most evident that the thing here promised is no less then remission of sinnes and salvation itself for as no less is exprest in the very text wherein he names remission of sinnes and the holy spirit which elsewhere is called the earnest of the inheritance so unless you will divide the children from sharing alike with their parents in that promise which in the self same sentence terms and sense is propounded alike to them both so as to say the word promise is to be understood of remission of sinnes and salvation as in relation to the parents but of an inferior thing viz. a right to ordinances onely as in relation to the infants which were intollerable absurdity to utter it must necessarily be meant of one and the same kind of mercy to the children as is exhibited therein to the parents yea and upon the same terms too and no other then those upon which its tendred to the parents viz. personall repentance and obedience and so consequently of remission of sinnes and salvation and not of such a triviall title to external participation onely as you talk on which if it be then unless you assert that God hath promised salvation absolutely to all the natural seed of believers upon those very terms onely as they are their seed which you are ashamed to stand to the promise mean which you will by that word promise in this text whether the bare proposall or the salvation propounded or both upon these terms belongs of right not onely to believers and their posterity but also to all men and their posterity to without difference when at years of capacity to neglect or perform them throughout all ages and places of the world for as the gospel or glad tidings of salvation are commanded by Christ Mark 16.15 16. to be preached or profered to every creature at years to hear and understand though not to infants on terms of belief and baptism so assuredly those terms being performed the salvation so promised shall be injoyed accordingly if he hath any truth in him who said â—e that believeth i. e. lives and dies in the faith of Christ and is baptized shall be saved and Paul likewise Rom. 3.22 intimates no lesse saying that the righteousness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ is unto all and upon all them that believe and there is no difference so that if they that are now unbelievers and unbelievers children also shall hereafter believe with such faith as shews it self by obedience which kind of faith onely the Scripture means the promise of salvation and remission of sinnes is as well unto them as unto those that do now both believe themselves and were also born of believing parents yea and the promise of the holy spirit also Prov. 1.22.23 for indeed God so loved the world not mundum electorum onely ex mundo electum that he gave his onely begotten Son not to condemn one person more then another but as they should personally reject him but that the world through him might be saved that whosoever in it i. e. in all the world not in the world of Elect for that sounds as if some of the elect may believe and some not doâ—h believe might not perish but have everlasting life Iohn 3.16.17.18.19 All which things well and wisely weighed he is blind that sees any more birth-priviledge or right by birth to salvation or the promise of it in believers seed then in unbelievers neither is there now any more priviledge at all in any one mans naturall seed above anothers save the meer hopefulness of education and advantage of instruction in the way and means of salvation which may possibly befal believers children more then others though in case it happen as it may possibly also do that believers children have their breeding among Turks and the children of very Indians among believers in that case these last have not onely no lesse priviledge as to the promise of salvation by bare birth but a priviledge also by that breeding beyond the other That therefore the promise of the Gospel-Covenant in any sense in the world is made to believers seed as barely such more then to the natural seed of unbelievers can never be proved by the word while the world stands yea the very contrary is most evidently proved in this place Act. 2.38.39 if we consult no other Scripture besides it For First neither were these parents believers as yet when Peter said the promise is to you and to your
Covenants or testaments meaning in signification or in way of resemblance of them the one from mount Sinai the other from mount Sion both spoken of and to the life also pointed out one ore against the other in Heb. 12.18 to the end that from mount Sinai or that Testament which was given in the hand of the Mediaâ—or Moses that gendreth to bondage or enthrawles her children this is Hagar for this Hagar who brought out her son to bondage is saith he mount Sinai in Arabia or that law of Moses given on mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to i. e. as a type points out and signifies the Ierusalem that now is i. e. the Church of the Iews before Christ which notwithstanding her childrens abode iâ— the house of Abrâ—ham and her Hagarlike flaunting and vaunting her self over the other for a time as if she were the onely mistriss whose seed must inherit all yet in comparison of the true mother and her seed viz. the gospel Ierusalem which was yet to come was but in bondage with her children and must when that seed once should come in be chashiered and cast quite and clean out of doors as a seed to be no more accounted on so far as to abide with the other for nevertheless i e. all her present liberty and immunity notwithstanding what saith the Scripture saies he cast out the bond woman and her son for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the Son of the free woman i. e. the seed of the old Covenant of the Earthly Ierusalem viz. the natural seed of Abraham shall not share in priviledges nor the inheritance promised in the Gosspel together with the spiritual seed viz. the believers or children of the Church under the Gospel Thus as Hagar and her son Ishmael that stood in Abrahams house a while and were proud and insolent as if they should have dwelt there for ever were at last packt out before Isaac the true son and heir by promise of the old inheritance and ordinance when he was born and before Sarah who would not indure to have Ishmael have any portion in Canaan or any room in the house with her son Isaac so also Sarah her self and her son Isaac I mean the fleshly Ierusalem and Jew that dwelt as Mistris and heir for a time in the house inheriting only some outward excellencies and enjoyments were at last being found mocking thereat cast out of the house i. e. the Church the Son-ship the glory and all before the true Mother and her children viz the Gospel Church or true Sarah and the true Isaac Christ and his Saints or seed of Believers who will not bear nor brook it to have a meer fleshly seed though of Abraham himself much less of any Gentile believers to dwell with them in the family Isaac and the fleshly Israelites were by promise to inherit the old Testament priviledges and the Ishmaelites were not suffered as such to partake with them therein Christ and believers are by promise to receive the eternal inheritance nor is any mans fleshly posterity no not Abrahams own by Isaac I mean the Israelites themselves as such permitted or promised to participate therein Ishmael though as Abrahams seed after the flesh he had a portion yet had nothing to do with that of Isaac the child of promise in the type Isaac though Abrahams son not only after the flesh but by promise too as in reference to Ishmael and so in true title to a better portion then Ishmaels viz. the Earthly Canaan and that as a type for a time yet being but his fleshly seed in comparison to Christ and believers and by his bare fleshly birth save only that he was a spirituall child also by believing as inferior to them as Ishmael was to himself hath nought at all to do as the fleshly seed of Abraham with that heavenly portion that belongs to these Now then if it be so and so it will appear to him that doth not trifle but truely understand the Scriptures and this last especially which with many more viz Heb. 8. Heb. 9. speak expresly of two distinct covenants or Testaments made with two sorts of seeds of Abraham concerning two Canaans viz. an Earthly and a Heavenly whereof one all along was a type of the other for a time only and now ended contrary to all our blind Seers that confound and blindly blend both of them into one if so I say that Abrahams own sons by bodily birth are not now his own in Gospel account nor heirs as so born only of the Gospel promise and inheritance nor house dwellers in the Gospel Church for want of personal faith though Abrahams children after the flesh still as much as ever then I cannot but stand amazed at the perverseness of you the Priesthood in three things First in that meerly because you and your people do believe and I would to God you did believe for so but few for all your flourish of either you or your people do indeed therefore you count your natural seed the seed of Abraham this you express in plain terms in your Review p. 14. Secondly in that even Eâtenùs as your children only you hold them heirs of the promise of the Gospel covenant made with Abraham Thirdly in that you sign them as visibly such by Baptism as you call it and thereby admit them into membership in the Gospel Church as you call it and having yet no evidence of their belief conclude them under a true title to all outward ordinances save such as upon your own heads only you keep from them if by the word they have such title to Church-fellowship as you say they have viz. the Supper of which you make them snap short as much and as groundlessly to the full if baptism at all belong to them as we in baptism Sirs let me reason with you a little and begg some cool consideration and ingenuous answer from you concerning these particulars First which way come your natural seed you being but Gentiles in the flesh to be the seed of Abraham Secondly why do you or how can you sign them as heirs of the Gospel promise so simply upon that account only there are but two seeds of Abraham that I know of in all the world viz. 1. His seed after the flesh and such are all those that are born of his body viz. Ishmael and his Children by Keturah to whom he gave portions and those that came of him by Isaac and Jacob which only for Esau sold his birth-right were heirs with him of the Land of Canaan 2. His seed after the faith and such are those only that walk in his steps Rom. 4.12 that do his works John 8. Who are also by that same faith which denominates them his children said to be Christs also and the children of God and heirs with him of the world according to the Gospell Promise Rom. 4.12 13. Gal. 3.16 1 Cor. 3.21.22.23 Non datur
cut off from standing as till Chirist they did now any longer upon their own Root Abraham because of unbelief I say then that no infant in infancy of what believing parent soever is either Abrahams spiritual seed or dying in infancy is saved upon any such account as a believers seed or Abrahams seed nor whilst living an infant onely may be signed by baptism as an heir apparent of salvation for if Abraham stand not a spiritual father to his own meer fleshly seed he stands not so sure to the meer fleshly seed of any believing Gentile for that were to priviledge every ordinary believer and his natural seed above either himself or his own Nor doth this hinder or deny the salvation of the dying infants of believers or dispose them ere the sooner muchless necessarily to damnation to say they are not Abrahams spirituall seed quâ believers infants nor heirs to salvation upon any such account as that for though neither upon that nor any other account at all they may warrantably be baptized yet it s more then possible or probable either because infallible that there 's other Scripture account enough upon which when we see them die in infancy we may assert them undoubtedly not to be damned for as it is most sure and true that all that are apparently if really Abrahams spiritual seed by faith must so living so dying be saved in token and farther evidence of which to themselves more then others they are by the good wil of Christ to be baptized yet is it neither true nor necessary that all that are saved must be Abrahams spiritual seed by faith but most certain that some shall be saved that never were Abrahams seed in any sense at all witnesse not onely the faithful fore-fathers of Abraham for he was their seed and not they his but also all dying infants of what parents soever both before Abrahams time and since of whom to salvation notwithstanding those are the onely termes on which it belongs to adult ones to whom it s preacht Mark 16.15 16. these being truly capable of neither 't is not required that they should either repent believe or be baptized I know this Iustification of dying infants without faith is uncouth and little less for all it holds forth so much salvation then damnable doctrine among you Divines that plead the contrary but I shall by the help of God make it good to the faces of you all when I come to consider the baldness of your consequence in this point as you give me good occasion to do in some places where me thinks you meddle with it somewhat clumsily as it were in mittins as if because there 's no other way revealed for the salvation of such by Christ to whom the gospel is preached who are capable to hear and do what 's required for such onely the word universally speaks of when it speaks of salvation in that way but the way of belief and actuall obedience onely therefore there 's no other way for the salvation of dying infants by Christ who can possibly neither believe in him nor obey him which as it is such shameful stuff that I cannot bear it with out inward blushing at your blindness so whether you have not as much cause to be ashamed on 't within your selves is well worth your inmost inquiry I say therefore again so far is this from excluding dying infants of believers from entrance into the kingdome of heaven to say they are neither Abrahams spiritual seed by faith nor heirs thereof upon that ground onely of being so that it rather concludes and supposes there 's some other ground that is common with them to the innocent infants of even infidels and all the world upon which these whom though they are hundreds to one yet your selves in your fierce wrath and merciless cruelty devote universally to damnation may dying in infancy universally be saved also which ground if you will yet know it is the righteousness of Christ the free imputation of which universally from the father saves not onely all that believe from both that and their actuall transgressions too but even the whole world whether they believe it or no from the the imputation of Adams transgression so that none at all ever perish upon that account in which respect he is said to be the Saviour of all men but especially of them that believe much more doth it and that without faith save all dying infants who as they believe not so have not as yet by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved exemption or become liable at all to the second death i. e. the damnation of hell which befalls not any but upon personal neglect of the light and grace of life brought in by the second Adam as the first death onely overtakes mankind for onely that sin of the first Adam Babist If all dying infants are saved then not few but many if not the maior part must be saved contrary to that of Christ Mat. 7.13.14 Luke 13.23.24 where he saith few there are that are saved Baptist. There are indeed but few inter adultos among persons that come to years of whom alone and not of Infants at all Christ there speaks and even every where else where he speaks to us of the way of life and this is plain by the reason he there gives why so few are saved which is the straitness of the gate and narrowness of the way that leads to life viz. of self-denial and suffering for Christ which men mostly being very loath to walk in it comes to pass that few of them come to life by it but infants being altogether uncapable to walk in it are are altogether dis-ingaged from walking in it till they come to capacity so to do and yet are not damn'd for not walking in it when we come to years of understanding and to apprehend the good will of God to us in providing a Saviour for us his good will concerning us in order to salvation by him is that we believe in him and obey him and apply his righteousness unto our selves Gal. 3.27 but whilst we are yet in such minority as neither to know what God hath done for us nor to be capable of putting on the Lord Iesus our selves he himself is pleased to impute his righteousness to salvation to us so dying even as we our selves whilst our infants are new born do not onely provide but also put on what clothes we have provided in our pitty towards them for the covering of their nakedness but when they come to years of such discretion as to discern and be sensible of their own shame and capable to dress themselves with their own hands we expect when in our love we have once provided raiment for them they should put it on themselves or go without it thus candid are we towards the dying infants of all sorts nevertheless though we tell you of our charity towards them and of your own cruelty in sending all
subjects denominated and distinguished by it under the Law to be but Ceremonial and now nullified under the Gospel is this That holiness whose contrarily opposite commonness sin and uncleanness waâ— but meerly ceremonial and is now utterly ended and abolished must necessarily be but ceremoniall and now abolished also But that holiness which successively through all generations for the time then being did denominate and distinguish the Iewes and their progâ—â—y from all people and their seed as holy is a holiness whose conâ—rarily opposite commonnesse sin and uncleanness was but Ceremonial and is now abolished Ergo That holiness which did distinguish the Iews and their natural progeny as holy from all other people and their seed was but ceremoniall and is now utterly abolished also The Major cannot possibly be denyed for contrariorum eadem est ratio contrariorum uno sublato tollitur alterum of contraries take away one and the other cannot remain in its opposition to it any longer as for example the commonness sinfulness prophanness uncleanness of some meats flesh birds beasts places persons and their natural seed above others being ended the cleanness of some meats flesh birds places persons and their natural seed above others mâ—st without controversie be at an end also under the law whilest there was more uncleanness commonness and prophanness in such and such meats places people then in others there must necessarily be by the Rule of contraries more holiness in these meats places people then in those but under the Gosspel there being no more uncleanness commonness or prophanness in these things places or persons above those there must be consequently no more holiness in those than these and so if there be no such birâ—h holiness as was under the Law there can be no such birth uncleanness as was under the Law and if no one man in all the world is more sinfull common and unclean then another by nature no man can be more holy then another by nature with the holiness directly opposite to that uncleanness but all men must now be all alike by nature or fleshly birth And now as to the Minor viz. that the commonness sinfulness prophanness or uncleanness of some mens fleshly seed above others oppositely answering to the holiness with which the Iewes seed was then holy above others is totally destroyed as well as all that uncleanness and the holiness contrary thereunto that was then in some meats and flesh of birds and beasts above others is evidently proved to be a truth to any which will impartially consult and compare these three scriptures each with other viz. Act. 10. v. 11.12.13.14.15.28 Act. 11.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 also Gal. 2.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18 in all which if you be not either so blind that you cannot or so obstinate that you will not see you cannot avoid the sight of this very thing viz. that not only the Commonness and uncleanness that was once in some meats and flesh of birds and beasts forbidden as abominable to be eaten under the Law but also the commonness and uncleanness that was in some people and their seed more then in others even that sin and uncleannesse of the Gentiles by nature in respect of the Jews who were then forbidden to eat with them as a thing for them unlawful and abominable is not at all in being now under the Gospel but quite abolished and consequently the birth holiness directly opposite to it abolisht also which holiness yet that was as then in the Iews by birth and nature M Blake is not ashamed to scrue his wits to prove a translation of from the Iews seed now to the seed of believing Gentiles under the Gospel and that from the last of these Scriptures viz. Gall. 2. verse 15. then which I testifie no Scripture doth more clearely confute him As to those Scriptures cited out of Act. 10. and Act. 11. these things are well worthy your observation in them first that Peter though under the Gospel stood yet opinioned God having not till now discovered the contrary to him according to the Law that such meats as were then forbidden to be eaten and such people as were not Jewes by nature but by nature sinners of the Gentiles were unholy unlawfull unclean and abominable for him that was a Jew so much as to eat or eat with still Secondly that God did not shew unto Peter in that vision any such thing as Mr. Blake dreams and seems to himself to have the vision of viz. that he had now translated that old commonness and uncleannesse that was once in the Gentiles by nature and stated it now upon such as are Iews by nature and such as are by nature descended from unbelieving parents and contrary wise translated and stated the birth-holiness that was once among the Iews by nature because they now believe not upon such Gentiles by nature as are born of believing parents for no more then Gentiles by nature can I call them still for all their parents faith not Christians or Saints by nature as Mr Blake frivolously fancies them to be that are descended from Christian parents after the flesh onely for howbeit the fleshly seed of the Iews are Iews still both naturâ nomine et natione yet the meer fleshly seed of Christians and Saints are not Christians and Saints at the same rates in Gods-account how ever they are in the Popes and his any more then the meer fleshly seed of believers are by birth nature name and nation believers as much as their parents which that they are Mr. Blake himself will not surely be so shameless as to assert and though he tells us a trifling tale that the name of Christian would not long hold in any family or among any people if it be not so that as Iews are Iews by birth so Christians are Christians p. 6. yet I tell him again 't is no great matter whether it do or no yea 't is not onely worth nothing but worse then nothing to have the meer name and title of Christian communicated and derived from parents to children from generation to generation without the nature for that 's the main mischief that hath overspread all Christendom and fill'd it with a thousand Antichristians to one true Christian indeed Secondly as simply as he saith God provideth for a continuance in succession of that name from age to age yet I know no such provision that God hath made in his word for any such thing as the continuance of the meer name of Christian in one family or nation by any such birth-priviledge or propagation thereof from Christians to their meer natural posterity but all the provision that hath been made in this behalf hath been made by the Pope and his priesthood Yea if God himself had took order for any such matter then me thinks the name Christian should have been continued to this day among the posterity of that Gospel Church of the Hebrews i. e. those many thousands of Iews which in the primitive times
appear of himself O Earth Earth hear the reasonlesse round abouts of these Logicians they tell us in one place that it is to be concluded by no lesse then necessary consequences that believers infants for of such onely they assert it have faith and the holy spirit by and by to go round again they tell us that it cannot be certainly presumed what children have it what have not that the working of the spirit is not known to us he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor barr'd from working it in any of the children of Infidels so that there can be no conclusion made in one place they tell us that no judgement of science concerning these or those infants having the holy spirit and faith can be passed in their infancy till the acts themselves be seen and examined i. e. till they come to years and shew forth some fruits and it appear by some acts and professions of it for a posteriore onely the discovery or habits is made but elsewhere to go round again they tell us that it doth more plainly appear concerning believers infants in their infancy that they have faith and the holy spirit to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason then the profession of any particular person at years admitted to baptism can make it appear of himself as if it could not half so well appear a posteriore when we are at years and capable to profess and act faith and shew forth the fruits of the spirit whether we have faith and the spirit yea or no as it may do a priori i. e. in infancy before any act of faith or fruit of the spirit can be discovered seen or examined Moreover to animadvert this present passage of yours yet a little further wheras you say here that the report of Scripture concerning little infants which is Gods testimony and to be preferred before mans doth more plainly prove it that infants have faith and the holy spirit then any particular mans testimony doth prove it concerning himself I answer first by denying that God in Scripture gives any such testimony at all concerning little infants litterally taken that they have faith and the holy spirit Secondly if that phrase Mat. 18.6 viz. these little ones which believe in me could have any such construction as of little infants litterally yet I deny that he speaks of them any otherwise then by a Prosopeiâ as I said before Thirdly if it were to be proved as it never can be that he speaks there of infants and not figuratively neither but plainly and properly yet t is most plain that he speaks but indifinitely not particularly of one infant more then another or of Christians infants more then of infidels so as that you can thereupon take on you as you daily do to distinguish which have the spirit which have not and accordingly to admit these to baptism and debar those yea you your selves do ore and ore express it p. 5.6 that what the Scripture declares Infants to be it declares them so to be in generall specially while any particulars of them have not yet barrd themselves by actual sin or deserv'd to be exempted from what the Scripture hath in general declared them to be so that all this that you have brought thus far hath not the weight of a feather to warrant your good opinion of one infant above another and your practise of baptism to this or that particular infant suppose a believers rather then an unbelievers It would be no plain but a muddy totter'd confus'd implicit shufling kind of argumentation for me if I were to give account why I baptize this or that particular man or woman and not others to argue thus indifinitly as you do all along viz. No man may forbid them to be baptized that believe and have the spirit But the Scripture declares that men and women may believe and have the spirit Ergo men and women must be baptized If I should I say go on thus in generals onely not making it appear that ther 's any faith at all in these individuals whom I baptize more then in others I should take him for little better then a fool who should take me for a wise man in so arguing yet so and no otherwise do you argue whilst when we put you to prove that those infants whom you baptize have title to it in contradistinction to heathens infants whose right to baptism you deny you give us your account in these indeterminate terms viz. Those that have faith and the holy spirit may be baptized But the Scripture testifies that little children have faith c. Ergo little children may be baptized I say what a bald way of arguing is this wherein you conclude no more concerning the particular infants whose right to baptism we put you to plead while you shut out other then concerning those very infants also whom you so shut out This is just as silly as if you being put to prove your own particular salvation before Iudas's should do it thus viz. Such as believe shall be saved But men believe Ergo men shall be saved Without making any proof of your own faith in particular whose salvation you would so prove above his whereas you should of right argue onward from the Major thus viz. We believe and Iudas did not Ergo we shall be saved and not he And so had you dealt down rightly and plaid above board in your Disputation sith believers infants in particular is the subject in hand between us you should have spoken plainly thus viz. All and only those infants that believe are to be baptized But all the infants of believing parents and those infants onely believe Ergo all and onely those infants are to be baptized But you know of your own selves this would be too broad a discoverie the Minor being so apparently false that you cannot hide your halting by it from the view of the very vulgar if you should so express it for he that hath but half an eie may see that as there is no more faith to be seen so the Scripture declares no more faith to be in believers infants than in the infants of unbelievers or if you will needs have the Minor in such general and indefinite terms yet at least grant us a fair Conclusion concerning those particular infants you dispute aboue no less than that can amount to so much as ingenuity and then it must run thus viz. Those that believe and have the holy spirit and so right to the Kingdom of heaven are to be baptized But the Scripture doth in general declare little children to be such as believe have the spirit and right to the Kingdome Ergo the infants of Believers and these infants onely are to be baptized But then you cannot so well shrowd your shuffling from any observant eie it being equally absurd to argue to universals from meer particulars and to some particulars only from
universals or to these individuals from indefinite declarations and verily take your Minor term little children which you so frequently Syllogize by indiscrimination not expressing what little children or else indefinitely and more restrictively for some only not naming which it s equally ridiculous to argue thus viz. The Scripture gives good report of little infants in general Therefore believers infants only have faith and the holy spirit and thereby right to baptism and not any other infants Or thus The Scripture speaks well of little infants indefinitely i. e. of some at least though not all and we know not which as having faith the spirit and right to baptism Therefore undoubtedly these little infants whom we baptize are well spoken of in that kind and must be baptized As t is to argue thus The Scripture declares that John Baptist had the holy spirit Eego all the infants of believing parents must be supposed to have it in infancy and may thereupon be baptized Yet these are but as it were the several streins which you dispute in which put all together into a bag and shuffle as much as you will that which comes out first wil be a sensless non sequitur do what you can But you offer concerning this that particular infant viz. a believers of whom I denied that if it were brought unto you together with a heathens the spirit could more appear to you to be in it than in the other you offer I say to make it appear that that infant should appear to have the holy spirit above the other for that was indeed the business I then put you to prove and this you do as well as those may be said to do who by mending make their mater worse than t was before whisest there is not a tittle to be found in your Argument which doth not as fully prove the holy spirit to be in all infants as in any at all on this wise it runs Disputation Da That which to doubt of is breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear ri But to doubt these little children have the holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity i Ergo that these little children have the Holy Ghost doth sufficiently appear The Minor is proved thus To doubt that these little children are such as the Scripture in generall hath declared them to be and that they have right to the kingdome of heaven c. is a breach of Christian charity whose rule is Praesumere unumquenque bonum nisi constet de malo the Apostle saying 1 Cor. 13.3.5 it thinketh no evil charity believeth all things especially since it cannot appear that those have by any actuall sin bard themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of litle infants declared in Scripturâ—s Ergo To doubt that they have the Holy Ghost is a breach of Christian charity Disproof Besides the falsity of both the premises there 's no more at all concluded from them concerning any one infant then might if they were true indeed be as truly concluded from them concerning all First O the rottenness and infirmitie of the Major it is most manifestly fals for there are many things which to doubâ— of may be a breach of Christian charity which yet do not at present sufficiently appear To doubt that this or that particular infant will hereafter live holily and imbrace the Gospel may be a breach of Christian Charity whose rule is ever to hope the best till it sees the contrary and yet that this or that particular infant will live holily and imbrace the Gospel when he comes to age doth not yet so sufficiently appear but that as more plainly as things appear with you in infancie then at age by particular profession it may more sufficiently appear when they are grown up yea till then it appeareth not at all The Minor also is false for to doubt that this or that infant hath at present the holy spirit is no breach of Christian charity at all sith what hopes soever we may have of them as to the future yet at present there is no evidence that they have it nor yet any promise at all that it shall be given to them in infancy nor at years neither till they believe and obey the Gospel and as there is no promise of it to them in infancie so in meer infancy there is no such use of it to them as t is promised to be of unto believers neither doth it either quicken inlighten convince convert comfort or any other way officiate as a seal of redemption and remission of sins to such as have no sins as yet to be remitted Secondly if both these premises were as true as you suppose them yet would it follow no more from them nor from all you say toward the proof of either of them that believers infants have the holy spirit then it would that unbelâ—evers infants have it in the evincing of which I shall only transcribe your Syllogism and proof of the Minor and instead of your term these little children write little children of infidels and so leave you and all the world to judge whether your own Argument doth not as clearly conclude unbelievers infants to have the holy spirit as the infants of believers and so consequently that all have it if any at all as well as some That which to doubt of is a breach of Christian charity doth sufficiently appear But to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost is a breach of christian charity Ergo that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost doth sufficiently appear The Minor is thus proved To doubt that little children of infidels are such as che Scripture in generall hath declared them to be and that they have right to the kingdome of heaven c. is a breach of Christian Charity whose rule is presumere unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo The Apostle saying in 1 Cor. 13.3.5 it thinketh no evil Charity believeth all things it hopeth all things especially since it cannot appear that the little children of infidels have by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved any more then others to be exempted from the General state of little children declared in Scripture Ergo to doubt that little children of infidels have the holy Ghost is a breach of Christian Charity In which though both propositions be flatly false yet I call heaven and earth to witness whether all that you bring in proof of the Minor do not prove it as much breach of Christian charity to doubt that any infants as t is to doubt that believers infants have the holy spirit one infant having no more deserved ill by actual sin then another Thus all that ever you have done hitherto is utterly undone for the Argument you began upon and the basis of your building is that believers infants for their baptism only you plead denying the baptism of other infants as well as we have the holy spirit this
us but it warrants us not to baptize any infants who can neither believe not 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 more clear and more tender opinion of them then yourselves 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 on t 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 baptism which charity teacheth us praesumere c. to believe and hope all things hope the best concerning all till ye see the worst especially since littâ—e 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 these being in the judgement of Charity as undeserving damnation as others may be and are dying in infancy though this with you is as heinous a thing as to â—ay 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 Disputation 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 moâ—ty of the Christian world is cut off at once from being members of the Church maketh the covenant of the Gospel worser then that under the Law Ergo that opinion is a wicked and false opinion Disproof The Major here is most undeniably true for what opinion soever doth make the Gospel covenant worse then that under the Law contrary to Heb. 8.6 is indeed both false and wicked But the Minor wherein you say that the denial of baptism to little infants makes the Gospel covenant worse then that under the Law contrary to Heb. 8.6 where the Gospel is said to be a better covenant then that of the Law in this respect as it is established upon better promises this is most palpably false yea I appeal to every man who doth not wilfully shut his eies against the truth to judge between us whether our opinion or your own rather doth most clearly contradict that Scripture of your own alledging Heb. 8.6 in order to the true discerning of which First Mark well what it is that is there asserted concerning the meliority of the Gospel covenant above that of law and you shall find it to be this viz. That the Gospel
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would be terms equipollent in that praecept and if so whether it were not tautology to say as in sense you would make Christ to say there go and baptize all Nations and baptize them and little better then such vain repetition is it though you read it by the participle if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disciple be rendered to baptize and Retro baptizing may well be rendered discipling as Mr. Marshall saies it may for then at the best it is but thus viz. go and baptize the Nations baptizing them which kind of geminations though they are not more frequent then elegant in the Hebrew tongue yet are but tautology in your own judgements among the Greeks Besides that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make disciples is to teach persons till they have learned and nothing else properly taken is plain to any that considers what these substantives signify and the several roots from whence they are derived in the several tongues to which they appertain for as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 didicit and is rendered discens ab alio and used in Scripture for one that learns and is actually under teaching 1 Chron. 25.8 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disco and signifies the very same viz. one that learnes at least and is so used in Scripture yea so necessary is it to learn the commands of Christ in order to the being his Disciples that he himself professes whoever hath not learned to bear his cross and follow him which infants cannot do and yet may be saved nevertheless dying infants these things being not required of infancy as neither to be Christs disciples or to learn of him cannot be his disciple which term disciple comes also of the Latine word disco to learn and signifies one learning and is never used in Scripture for any other yea further that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth contrary to what Mr. Marshall and his Criticks say it doth in Mat. 28. signifie elsewhere if not every where else simply and onely to teach is to be seen by Christs own usage of iâ— in other places for speaking in the passive Mat. 11.29 viz. learn or be ye taught of me for I am meek c. he hath this very phrase in the Greek viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Iohn 6.46 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one that hath learned so saies Paul Phil. 4.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if you will not learn of Christ and Paul yet be pleased to learn this one from another that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place Mat. 28. signifies onely a general teaching for if either you that follow Dr. Featley who saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not teach or Mr. Bayly or Mr. Marshall who above all the rest hath most reason to hearken to Dr. Holmes sith he mannageth the very same cause of infant-baptism with him and that against the very same Antagonist Mr. Tombes will but consult Dr. Holmes p. 7. he tells you that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ver 19. so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 20. therefore most likely in v. 19. it signifieth onely a general teaching and this he saies not of his own head but out of as great Criticks as Mr. Marshall quotes to the contrary viz. Legh Crit. S. Novar in Matth. 28. 20. The great Arias who renders it only docete teach So the Renowned Vatablus So the Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Arab. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So many other which for brevitie he omits See also his Alphabetical Index in the Letter D where he saies that go teach is not rendered to disciple or make disciples by the Arabick Syriack and Saint Mark or the exactest Latins or by the best translations of the new Testament in French Dutch Germain Hebrew another Syr. Italian Margin or by the holy spirit which saith he p. 8. renders this text meaning Mat 28.19 and that term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preach the Gospell Mark 16.15 much more in proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be any other than teach he hath p. 8. and all this over again p. 102. yea so saith he the Great Criticks or learned men in the Greek tongue say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to doctrine that they may become disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach them that are Disciples so say we that are no Criticks viz. that there is a first general teaching to acquaint persons with the Gospel which when once they believe and are baptized there is a second teaching to bring them on towards perfection by all which though the words of Christ who saies go teach baptizing teaching are vindicated from taâ—tology yeâ— you will never be vindicated from the fault of flat Antalogy or contradiction among your selves who quote Criticism against Criticism to the overthrowing and falsifying of one anothers opinions and principles and all this in edification of the same practise of infants sprinkling which must needs be believed to be a good one when in prosecution of it O Woman that ridest and misguidest the Nations thou art so contrary to thy self some saying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. signifies only to teach some to Disciple not by teaching but baptizing or admitting to be taught some to make disciples by both these actions not either of them alone viz. teaching and baptizing some arguing thus viz. infants are disciples and therefore they must be baptized as Mr. Cotton and Mr. Baxter Mr. Bayly Dr. Holmes Dr. Featley Mr. Blake Mr. Marshall and who not some again thus viz. that they must be baptized and thereby made disciples as Mr. Marshall Mr. Baxter and others of you who tell us that by baptism they must be discipled i. e. entered and admitted into Christs School that they may be taught O pure round abouts for thus it runs up and down in your writings viz. that they are not made disciples but by these two actions baptizing and teaching and yet to go round again they cannot be taught nor made disciples in that way of teaching and learning but must be discipled by baptizing and yet to go round again infants of believers are disciples and upon the account of their being so are to be baptized Lastly as to that frivilous flim flam from Acts 15.10 into the blind belief of which you are all indoctrinated and discipled one by another for there is scarce any of you that write but you have a touch on it witness Mr. Cotton p. 7. Mr. Marshall in his Sermon p. 39. in his reply to Mr. Tombes p. 217. Mr. Bayly p. 145. Mr. Baxter p. 15. Dr. Holmes himself that denies utterly that they are bid to be discipled in Mat. 28. p. 7. yet asserts that in Acts 15.10 infants of believers
Abrahams spiritual seed but also to unbelivers and to the whole world and this more plainly too and without a vail holding forth salvatorem exhibitum a saviour that hath already offered himself a ransom and salvation by him in common to all Iews and Gentiles bond and free even every creature that puts it not away from him when â—endered to him Mark 16.15.16 1 Iohn 2.2 so that the Gospel is as good now to the full to all men in its administration as it was of old and in many respects far better though no infants at all be baptized and so I have done with this argument and come to the next Disputation That opinion which destroyeth the comfort that the holy ghost administreth over the losse of our children by death is a desperate and ungodly opinion But such is the opinion of the Anabaptists concerning little children Ergo it is desperate and ungodly The minor proved It destroyes the hope that parents can have of the salvation of their children for it makes them in no better condition then Turks and Pagans and so our Respondent himself professed and when the Apostle saith 1 Thess. 4.13 I would not have you sorrow as those without hope the grieved parents might reply what hope can we have of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels what comfort can we have from the Covenant made with and the promises to our children c therefore why should we not sorrow as those without hope Our Respondent replyed to this that for ought he knew the children of Turks and Pagans might be all saved and one replyed Perhaps he thought the devils might also which was the end of the argument there being no other answer given nor to be expected Disproof As I replied then so I reply still that for ought I know the children of Turks and Pagans dying in infancy may be all saved yet will it not follow so much as probably that therefore in reallity or in my opinion either the Devils may be saved also which rude return is recorded by your selves to be then given and stands for ever before the world as the end of this your argument and of your Disputation also there being to this assertion of mine viz. for ought I know the children or dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved no other answer given by you in the Dispute nor yet since in your Account nor yet ever to be expected But Sirs as great an Extasie as you seem to be in about this position yet I assure you if I had not learn'd it before yet I have learn't it since from your very selves who so strange at it to be a thing not so strange as true viz. that the dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved and that the dying infants in your Christendom are in no better condition then the dying infants of Turks and Pagans for so I said and not as you here misrelate it then Turks and Pagans themselves for if the dying infants of infidels are in no worse condition then your dying infants then surely yours are in no better condition then they and that they are in no worse condition then yours nothing need hinder you more then me for ought I know from a belief thereof unlesse you will refuse to believe your selves who preach no lesse both to me and all men no further off hence then in the next page and the next save one above for do you not say there that unlesse we will violate Christian charity whose rule is praesumere c. to presume every one to be in a good condition till he appears to be in an evil we must believe and hope all things of the little children of believers since it cannot appear in infancy that they have barred themselves c. and if so why not of the infants of Turks Pagans and infidels specially to speak in your own dialect since it cannot appear that these have any more than the other by any actual sin barred themselves or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in the Scriptures which is this viz. That of such is the Kingdome of heaven You see then how you teach us this precious piece of truth your selves p. 4.5 therefore I hope you will learn it your selves viz. that we are to hope well of such infants as have not by actual sin barred themselves from Salvation and allow us to teach it too in time though hitherto you seem to be so far from giving way to us to teach the same that when we speak well of infants that have not by actual sin deserved exemption and hope well of their salvation so dying you so wretchedly forget it to be the doctrine your selves deliver that with detestation you protest against it as abominable as if there were as little hope to be had of the salvation of such dying infants as are not born in Christendome as of the salvation of the very devils but your first doctrine shall stand of the two for truth with me from which though you often contradict it your selves I shal not be frighted by your bigg words but still hope as well of one dying infant as another Secondly Risum teneatis amici it is enough I think to set him on smiling who is never so deep in his dumps to see what a most pat and pertinent place of Scripture you have here dragged in to the proof of infant baptism viz. 1 Thes. 4.13 from whence as the wheel barrow goes rumble to rumble so it followes that infants are to be baptised you might as well have said you may find it in the fifteenth of go look it as send us to a text of so little tendency as this is of to your present purpose for what if we are not to mourn over the death of Saints and Godly friends that sleep in Jesus as those that can have no hope of such friends as they see to dy ungâ—dly which is indeed the direct drift of the place will it therefore follow that all those infants that dy without baptism are universally and unavoidably damned yet no less then this is here told by your selves to be your tenet whilst you say our denial of baptism unto them destroies all hope of their salvation But Sirs is it so in earnest in your opinion that no baptism no hope of salvation Then thirdly I have a treble charge to draw up against you 1. of unchristian cruelty 2. Of point blank popery 3. of clear contrariety both to your selves and to those very authors you refer us to to read and learn by and also to the very professed doctrine of the church of England whereof you profeâ—s to be the Ministers First I must cry out oh the Vnchristian cruelty that is hatched in your hearts and here expressed not onely to these thousands of infants even of Christians that happen to dy unbaptized at least to whom baptism
to believe witness not my self only who am of little credit with you but Mr. Cotton also none of the least of your Champions that appear for infant baptism whose very words p. 48.49 of his Way of the Churches in New England these are viz. It is not the seed of faith nor faith it self that knitteth a man to this or that visible Church but an holy profession of the faith and professed subjection to the Gospell of Christ in their communion Be ashamed therefore of such a monstrous position that persons not appearing to believe in Christ can conclude no more against their faith in Christ then against their reasonable souls Determination The seed of faith sown after discovers it self when the season comes Detection Yet so audacious are you that whilest it is but in the seed at most by your own confession as in infancy to attempt a discovery of it to all the world to be in these infants viz. of believers and not in those viz. of infidels before the season Determination The testimony of Scripture concerning their faith and the proofs taken from thence are equivalent to the best testimony and profession of any man concerning his own faith Detection O Sapientia as if the Scripture did as punctually personally and particularly testify concerning this and that individual infant which you sprinkle that it doth believe and those infants that you deny to sprinkle that they do not believe as men at years do to us by their words and works that they do or do not believe Secondly there is but one testimony of Scripture alledged by your selves where you say it s asserted of infants that they do believe viz. Mat. 18.6 and that as I have shewed First speaks not of little ones in your sense but of little ones in Christs sense viz. believes indeed and his disciples whom he stiles little ones also a little above Matth. 10.42 a place where we read not that any infant was among them Secondly that Scripture testifies of those of whomsoever it speaks in actu secundo that they do believe and so to do your selves yield is impossible for infants therefore it cannot be meant of them Thirdly if it did speak of little ones properly so called so as to say they do believe yet that they were believers and not unbelievers infants is a thing which a wise man may fumble himself 55 times over and become a fool before he once find it so to be Fourthly 't were but a Prosopopeia however Determination If it be further askt how faith is bread in them it is answered by the holy spirit whose waies are inscrutable who ties not himself to means works where he will and how quo magistro quam cito discitur quod docet saith Cyprian Detection And yet you scrue so farr into the inscrutable waies of the spirit in this matter as though he works where he will and how both to bind and bar him and to determine both where he doth and must work faith and where he doth not and must not viz. in believers infants not in infants of infidels else why do you refuse to baptize the one upon non-appearance of faith and yet plead for the baptism of the other as in whom it appears to you so clearly that by argument you say you make it more plainly appear to any one that will not deny Scripture and reason that they have faith then the profession of any one particular person that ever I baptized can make it appear of himself for thus you peremptorily conclude p 5. and then as prettily unconclude it all ore again p. 18. saying unlesse it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit of faith what have not for the working of the spirit is not known to us there can be no conclusion made why also do you say the promise is to believers and all their seed which is as much as to say God is bound upon his word and covenant unto these children not unto others and therefore must be as good as his word for I hope you all agree that God will not lie p. 14. though I confesse p 18. you unsay all this ore again and grant that he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor bard from working it in any of the children of infidels O fine whifles Determination If it be inquired how faith can be said to be in them without their consent the answer is as well as originall sin to which they never consented and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam to condemnation Detection That original sin is in infants so far as it is in them without their consent I do not deny it being a matter more imputative as I have shewed above then inhaesive and that Christ is more powerful to salvation then Adam was to condemnation is an undoubted truth which makes me believe otherwise then once I did viz. that whatsoever befel whomsoever meerly by Adams sin is as universally as well in respect of the subject made miserable thereby viz. whole mankind as of the misery befalling that subject by the coming of the Second Adam taken away for which tenet I could give more proof then you can easily disprove were it not besides the Argument I am in hand with but that faith is in any persons without the consent of those in whom it is is a lesson that I shall never consent to learn while mine eies are open I have found many Divines defining faith by the very term of an assent or consent unto the things promised preacht profered or propounded to us to believe and making assent or consent such a necessary ingredient to the very essence being or nature of faith that faith cannot be faith without it thus Mr. Baxter your fiercest fellow-fendent of infants baptism the very essence of faith saith he p. 98. lyeth in assenting that Christ is king and saviour and consenting that he be so to us Yea he denies them to have any true faith who do not thus assent and consent but of all the faiths that ever I have heard or read of and of all the kinds of believing that ever were broacht in the brains of men I never yet heard of a believing of things whether one will or no I mean a real believing and not such a feigned forced faith as that of those who must say they believe as the Church believes when happily they know not what that is nor did I ever hear of believing without assenting to the things believed since I was born till I met with this figment of yours nor ever shall again I am perswaded while the world stands from any men but such as having uttered one absurdity are resolved rather then to recant it to uphold it with an 100 worse then it self Determination It is further added that there is no other way revealed for the salvation of little infants but by justification and that by faith that way of the
come by faith and not of the way wherein infants have it and t is confest that faith in adultis in them that are capable to hear and understand is begotten by this means of hearing but not so in infants who cannot hear the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little infants to the bringing of them to the faith as he doth in men but without the outward hearing of the word he works saith in little children Baptist. This same that you now say fits us very well to you ward again when you say justification comes by faith for we grant that adultis to them that are capable to act faith justification comes by faith nor shall they by any means obtain it who are capable to believe and yet believe not but not so to infants who cannot believe the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants to the justification or bringing of them to salvation as he doth in men but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without obedience in baptism or faith either he saves them in nonage and farther that they cannot believe which is properly as I shewed before not onely to have but act faith in Christ your selves tell us saying they have not the use the second act the exercise the fruit of it and so do not believe and so must according to your sense of Scripture if the word speak of them be cast into the lake of fire Rev. 21.8 but further grant they could have faith in both the habit and act of it also yet can they not obey Christ in other things which are required necessarily to salvation in the word of the Gospel at least concomitanter et consecutivè as well as faith it self they cannot hear Christs voice in all things they cannot confess Christ before men nor to be come in the flesh they have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts of it they cannot deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Christ nor hate father and mother and life for him nor keep his commandments nor abide in his Doctrine and many such like things all which the Gospel saies as universally whosoever doth not as well as whosoever believes not cannot be his disciple Mat. 18. Luke 14. Is not Christs Gal. 5.24 hath not God 2 Iohn 9. is a lyar and shall not enter into the holy City 1 Iohn 2.4 Rev. 21.27.22.14.15 is a deceiver and an Antichrist 2 Iohn 7. shall be denyed by Christ yea punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Christ for non obedience to the Gospel 2 Thes. 1.6 so that if the Scriptures speaking of the waies and means of salvation be to be understood as the terms and conditions on which dying infants shall be saved as well as men and without which they must be damned then all dying infants must perish contrary to your sense of Mat. 18.14 who take the little ones there for infants for it s said there it is the will of my Father that not one of these little ones should perish put the case therefore that infants could believe yet their case would be little the better as to salvation so long as still they must be short of shewing their faith by other good works without which faith is not saving nor worth a straw for what would it profit if infants could go so far as to say they have faith and yet have not works can faith save them Iam. 2. 14.26 no its dead and helpless for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also Therefore the body of Scripture is to be understood as spoken concerning men and women and the means and way of their salvation and not of infants Babist Yea when the word speaks of works of holiness self denyal suffering mercy c. as the way to life which infants cannot do it excepts them from the doing thereof as no capable subject and not from the salvation nevertheless nor yet doth at except infants when it speaks of faith Baptist. Is not faith a work as well as repentance and the rest yea the main and principal work of the Law of Christ i. e. the Gospel Iohn 6.28.29 Secondly is it not as difficult a work for infants to believe in Christ as to obey Christs voice in other things and are they not still as uncapable a subject to do that as to do any more things that are required why then not exempted from that for the sake of their incapacity as well as from other things Thirdly if the spirit doth go extraordinary waies to work at all about the salvation of infants as you must confess he must and brings them to it without and besides the ordinary means he brings men by why will you tie and limit him him more to the ordinary way and meanes of faith then of obedience in other matters as repentance self denyal c as to their salvation seeing he must go out of the road and tract in the saving of them wherein he saves men may be not as well save infants without faith without which he will save no man as without self deniall and suffering and confessing of Christ c. without which he will save no man Fourthly specially since infants are not mentioned as meant a jot more in the places that speak of salvation by faith then in the places that speak of salvation by obedience in all things for as it is said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and be that believeth not shall be damned infants no where expressed or meant there so t is said as universally he is the Author of all them that obey him and he shall take vengeance on all them that obey him not and cut them off that hearken not to his voice infants no way expresly excepted as not meant there The Scriptures therefore are still to be understood de subjecto capaci when they promise or threaten things on conditions and terms of faith unbelief and other good and evill works as confessing and denying Christ and exclusively of infants where infants cannot possibly perform them for as when it s said he that works not let him not eat infants are no where excepted yet are not by the spirits appointment to starve though they work not neither are they meant there because they cannot work and as under law when it was said Cursed is he that continues not in every thing written therein and do this and live the way wherin men were to live or dy was set forth by those words and not the way wherein infants should be cursed or blessed accordingly as they were or were not found therein in infancy so Analogically when it 's said under the Gospel the just must live by faith and he that believes not shall be damned and Christ in flaming â—ire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord c. it is to be understood as spoken of the waies wherein men
in Mr. Baxters own words then which I think there need no other if they be well weighed to convince a wise man that by Scripture rule no infants in infancy are to be baptized To which purpose he writteth thus p. 126.127 at large viz. First in the commission Mat. 28.19.20 Christ adjoineth baptizing immediately to discipling go disciple all nations baptizing them Secondly if any person be so impudent as to say It is not the meaning of Christ that baptizing should immediately without delay follow discipling they are confuted by the constant example of Scripture for there is no mention that I can find of any one person that was baptized long after their discipling or that ever the Apostles of Christ did delay the baptizing of disciples John 4.1.2 Iesus made and baptized more disciples then John See how making and baptizing disciples are conjoined Act. 2.38.41 the 3000 were presently baptized the same day that they were made disciples without staying till the morrow though one would think the number of 3000 might have excused the delay if they had taken longer time to do it in And some would think that their conversion being so sudden the Apostles would have waited for a trial of their sincerity but this is not the wisdome of God though it seem to aim at the purity of the Church Scripture tells us of another way Acts 8.1.2 the people of Samiaria when they believed were baptized without delay And v. 13.14 Simon Magus was presently baptized though yet not brought out of the gall of bitternesse or bond of iniquity and had no part or fellowship in that business yea the Samaritans were generally baptized by Philip before they had received the holy Ghost for he was yet fallen upon none of them onely they were baptized in the name of the Lord Iesus verse 16. So Acts 8.36.37.38 the Eunuch was baptized in his journey as they went without delaying one day or hour after he professed himself to be a disciple So was Paul baptized as soon as he rose from his blindnesse upon the words of Ananias Acts 9.18 So was Cornelius with his friends baptized immediately without delay the same day Lydia and her houshold were baptized without delay Acts 16.15 and the Iaylor the same hour of the night that he was discipled Acts 16.38 So the Corinthians Acts 18.8 and Ananias language to Paul repeated Acts 22.16 is plain and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized c. and of the houshold of Stephanus that Paul baptized it is implied too and it is most observable which is said in Iohn 3.26 of Iesus himself that he baptized by his disciples and all men came unto him where it is undeniable that Iesus baptized without delay even as fast as they came to him and professed themselves disciples and can we have a better example then the Lord Iesus himself And thus you see saith he that according to all the examples of baptism in the Scripture not to speak of Johns baptism there was no delaying no not a day usually but they were all baptized as soon as they were discipled Thus far are the very words of Mr. Baxter brought by him in proof of infant baptisme and here brought again by me in proof of the clear contrary viz. that according to all the examples of baptism in the Scripture not one infant was ever baptized in the primitive times but that all that ever were then baptized did first believe and were converted were first made disciples by the preaching of the Gospel to them and did first come and professe themselves disciples and thereupon were immediately admitted which things I dare say t will be out of doubt with all rational considerate impartial Christians that they were never performed by any infants and if not then whether all these examples do not clearly shew rather that no infants were then baptized then that any were or now ought to be a child of 7. years old at least may easily decide it notwithstanding so childish is Mr. Baxter as to set down this at large that he may thence make himself a clearer way as by the constant example and practise of the primitive time to prove your present practise of baptizing of infants which premises and conclusion viz. that men and women of old were baptized without delay so soon as ever they were converted to the faith and were discipled and professed themselves disciples therefore we must baptize the children of Christians in infancy or else our practise is utterly inconsistent with the rule of Christ and contrary to the practise of the primitive times and consequently a sinful practise are as sutable as Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam Iungere Si velit or as when Mulier formosa superne desinat in turpem piscem And howbeit Mr. Baxter in defence hereof tells us p. 128. they who baptize the children of Christians at age as the Anabaptists do cannot possibly do it when they are first discipled I am so amazed at that expression that I can hardly believe he minded what he said when he pend it nor do I think the man had his wits well about him when he wrote all the rest that follows in proof therof through out that whole chapter of his where the further he proceeds the more he abounds and sinks ore head and ears in absurdities contradicting himself and his own principles and overthrowing the very thing he there prosecutes the proof of for First so farre is it from being impossible to baptize believers children immediately after they are discipled if we forbear them till they come to years that indeed it is impossible that they should be discipled at all till then in such a way as all those were discipled in whom he hath produced as examples in this case for whatever conversion there seems to him to be of all or at least the most of the children of believers so timely that neither themselves nor others be can discipled when by the preaching of the Gospel they are brought over both to believe and to be willing to obey the Lord Jesus and do freely serâ—ously and as may seem to us sincerely professe their faith in him and their readiness to obey him and their repentance from those dead works and waies of the flesh they have formerly lived in unless he suppose it possible that these should live in sin and their desires to be baptized in the name of Christ for remission of their sins then I say they appear first to be discipled in foro hominum Ecclesiae for whatever they were before in foro Dei is nothing to us and then and not before to be baptized As for us therefore we have a steady rule to go by in the baptizing of persons according to which we still baptize them as of old they did when first discipled yea though they are persons whose parents were Church-members or in other meer relative only or reall discipleship yet they are first
should be baptized as neer as may be upon the time of their conversion and becoming disciples and if it have been then foâ—eslowd it must be after as soon as it can but in no wise so many years before it as the priests unviversally do it and such of whom it is not known nec per se nec per alios when they first were discipled and converted but oh how do I fear that as he that never doubted never believed so many of those implicit converts Mr. Baxter talks on that never knew when they were discipled and converted were never yet truly discipled hor converted at all to the truth as it is in Iesus but as they had it more by tradition from their fathers then unfained search of Scriptures such I say of whom t is not known when they first were converted and discipled shall by my consent be baptized when ever it is first known that they are converted and discipled unto Christ by their own profession of their conversion and discipleship and desire of baptism and this not by my consent alone but by the joint consent of all these very Scriptures which Mr. Baxter himself hath coâ—ed for our example and warrant all which if as far as Christs own precept and practise and the primitive Churches example can do it they do not warrant the baptism of all and onely such persons as were first taught or made disciples by preaching or instructed till they both learnt believed and imbraced the Gospel and professed themselves disciples and offered themselves to baptism and consequently of no infants then for my part I le lay aside all sense and reason as no more to be heeded as a help to understand the Scriptures and turn a very Tom-fool and he that can Altobelogick these Scripture institutions and instances into plain Scripture proofs of infant Church membership and baptism Erit mihi magus Apollo for there 's no mention of infants either expressely or implicitly in any one of them Oh therefore to Eccho back to Mr. Baxter a little in much what his own words to us concerning those Scriptures p. 127 that those who are so inclinable to seperation from the primitive practise would consider the unfitnesse of infants to be admitted by baptism to be Church members under the Gospel Oh that they that in church whole parishes as if they because the Pope will have it so were all Churches and will have no trial at all and discoveries of the work of persons conversion before they admit them but take them all at hap hazard as they fall from the belly within the bounds of that parish where they are plac't and popified would but lay to heart all these Scripture examples and make more conscience of observing their rule and not presume to be wiser and holier then God when it was mans first overthrow to desire to be but as God though he did not attempt to go beyond him as the priests do in adding other Subjects to his ordinances then himself appointed which changing of his law will be mans last overthrow Isa. 24. doubtlesse those that Christ baptized by his disciples were Church-members but those were not infants but such as were first made disciples by preaching onely Iohn 4. and be that will go beyond Iesus Christ in strictnesse shall go without me I do not think he will be offended with me for doing as he did i. e. for baptizing none but such as believe and professe themselves disciples and as repent of their sins and desire to be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of them and so I have done with Mr. Baxter till we meet again onely since Mr. Marshal is pleased ponere obicem to object and bolt in here that we cannot say none in these places were baptized but such as did thus i. e. believe and professe themselves disciples p. 217. to Mr. Tombs because the word onely is not here I may well call it obicem or objectionem obularem a hint not worth a half penny and if he appeal to his own conscience it will tell him no lesse neverthelesse what ere he thinks I say again all that were baptized in the forenamed places were such as are there specified to be profest converts and believers and if there were any more let him assign and shew us whom and wee l believe him as for the housholds himself is in the sands whether there were any infants in them or no and I have shewd above that they that were baptized in them are exprest all by some clause or other exclusive of infants and conclusive onely of adult disciples besides Mr. Cotton confesses that the infants were not baptized with their parents and that the infants that were brought to Christ were not baptized at all for ought he knows nor their parents neither and here are all the Scriptures that declare how baptism was done then and to whom most of which are cited by Mr. Baxter himself from which you cannot possibly scrape so much as any old odd end of an example for such a businesse as your baptism As for us besides that plain precept we have in Mat. 28. even every whit of this is plain â—resident for our baptism and comes into our assistance against all your cavils O ye Priests for thus I argue viz. The baptism of men and women professing faith in the Lord Iesus confessing sins calling on the name of the Lord c. is a baptism yea all the baptism that the Scripture speaks of either in way of command or example But the baptism which we dispence is a baptism of men and women professing faith in our Lord Iesus confessing sins calling on the name of the Lord gladly receiving the word c. Ergo that baptism which we dispense is a baptism yea all the baptism the Scripture speaks of in way of either command or example Therefore Sâ—rs how hath Satan bewitched you that you cannot believe and obey the truth what will you onely think things and thrust your thoughts of them as oracles upon all others will you imagine and suppose and dream and dote and fancy and fain a baptism that the Scriptures and first Churches never knew and then father your figments upon the Scriptures and fasten them as the fashion which the whole world must be forct to follow and conform to Moreover I do not at present remember any one part of Scripture which your selves summon into your help in this case of infant baptism that doth not yield ammunition and much matter against you more then for you unlesse it be one or two used by your selves which one may as well with Skoggin untile the house to look for an hare as urge either pro or con about infants baptism so farre shall he be from finding in them any proof for that or the true baptism either as namely 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Thess. 4.13 There are but two places that I know of besides those I have already turned
of But First with spending so much time and searching so much into their testimonies as you have compelled me to do that me thinks I am out of my element where I desire to be i. e. the Scriptures whetâ—er I le return by and by God willing especially this last testimony of Tertullian which yet I could not help unless I would for want of help betray the truth when I saw how Mr. Marshal Dr. Holmes and others had almost stolen away corrupted and by fair words enticed our old friend Tertullian to serve on their side for we would not willingly be cousined of what is our due yeâ— least any man should think of me above that he seeth me to be and take me to be a man of much reading because I talk so much of the Fathers I testify that I am of little further acquaintance with these Fathers for my converse is mostly with Maâ—thew Mark Luke Peter Paul Iude Iames and Iohn then this controversie hath brought me to which now is so much that though I honor them as honest and good men in their times as finding many things of much worth and excellency in them yet for all that I am sick Secondly with seeing what abundance of absurdities silly reasons senselesse anti-scriptural sentences odd conceâ—ts vanities vaâ—ieties of error as well as verities uncertainties whether some of their books be their own or no mistranslations foisting of what of their own other men please into their works as Ruffinus into Origen falsities flat contradictions amongst themselves and such like are to be found among them sufficient enough to cause all men to trust no more to their testimonies then with their own eyes they see the same testifyed in the Scriptures Thirdly I am sick more yet to find the whole Clergy after whom the whole world wonders and walks in error wondring so much after these Fathers and walking after them where they walk in error and yet neglecting to give heed to them where they speak the truth and which is worst of all sleighting the short pure and plain waies of God the Father of all of Christ our Father and the first Fathers next and immediately under God and Christ Supreme Governors of the Church and givers out of the Gospel to the world I mean the Apostles who in my mind write the way of the Gospel if men were not willing to go astray from it because it is narrow self denying and thorny though more briefly yet more clearly to any common capacity then the most voluminous of all the other fathers do for we use all plaineâ—s of speech saies Paul 2 Cor. 3. Wherefore Fourthly and Lastly I am sick most of all to consider what a stirr ministers make in their quotations of the Fathers marching on and giving such a broad side as they think with two or three sentences ou of the fathers as if they would bear all men down before them that come near them no higher read then in the Scriptures no better armed then with the sword of the spirit the word of God For this only is dispised as much as Davids sling and stone before Goliah and this too though in coole bloud the Scripture is confessed by themselves to be so instar omnium that nothing is of any force but what flowes from it for though some Clergy men dote so far that they believe the Fathers no otherwise then they would have the world to believe themselves i. e. because ipse dixit yet some are so wise as to confesse that how far forth soever the Fathers may serve to prove to us things de facto to be done in their several ages yet their testimonyes de facto cannot prove any thing to us to be de jure at all whereas if it be so and ye so it is I am me thinks become a fool at this time in falling before I was aware so up to the ears in contest about a few testimonies of the fathers as well as I and others heretofote in counting so extraordinarily on them wherefore I do henceforth humbly conceive and confess my self to the people together with all my fellow father-fool'd friends viz. the Clergy of all Christendome to have been no better then childish and semi-simple so far as such high and holy heed and such heedlesse submission hath been given by us to these fathers Schoolmen and other authors as hath occasioned extreme seduction from the Scriptures hear therefore O thou most miserably be wildred Priesthood of the Nations and understand for so thou shalt if thou return from out of that thick wood of Authors Polemical Tracts Schoolmen Casuists Tomes Volumes of Fathers Councels Commentators Treatises Systemes of Theology framed forms of old and New Creeds long and short Catechismes confessions of Churches c. in which thou hast wandred and lost thy self from the truth to the unfeigned study of that little book of Scriptures which alone if thou wilt be admonished by it is able to make thee and them that hear thee wise enough unto salvation Thou speakest what thou hast seen of thy fathers we speak what we have seen of our Fathers what thine teach in their books we regard not quâ ipsi dixerint unless quâ dictum prius by our Fathers if they teach no other then what our Fathers teach in theirs it is no more then what thou having the same Scripture the same liberty to search the same promise of the same spirit to guide the same accesse to God in prayer for it mayest learn not at second hand from them but at first hand from thence as easily as themselves but when they go aside from that and thou with them and thine with thee a venture this seems no other to me then Ignis fatuus with a false flash going before and Ignoramus fatnus with his false faith and a number of ignorants following after Thou tellest us of thy novel antiquity of Counsels National Oecumenicall of Churches Greek and Latin of Fathes Austin Gregory c. and yet confessest thy self that particular Churches have erred and may erre and if all particulars then why the universal which consists of all particulars cannot thou canst not prove and that generall councels which the School-men term the representative Church are subâ—ect to error and have sometimes decreed heresie and falshood for truth thou confessest by Dr. Featley p. 17. of his figment And that none of the fathers nor yet the joint consent of many is a competent judge for faith to hang upon concerning the right of things is confest by Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood and yet to go round again thou ventest thy self out of the mouthes of others as if their verdict were enough to warrant and canonize all that for verity that is vented by them Tell us therefore no more as Dr. Featley doth of Gregory nor yet of Gregory the great whose testimonies if they were for thee but now I think on t they are not for
Sirs you had need to Synodize one year more and to Catechise one another into a little more Concordance about your principles before you Catechetically impose that practise upon whole nations unless your grounds were more agreeable then they are with both the word and each other for some of you preach up that your practise and plead it with all your might from 1 Cor. 7.14 taking the word hoâ—y there as it stands in Deut. 7 6-14.2-26.19 and other places where it is most evident that it signifies a people consecrated to God in the same way as the Priests Temple Altar Sacrifices and all things then under the law were and now nothing at all is and yet I have known some of you again that have acknowledged the words sanctifyed and holy in 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be taken in any such sense but in that very sense wherein we take them yet supposing infants-baptism to follow from other places Some of you preach it up and plead it with all your might from Mark 10.13 c. as if you did believe and would make folks believe that the children that were then brought to Christ were baptized either by him or his disciples and truly if you believe it not what is that Scripture then to your purpose nay it makes more strongly against you for if these very infants that were brought to and blessed by Christ himself to whom you say he declared the Kingdome to belong were not baptized your presumption is very high who dare baptize other infants of whom you have no such testimony yea some of you say that their bringing to Christ for imposition of hands doth suppose them to have been baptized before they came I wonder by whom witnesse Dr. Holmes p. 61.63 yet some of you again confesse the contrary viz. Mr. Cotton p. 9 of his grounds and ends whom Dr. Holmes so justifies and magnifies who in confutation of him saies thus That it doth not appear that the Fathers that brought these infants were baptized themselves and therefore neither might their children be baptized according to rule And yet both Mr. Cotton and his neighbour Mr. Cobbet also and even every one else almost that writes or speaks as well as you Ashford Disputants make mighty ado but nihil ad rhombum from that place also Some of you plead the sprinkling of believers infants for none else must be sprinkled by the Popes confession only he takes believers not in so strict a sense as some do from Act. 2.39 supposing that those to whom Peter said the promise is to you and to your children were believers and already in the faith even then when he thus bespake them which if they were t were nothing to your matter witness Mr. Vahan of Smarden at the Dispute at Ashford whose Arguments being it seems none of the most material are excluded from your Account whose supposition was supported with a position as false and silly as it self yet is it a maxime with the Clergy that was then blerted out from among you viz. that the desire of grace is grace in refutation of which your doctrine appeal was made by your Respondent to the people whether the desire of Drink was Drink and whether because they all desired to go to heaven therefore they were at heaven others again acknowledge the truth in this viz. that the men were yet in unbelief while Peter spake that to them as Mr. Cotton p. 35. of his grounds who saith thus when he calleth men to believe or to repent he cometh to them not as having faith and repentance but as wanting both and Mr. Prigg also who hasting into the help of Mr. Vahan at the Ashford disputation happily more then heartily help the Respondent against Mr. Vahan and himâ—elf too by his plain contradiction of the other and conjunction with the Respondent in that viz. that the men to whom Peter then spake in presenti the promise is to you and your children c. were not yet in the faith but the promise was made to them as they who yet did not should believe i. e. in futuro for by your favour Gentlemen if it be thus then it should seem and so t was told you then but you would not hear it that the promise of remission of sins though it be made good to believers and none else no not to their fleshly seed quâ tales unless they also believe when they come to years for if they be taken away in infancy both they and all other infants of whom I find not where God requires faith so dying may be saved without it and are too though it cross your cruel conceit of heathen infancy this promise I say was made by Peter to unbelievers and their children yea and is in very deed to all men in the world and their children Jewes or Gentiles neer or far off whether in time or place yea to every Creature that then was hath been since now is or ever shall be to the worlds end is the promise made Mark 16.15 16. by Christ himself who is the purchaser of eternal salvation for all men though actually the eternal saviour of none of those to whom his Gospel is preached save only such as obey him Heb. 5.9 yet none of all this warrants your sprinkling believers infants onely in their infancy any more then it warrants your sprinkling of so many hundreds of unbelievers infants as you do still as striet as you lace up baptism to believers infants onely in the state of your question for to say no more then the truth that 's another of your Hocus pocus's which when your customers come to find out they will be ashamd of you you of your selves if you be not past it you I say yea specially you of the strict Presbytery who cry out upon your parish people as for the most part profane and ignorant impenitent and unbelieving in such a wretched condition that except they bâ— converted they will perish nor dare you admit them to the Supper least they eat and drink their own damnation and yet their children are the seed of believers with you still to whom belong the promises and right to the seals for their sakes Yea O ye several parishes where these men preach not in the city only but in the Countreys of Kent Sussex and other places let me Apostrophize a little to you least your Clergy should not heed it if I speak onely to them have you not heard your teachers thundring you as Malignants for the most part threatning you to come in and to be reconciled to God as those that are yet enemies to him and his people meaning those few that are better friends to them then the major part of you are calling to you as crucifiers of Christ and preaching Peters doctrine Act. 2. by the halves saying repent repent for howbeit they should say somewhat more to such sinners as you seem to be in their eyes viz. repent and be
purpose but nothing to their own viz. that when Christ saies go reach and baptize and he that believeth and is baptized in these expressions he speaks of persons at years not of infants for such must be taught first but that hinders not but that infants may be baptized before teaching and this is the very common wind away of you all to all whom as to them then so I say now again if the Scriptures and commands of your own assigning do speak of persons at age onely and there 's no mention at all of children in either of them for in those words Dr. Featley expresses all your minds concerning Mat. 28. Mark 16. when brought by us against infant baptism where are the Scriptures that do mention infants so as to institute their baptism if I should assert this that Christ commanded that infants should eat at his table and being put to assign what Scripture it s commanded in should name 1 Cor. 11.28 and when it s argued against me to the contrary saying that place permits them onely to come that can examine themselves as infants cannot therefore t is no command for infants to come should answer thus viz. there 's no mention at all of children in that text much lesse any prohibition of infants to come when Paul saies let a man examine himself he speaks of persons at years onely but that hinders not why infants may not come without self-examination would you not say I were half out of my wits yet thus do you all almost as well concerning places of your own assigning as those we bring viz. Mat. 28. Mark 16.16 Act. 2. Repent and be baptized Act. 8. if thou believest thou maiest return thus viz. those phrases speak of adult ones and not of infants and so say I of these and every Scripture else that speaks of baptism and I trow where is that place that makes mention of any such thing as the baptism of infants Secondly in president of which you send us to the housholds wherein your selves cannot tell that there was any infant therein at all which is as much as to say and urge ab exemplo thus viz. t is not certain by any one instance thereof that any one infant was baptized in those housholds which are said to be baptized in the primitive times Ergo no doubt but by the same example infants ought to be baptized now Again some of you urge Mat. 28. as the institution of Christ for baptizing men of ripe years at least yea and infants also as Mr. Marshall some of you again deny this saying that Mat. 28. is not an exact platform of Christs commission concerning the matter or subject of the administration of baptism as Dr. Holms p. 7. both which men direct their different doctrines to Mr. Tombes in order to his direction but how shall that man be resolved which shall he cleave to whose words shall he take the Doctors or the Divines Again some of you say that semen carnis a fleshly seed is intituled to the promise for even this seed with you is semen fidei some of you say semen sidei the spiritual seed onely i. e. as many as are of the faith and so faith the Scripture are blessed with faithfull Abraham but then semen fidei with you is no other but semen carnis the fleshly seed and that of such too as are Abrahams seed not after the flesh nor after the faith neither thus you wander in a wood and trace too and fro in a thicket moap up and down in a myst are rapt up in a cloud of confusion contradiction and unanswerablenesse about the proof of a popish practise dancing round and crossing the way one of another ever and anon and yet ken it not nor consider how all mens eyes that are but half open are half amazed at your shufles Again some of you pin your practise upon the score of the infants faith and of these again there are several subdivisions for some ground it on seminall faith onely i. e. the habit or on infants having faith denying utterly their capacity to act it i. e. to believe as Mr. Willcock and many more Some again deny that they do build it upon seminall faith but say they go upon more certain grounds as Mr. Blake p. 24. to Mr. Blackwood who saith of faith in the root or of this semniall faith this faith is not our ground for infants baptism being undiscernable Some again upon their acting faith which they assert infants capable to do though against their wills as well as to have it as to the clear contradiction of themselves Mr. Willcock and many more do whilst they with him and he with them speak of children in this phrase viz. that they do believe and thus they speak whilest they interpret that clause Mat. 18.6 i. e. these little ones which believe in me of little ones litterally taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere i. e. to believe expresses not the habit onely but the act of faith as to know to read to teach to love to learn do sound out non munus non actum primum onely but actum secundum also Some of you again put that practise upon score of the parents faith not the childs and of these which are also subdivided some the faith of the next parents onely as Dr Holmes who in his to Mr. Tombes p. 216.217 saith thus the children are not to be baptized whilst the next parents are unbelievers i. e. though the grand parents be believers and Mr. Cotton also who p. 87. of his book stiled the way of the Churches of New England saith thus God never allowed his Church any warrant to receive into Covenant the children of godly parents who lived a thousand years ago nay rather the text is plain that the holynesse of the children dâ—pendeth upon the faith of the next immediate parents or one of them at least as if the seed of parents were not their seed at two or three generations off others the faith of the remote parents as Mr. Rutherford Pres. p. 164 where he saith all infants born in the visible Church what ere the wickednesse of the neerest parents is are to be received into the Church by baptism yea p. 173 Joshua had commandement of God to give the seal of the Covenant to their children who were as openly wicked against the Lord as murderers drunkerds swearers c. also Mr. Marshall and Mr. Baily who commends Mr. Cottons learâ—ed maintenance of infants sprinkling in p. 132 and yet contradicts him in this thing no further off then p. 134. saying although the parents are wicked meaning the immediate parents yet the Lords interest is in the children i. e not of the 3 â— and 4 th but of the 1000 th generation and by this shift the Ishmaâ—â—â—ts the Edomites the Turks are of Abraham though not of Isaac and so Gods by birth yea we and the whole world are of Noah though not of Abraham and
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 aâ—e not baptized shall be damned for to be damned and not saved are all one and as for children of Tuâ—ks 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 as judicious Gentlemen that read it 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 cris crosse 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 nevertheless sith he hath strengthens himself again what he can and comes up recruâ—ed and attended with a company of scambling and for the most part very unsound sentences at his heels t wil not be amisse to enter the lists a little with him and these his Auxiliaries First then Sirs whereas you come in again with that crooked consequence viz. infâ—nts must be baptized under the Gospel because circumcisied under the law we might more pertinently let up a shout at your shameful folly in this particular then set upon the shewing of it any more it is so palpable for verily as is proved sufficiently above these two viz. the Covenant of the law and the Gospel from the Identity of which you infer an Identity in the subject of the ordinances and administrations of both and by way of analogy would evince them both to belong to the same persons I must tell you these are two Testaments or wills of God concerning men in those two different times viz. before Christ and since and these two so specifically distinct that they not onely run upon different strains and require different terms as your selves here confesse the law saying do this and live the Gospell onely believe but also stand upon different promises whereof the Gospels being of the heavenly Canaan are better then the laws which were but of an earthly one and these also pertaining to two different seeds viz. the legal to the natural children of Abraham i. e. Isaac and his posterity by generation the Evangelical to the spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. such as are of Christ by faith and regeneration and they had also different dispensations the one circumcision the other another thing viz. dipping a thing no way like it and different subjects also for those different dispensations so that if men and their ministers were not all turned Momes they could not but must manifestly perceive it the old Testament admitting to circumcision onely males and these onely on the eighth day in case they were in the house so young and all the males in the house whether sons or servants whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger and all this without respect to either faith or repentance in the persons to whom dispenst or any prae-preaching to them by the person dispensing the new Testament taking in to baptism as no servants upon the masters faith so all persons in the world both males and females upon their own and that upon any day and not the eighth onely wherein after they have been preacht to they professe to repent and believe Mat. 3. Act 2. Act. 8. Act. 18. The proof of which real specifical diversity of these two Covenant◠〈◊〉 yet farre more evident First because the spirit denominates them so to be in Scripture calling them expressely the two Covenants Gal. 4.24 and also very often in plurali the Covenants the covenants
him yet it is said to be of him as all the Sacrifices also were which were of old before circumcision because he gave them all anew and plainer promulgation and was Mediator of all that old Testament service which ended in Christ and was even from the very beginning Moreover Though the Gospel Covenant was preached in a type to Abraham in Gen. 17. where circumcision was also first appointed yet that in reference to which Circumcision of the flesh was there instituted was immediately that first and old covenant of the Law which was in some parcels and pieces of it before Abraham and now was propounded a little more fully in the promise of that land to his fleshly seed and the express appointment of that one more special precept thereof i. e. Circumcision though the fulnesse of it came not till four hundred and thirty years after yea he that hath but half an eye in his head must needs see that to be the covenant viz. that which was made in a type I grant of another yet really with the seed of Abrahams body whereof that circumcision was the token which covenant and circumcision were so neer kin that Stephen calls that Acts 7. the Couenant of circumcision which also I have spoken to so sufficiently above that howbeit you here give me the occasion de novo yet I le trouble you no further with it here Review 1. These are the seed of Abraham Semen fidei Gal. 3.7 so Zacheus by believing was made a son of Abraham nay the spiritual seed 2. The promise is to believers and their seed Act. 2.39 3. The Gospel is a better Covenant Heb. 8.6 and it would be far worse if the children of believers under the Gospel should not be counted within the covenant nor have right to the seal nor be esteemeed members of the visible church as well as the Iewes children nay according to the Anabaptists valued but as Turks and Pagans Re-Review Here to inforce this Argument a fresh least the front should faile you come up three a breast and let fly at us thick and threefold with a first second and third report First you tell us that these i. e. believers fleshly seed are the seed of Abraham nay the faithful seed or seed of faith and that in such manner too as Zacheus was made the son or seed of Abraham and how was that viz. by believing nay the spiritual seed quid ni they cannot chuse I warrant buâ— ipso sacto be believers i. e. born again by faith for such only are of faith yea and the spiritual seed too i e. born of the spirit for such only are a spiritual seed and that so well as Zacheus himself if once barely born of the bodies of the flesh of such spiritual parents as do believe alias live in Christendome at least in reformed Christendome for if all papists be not a spiritual body of believers with you as they are with the Pope all protestants are taken by you so to be I mean to be such whose fleshly seed are of faith and the spiritual seed of Abraham and so to be baptized O fy Sirs O fy O fy Babist Our meaning is not that these are or are to be counted in the spirit or of the faith as Abraham was but only to be accounted under the Gospell and reckoned all to Abraham as his children in an outward sense fo fâ—r as to a being in his family i. e. the visible Church Baptist. 1. Me thinks any mans own mother wit should tell him that God never appointed things to be accounted by us otherwise then they are or at least appear much less otherwise then they can be 2. Appeal and lay close siege Sirs to your own consciences search and see whether they will tell you that the place you quote viz. Gall. 3.7 be at all for you or be not much rather against you mean which of these two waies you will For if you mean in as plain English as you speak it that the infants of believers are really the seed of Abraham the seed of faith the spiritual seed so as Zacheus himself was that is by believing doth that Scripture so much as implicitly say any such thing either that the seed of believers do believe or that they are the seed of Abraham when it saith v. 7. they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham and ver 9. they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham doth that phrase I say they which be of faith signifie believers infants or believing infants quid rides such folk as those though some are ashamed to say they see yet some are not ashamed to say are to be seen in the world or doth it signifie such as are true believers indeed which of the two think you doth it expresse such persons at years onely as are in the faith or onely the natural fleshly seed of such or if you say both that that one phrase viz. they which be of faith should express two kinds of persons so differently descended of two so different births viz. believers themselves born of God by faith in Christ and also the meer fleshly seed of believers who are no higher born then of their bodies is so far from truth that it is more then flat folly to conceive it And if you mean it not of their being Abrahams children really by faith so as thereupon to be assured heirs of salvation but of their being counted of the faith so as to outward membership in the Church onely t is plain that Gal. 3.7.9 speaks of such onely as are truly in the faith i. e. faithful as Abraham was so as to be not onely outwardly inchurched but eternally saved also as none can say all believers children are some of them proving wretches when they come to years for as many as be of faith saith he i. e. faithful as Abraham was are blessed and shall be justified and saved with faithful Abraham whose faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse as faith shall be imputed to us also Rom. 4.22.23 if we believe on him that raised up Iesus from the dead c. answerable to that also is Gal. 3.26.29 ye are all the children of God by faith in Iesus Christ if ye be Christs i. e. by faith then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise i. e. the promise not of the law or old covenant or earthly Canaan for the Galatians were never heirs according to that nor yet of meer membership and participation of ordinances in the Church that 's more pertaining to the preceptory then the promissory part of the Gospel but of the eternall inheritance it self which is made not onely to believers and their seed as you lace it up but to all men and their seed on terms of believing and comming in at Gods call and made good to as many as are so effectually called so that they obtain the promise of that eternal inheritance indeed
thereby members of the Iewish Church could not be the visible church according to the Gospell unless they did manifest faith and so be in covenant with Abraham according to the spirit and baptized into the same faith Whereas if the Covenant now under Christ were the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh then by the same right they possessed circumcision and the Iewish Church state they must possesse this since Christ which they could not do therefore it is not the same It is true therefore that the Covenant of God makes the Church both in time of the Law and Gospel too for the Church is nothing else but a people in covenant with God now look how the covenant differs so the Church and people differs which is made by it and which enter into it Now the Covenant whereby God took a people outwardly to be his people then was that whereby they did being circumcised participate of all those outward meanes which led to Christ which was to come Psal. 149.19.20 But the Covenant whereby he takes a people outwardly to be his people now whereby they are admitted to be baptized is that profession they make of faith in Christ Acts 8.12.37 Mat 3.6 Whereby they have true and spirituall conjunction with God and are his people Heb. 3.6 Indeed it is true that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and Means of salvation and also that all those that were saved were saved through faith in him both before and since his comming But yet because the outward means of making Christ known doth differently depend upon his being yet to come and upon his being come in the flesh the one being more dark the other more plain the one more carnall the other more spirituall therefore the participation of these meanes doth make the state of the participants to differ Thus far are his words and then noting certain differences to the number of seven or eight between the Old Testament and the New which is 1. Established upon better promises 2. After the power of an endless life 3. In Christ. 4. And liberty of the spirit 5. A Celestial Jerusalem 6. A State of faith He very truly concludes that such onely as are in the New Covenant in Christ in faith of the promises born from above and partakers of the spirit and the power of that endless life or of the world to come are suitable to be admitted to Gospel Church priviledges In the time therefore before Christ saith he such as would circumcise themselves and their males and observe the Law in the rites and ceremonies therof together with their children by generation were the seed and in covenant with that Church but now since Christ only such as believe in Christ and are thereby children by regeneration are the seed and in covenant with this Church and this he proves further yet First Because None of the Natural seed of Abraham are in the Covenant by vertue of any natural relation though they did remain in the Iewish Church till the death of Christ and as that Church then ceased so their being in the Church by an natural relation ceased also Act. 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 5.28.31 3.7 8 9 14.16.19.26.28 29. Secondly The Gentiles have no natural relation to become Abrahams seed by therefore a believers child cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a believer unless such children do believe themselves and cannot otherwise in no respect be participants in the covenant made with Abraham p. 14 15. And again p. 18. No Gentile saith he is Abrahams seed at all but by believing the righteousnesse of faith allthough he be the child of believing parents Now therefore because you tell us not only First that believers children in infancy are Abrahams children though they yet do not the works of Abraham i. e. believe not on him that justifyes them as some of you dote they do but also Secondly that the promise of the Gospel is to believers and their seed These both are abundantly confuted by that quotation of mine which quotes more Scripture then you will ever answer so that I wonder you blush not to shoot out so boldly two such blind and unsound assertions together the second of which I shall say no more to it being virtually answered by what is more formally spoken to the first also because I have shewed so undeniably above that I know your consciences must yield to it and that from this Act. 2.39 whence you would wreâ—t a proof to the contrary that the promise if you take it for the profer of the Gospel Grace is to all men in the world every creature and so not to believers and their seed only but to all unbelievers and their seed also in case they shall believe for he conditionats the promise on calling for such these were whom Peter spake to whilst he was yet speaking that very word to them viz. the promise is to you and your children but if you take it for the thing promised which is not Church-membership and participation of baptism as some say whose absurdity therein I have declared but the spirit remission of sins and salvation this is made good also to the believer himself and it is mercie enough to him that it is so I think but not at all to his seed for his sake nor his faiths sake for if it be I testify his children need no faith of their own nay more God never made promise to save any of believing Abrahams natural seed without faith in themselves for Abrahams sake as neerly as he took Abraham to be his friend for even he had sin enough of his own to have sunck him if the same Mediator that saves any of his seed in that way of faith had not mercifully saved him the same way nor yet for Abrahams faiths sake for that merited not salvation for them nor was it instrumental but faith only in themselves to any one of his sonnes salvation for every one must bear his own burden if Christ bear it not and the just must live by his faith and not his fathers neither did he ever promise for his faiths sake to give faith to his natural seed as his for then they must all have had it qua sic including de omni and being universale summum or God should ly which he cannot neither could God blame them as he doth for unbelief but himself without whom say you they could not believe who had promised to make them believe and did not though yet he promised to circumcise i. e. by his spirit to sanctify the hearts of his spiritual seed as well as his own i. e. all such as believe and are in the faith with him for the promise being still sure to all the seed which it is made to they all must be blessed with faithful Abraham Now if God who made the old Covenant promise of the earthly Canaan to Abraham and his
that formed them will shew them no mercy and the lord Iesus shall come with flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not his Gospel and that because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved for this cause God shall send them strong delusions to believe lies that they all might be damned who had pleasure in unrighteousnesse c. who ere transgresseth and abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ hath not God every soul that heareth not the voice of that Prophet shall be destroyed with the mouth confession is made unto salvation and an hundred such like as speak of an necessity of good works as well as of faith viz. self-denyall taking up the cross and following Christ c. speak of and to infants in non age while they know not their right hand from their left But Sirs oh that you would once understand for then all your intricacies sottish and absurd assertions and disputes about infants would be ended and save you a world of perplexity that now you are in by the ignorance of it that the word was not written as the way and will of God concerning infants in infancy but concerning men and women in order to their salvation by Christ Iohn 6.39.40 And this Sirs is no other answer then you use to give us when we argue against infants believing thus viz. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word preached But infants cannot hear so as to know Christ by the word preached Ergo infants cannot believe You tell us true faith in Adultis can come no other way but by preaching but in Infantibus faith is begotten otherwise so you fancy but you have no Scripture for it as we have that faith comes no way but by hearing Babist But that Scripture Rom. 10. speaks only of the way of faiths comming to adult ones Baptist So say I of welnigh the whole body of Scripture it speaks of the way wherein men at years must expect to be justifyed and saved and not of infants for they may be saved without faith so when we plead with you against the baptizing of infants I mean such of you and such there be amongst you as are ashamed as well as some that are not to say that infants have faith we tell you the Scripture speaks only of baptism of persons confessing sin professing faith that faith and baptism use still to go together as he that believeth and is baptized the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized if thou believest with all thy heart c. therefore those that believe not may not be baptized you tell us again of these places and of all that ever we bring out of Scripture where baptism is mentioned that they speak of adult persons of whom t is confessed by you that faith and confession and profession is required in order to baptism but not of infants that cannot perform them So Pareus in Vrsin Cate. p. 384. 385. and also many others and your answer is very true and grants all that we desire for indeed all the places where ever baptism is mentioned throughout the Scripture do speak of it as in relation to grown persons and not to infants therefore because the Scripture is wholly silent in such a thing we dare not meddle to baptize infants but as we grant your answer to be true so I hope you will grant it to be as true in our present case for if some of you when we call for faith to a persons baptism or else deny that person to be baptized say thus viz. true no baptism without faith of such of whom faith is required and who are capable to act it i. e. of men at years but infanâ—s being uncapable to act faith and it being not required of them therfore they may be baptized without it which conclusion you make without book to for the word warrants you not to make it why may not we when you call so universally for faith to every ones salvation or else saying assuredly they are damned return the like viz true no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it and of whom it s required but infants being uncapable to act it and it being not required of them therefore they may be saved without it Babist This conclusion is spoken without book and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours â—s sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith as of baptism upon faith and as little of salvation without faith as it doth of baptism without it therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptized without faith as you have to assert they may be saved without it Baptist. No I shall leave you behind here for sith the Scripture speaks of the impossibility of infants believing and yet with all of their saluation as your selves confesse in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdome of heaven but no where at all of their baptism it shews that they may be saved without believing but shews not that they may be baptized without it besides to hold any of them to be damned before they have by actual sin debard themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty and breach of Christian charity with you who yet confesse that all of them have not faith p. 19. but to hold they need not to be baptized cannot bear the like construction sith t is acknowledged by them that deny their bapâ—ism and by them also who absurdly assert to the contradiction of themselves that the denyal of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless though they die unbaptized so that whether we who hold that to them all belongs the kindome of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptized before they die or you that hold no salvation to them without faith and yet hold that all of them have not nay that very few of them for how few are believers infants to others have faith whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all or at least innumerable infants dying contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture and sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdome of heaven and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by your selves which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate till he appear to be in a bad and by actual sin to bar himself and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is this that they have right to the kingdome let the most simple but honest Reader judge between us As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5.18 Rom. 11.7 who urges the last of them I know not for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or
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 hearing 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 â—alse 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 over the heritage and over the faith of all civil powers and people teaching them instead of the true doctrine of the old ministers the traditions and commandements of men And so I have done both with the head of this third argument and with that long tail also that trails after there remains no more of it to be meddled with but a certain slender sting that sticks to this tail put forth against us with more length then strength in prosecution of the argument which I shall cut out into many pieces and after set upon each section severally and then I hope your great hope of help from these three unworthies will prove a forlorn hope indeed Review But to prosecute this Argument for the full satisfaction of the simple but honest Reader since there is no way to come to salvation but by justification and no justificatnon but by faith why should it be doubted by any but little infants which are ordained to salvation are also by faith made subjects of justification those soules which please God so well as they are to see him presently after their separation from the body why should they not be capable of faith without which the Apostle saith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Re-Review The Reader had need be honest for I dare say he will be simple enough that receives full satisfaction your way by your present prosecutions of it because there 's no way for salvation and justification for men that are actual sinners and capable to believe and to whom justification and remission is preached to the end that they might believe it to their comfort is there therefore no other way wherby God willing and ordaining to save little infants from eternal wrath can possibly or doth certainly save them that can neither sin or be preacht to nor believe but that very self same way of believing is he tied to that means to save infants by as we are tied to it in order to the saving of our selves viz. the way of faith if so why not to repentance and self denial also for both these are the way to us Act. 2.38.40 Mat. 16.24 and would it not shift a man out of his seven sences to hear such doctrine that infants as ever they will be saved dying infants must even in their infancy repent is it not manifold more suitable to reason and sense of Scripture that as infants so far as they are guilty become guilty unwittingly to themselves by the presentment and imputation of the first Adams sin without personal disobedience in themselves so also should be justified from that imputed sin by the presentment of the satisfaction and imputation of the righteousness of the second Adam as unwittingly to and without personal obedience in themselves and because without faith t is impossible to please God for such as have actually incurred his wrath such as come to him by prayer for these indeed must believe that is God and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him ther fore is it impossible for infants also who yet actually disspensed him nor yet are capable to come to him by belief or prayer Is that Scripture think you intended to infants for shame scope the Scripture a little better Review Is it not the
to believe the Scriptures which by necessary consequence confirm the thing we would leave the manner of doing it to him whose work it is the spirit of God who is able to do it we do it in other articles of faith and the resurrection of the body and ask not how it can be done because the Scriptures have delivered it and this of the renovation of soul is no lesse Miracle Re-Review And well may it be difficult to understand how faith should be bred in infants and doubted that they have it not since if we have learned to believe the Scriptures they are so far from confirming such a thing so much as by any possible or probable consequence that by necessary consequence they contradict it while they tell us that there is but one way whereby faith cometh and that such a one as it can never possibly come to infants in viz. hearing the word of God preached not inwardly by the spirit only as you prate below for he speaks not of such a thing there Rom. 10. but outwardly by some visible or audible creaturely ministration as is plain by the words foregoing viz. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard how hear without a preacher how preach except they be sent And whereas you tell us the spirit is able to work faith in them therefore we must leave the manner of doing it to him not offering as it were to pry into it Good Sirs spare your labor talk not about the unknown manner of a matter as unknown as the other for the thing it self is not yet clear in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither doth the spirits ability to do it prove that it is done any more then it proves there is a 1000 worlds or that all men have faith because these things are possible to be effected by him but the evidence that he doth such a thing which if it be wanting as it is in this case it is but egregious folly to argue it from the other so as to say God can do it therefore though the manner how he doth it is not known to us yet we must not meddle further then to believe it is leaving the manner of doing it to him Moreover Sirs assure your selves of this that in some sort the manner is usually manifested to us in the word as well as the matter of such things as we are there called upon to believe even that miraculous work of the resurrection of the body which is your present instance wherein 1 Cor. 15.35 to the end the Lord condescendeth at large to explain the manner oâ— it as well as to prove the matter of it before and whereas you say you leave the manner of the doing things when it is nor clear to you to the spirit himself whose the work is in other articles of faith I wonder you are so forgetful as to bear such false witnesse as this against your selves when as in the point of dying infants salvation which for the matter of it is so clear that you cannot deny it though not clear to you in the manner you leave not the manner of it to God himself whose work it is to save them but limit him to the way of Church-membership faith baptism and holinesse c. whereas the word that was not at all for infants instruction declares to men and women what way he will save them in asking in many places of your book how can infants be justified without faith how can Turks and Pagans infants be saved what hopes of our infant salvation without baptism and all this too though there is no fear of their damnation by actual sin though it also ask you plainly enough how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard and consequently how can they be saved by faith though it tell you also plainly enough Act. 8. where that question is expressely askt what hinders c. even because they yet believe not with all their heart you had said true therefore had your words bin thus viz. we do it not in other articles of faith And whereas you say the renovation of a soul is no lesse miracle then the matter of infants having faith it seems you confesse it to be a miracle that faith should be in infants and for my part I fully confâ—sse it with you for surely t is such a thing as was seldome or never yet seen since the world began to this day but the renovation i. e. conversion of soules of men and women depraved and corrupted as infants never were by any actual sin p. 5. is no lesse miracle indeed then the other for the one is not at all and the other where it is is yet no miracle at all but a matter that happens ever and anon in the ordinary course of things as a miracle doth not and besides you are of those I am sure who are in the mind that miracles are ceased And lastly for you to sprinkle all the new born infants in all the Christian nations at this hour as taking it for granted that these all have faith for so you suppose though you see not any individual or particular infant hath it that is brought to you and yet hold infants faith to be a miracle and yet to hold miracles to be ceased also it is if not miraculum yet mirandum monstrum et horrendum at least to me i. e. a marvelous work and a wonder that ever the wisdome of wise men should so perish and the understanding of prudent men so come to nought Thus having done with your forlorn hope I le march on now to give checkmate to that wretched crew of cavillers that are so impudent as to be responsive against reason and its Regiment and to undertake to make it good against them that infants have faith and must have baptism Review The objection that reason makes against it will easily be answered it is done for satisfaction to the Reader Re-Review Yea Sirs is Reason in so little request with you as that you not onely dare so audaciously ingage against but also set so light by it as to say its objections are easily answered let it be put to the voâ—e if you please throughout the whole earth whether you deserve the title of good Logicians i. e. Reasonable men who here professedly wrestle against reason it self and whether your faith can possibly be found any other then faction and meer fiction against which Reason it self is by your selves confest to be opponent I confesse I have heard men called divines speak of many points of Religion and faith as above reason but I yet never met with men under the name of ministers so far devoid of Reason as to say that Religion and faith are against Reason till I met with you whose faith and practise of baptism to believers infants upon account of their appearing to believe more plainly then the profession of persons at years can make it appear
the cause of their crucifyings of Christ who depart from it as for us we are crucifyed dead and buried with Christ by baptism Rom. 6. for we are baptized into his death and that but once because Christ dyed but once and yet once because Christ dyed once and that is more then any Rantized Priest in Christendome can say of himself for he is not so much as once baptized at all Review 3. It makes them count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing for if it be holy what need they repeat it if unholy how do they prophane it Re-review How far forth Anabaptism properly so called i. e the repetition of baptism without such warrantable ground as it was repeated upon Act. 19.5 doth saving the nonsense that is in that expression repeat the bloud of the Covenant and so count it an unholy thing I am not so much a friend to it as to gainsay but sure I am that A-no-baptism and such yours is doth count not only the bloud of the Covenant but also that holy ordinance of baptizing believers which is the token of it an unholy thing for if it be holy why do you neglect it if unholy in so saying oh how do you prophane it Review 4. It makes the Covenant of the Gospel worse then the legal this taking in all Children into the visible Church the Anabaptists excluding them making them no better than Turks and Pagans Re-review What again Review 5. It destroyes all the comforts that afflicted parents can have â—ver their deceased children the grounds of them being destroyed their right in the covenant and promises of Christ. Re-review What again Review 6. It unchristens the whole Church of God for many hundreds of years together and calls in question the truth of Christs promises of being present with his Church to the end and guiding it by his spirit into all truth Re-review What again what ore ore and ore again are you drawn so dry that you are fain to fill up to swell up your Review into the magnitude of a sheet with old ends and pieces and patches of things that were precedent or did these three Renegadoes fearing a storm run from their old ranks hither to secure themselves by crouding in amongst the rest of this rubbish stuff for every one of them have faced us once or twice a piece before page 6.7.12.13 neverthelesse sith I meet with them here again I le have a word or two with every of them now To the first I say thus if the legal covenant did take in all children into the visible Church as you say as indeed it did i. e. as well the children of unbelieving as of believing Jewes neither had the one of these a strawes more right to circumcision then the other then sith the Covenant of the Gospel is inlarged and communicated to both Jewes and gentiles between whom the partition wall is broken down and they both made one And sith now by the Priests own confession it stands in the same way to be administred among the Jewes and Gentiles as that legal Covenant did for a time among the Jewes only the Priest himself makes the covenant of the Gospel worse then the legal that taking in at least to the visible Church all children of that people to whom it extended i. e. the Jewes without any exception without any respect to the parents being godly or ungodly bâ—lievers or unbelievers the priests contrariwise under the Gospel Covenant which extends and belongs to the whole world i. e. both Jewes and Gentiles 2 Cor. 5.19 1 Iohn 2.2 and to all nations as well as one Mat. 28.18 Mark 16.15 Luke 24.47 excluding now the Major part yea almost all children by their doctrine viz. the children of unbelieving Gentiles of heathens Turks and Pagans and unbelieving Jewes too which for all their parents wickednesse and unbelief were wont to be received into the Church under the Law and this not onely from the visible Church neither for that were more tollerable of the two and can do them no hurt if it be all but also from the Kingdome of heaven and salvation it self in their cruel Charity before they have by actuall sinne deserved to be exempted And this I speak not as believing any infants in infancy to have right to entrance into the visible Church and fellowship thereof here on Earth though yet I believe all infants as well as some dying infants and before they have deserved exemption and damnation by actual rebellion to have according to the general declaration of Scripture right of entrance into the kingdome of heaven but that I may discover the unruliness of the Priest who wherein he judges others of streightning the Gospel condemnes himself who undertakes to make laws prescribe rules impose principles upon all men and yet breaks his own lawes varies from his own rules straggles from his own principles through blindness as much as any other whom he blames for it To the second thus if it be so indeed as you told us once before it is p. 7. and here tell us over again that we may know your mind in it that to deny baptism to infants before they dy doth ipso facto destroy all the comforts all the hopes that any parents can possibly have of the salvation of their infants that dy unbaptized and all the grounds of those hopes i. e. all those childrens right in the covenant and promises of Christ and consequently this necessarily followes doth subject them unavoidably unto eternal damnation Then first as I told you once or twice before so I tell you now again that 't is your selves and not we who are the men that say no baptism no salvation for say you there is no ground for parents to hope their children can be saved no though those parents be believers though those children believe also themselves and so both by birth and by their parents faith and their own faith too have right as you say the infants of Christians have in the Covenant and promises of Christ yet they must damn for all this if baptism be denyed them and if they dye without it their parents must mourne without hope of their Salvation This is your judgement of Charity concerning unbaptized infants even of never so believing parents having also the habit of faith in themselves for though parents believe and believe their children to have faith too and right to salvation yet deny them baptism and all the other notwithstanding there 's no hope of them the parents can upon no good ground be comforâ—ed concerning them but that they are damned T is you therefore that place such high and mighty necessity in the bare outward dispensation of the ordinance that are so for the ceremony that hold that the substance doth no good without it why else do you say that be there never so many grounds otherwise on which to hope infants salvation viz. their parents faith and their own faith and
it that baptism was not only by dipping then I hope we shall have your answer to them too and the rather because they are of some weight and therefore you are the more willing to slip by them First saith he if the way of baptism were only dipping then the Baptizer must put the baptized over head in the water and after a space receive them up again otherwise he could not say in your sense I baptize thee but we read of no such thing any where in Scripture we find Christ and the Eunuch going to the water and coming thence but neither John nor Philip putting them into the water or taking them from thence p. 8. Baptist. I strange that Mr. Blake should grant as he doth above p. 6. that Philip and the Eunuch are fitly said to go into the water and yet say so shortly after we find no more then their going to the water and from it again how fitly can they be said to go into the water and out of it that go but to and from it I have shewed already but t is more strange to me that he should so far forget himself as to say we read of no such thing in Scripture as of Iohn and Phillips putting Christ and the Eunuch into the water or taking them from thence for we read plainly that Christ was baptized of Iohn into Iordan and in Iordan and we read that Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water and Philip baptized him and that Christ came up out of the water and that Philip and the Eunuch came up out of the water if all this be not partly an expression partly an implication of the same thing that Mr. Blake saies we no where read of then I shall never trust my spectacles more for what shall we think was done to Christ by Iohn when it is said he was baptized by him into Iordan if he was not dipped overwhelmed put under the water was he sprinkled into Iordan and what shall we think Philip did to the Eunuch when it is said he baptized him after they were both gone down into the water if he did not put him under it did he no more then sprinkle or pour a few drops of water on him either of those might have been done as easily and more if they had never gone into the water yea if they had never went so much as to the water at all and when it is said of Christ and the Eunuch that they came up out of the water is it not necessarily implyed and therefore what need it be expressed that Iohn and Philip who put them under the water did take them up again after a space and not hold them alwaies under it for if they had how they could have come up out of it I know not Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture then he did Mr. Cook from whom he borrowed this Argument and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden or else Mr. Simpson stole it for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his which he desired should be communicated he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water and took them up again but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you Rantist Now you talk of dipping under water and taking up thence again I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water and to lift him up again above the water sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water and stand there up to the middle and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under by the administrator but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others is there any command for them to go into the water Baptist. I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden and you have laid your heads together you jump so right in one mind in this matter for in this manner and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above divinity admits not say you of se-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call se-baptism I know not but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism yet we have president so plain as is equivalent witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water and yet saving your ignorance which permits not the baptized to be agents Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ and that is sufficient that betakes himself not onely to the water but also so farre into it that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back and then dash him in against his will and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed besides doth the condemned mans being agent and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head as to ly down and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself what dribling Divinity is this Rantist Mr. Blake saies further that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments and lay them aside for that businesse but we find no such thing mentioned we find saith he one iâ— the new testament stoned and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of unclothing for that end nor yet of
that total dipping was not the way of the primitive baptism viz. because the conversion of disciples and so consequently their baptism hapned sometimes to be when there was no season for dipping the element of water being over cold for that service he speaks thus in way of answer to an objection viz. if any object that in those Hotter Countryes there was no danger in the coldest times I answer saith he The Commission being for all nations disciples were made in all Countries how soon came the word to this nation c. In which words he is void of common sense that doth not discern Mr. Blake siding with us saying that the way of baptism should be one in all ages and places and asserting quite contrary to his fellow disputers against dipping so far as to confute them to our hands for whereas they all uno ore with one consent cry out that the reason why they baptized by dipping in the primitive time was because Judea and the regions round about were Hot Countryes but England is a colder climate and therefore we need not baptize the same way as they dâ—d he tells them plainly that the heat of those Countries could be no reason why they should use totall dipping then more then other nations because the commission for baptizing was one and the same to all Nations and disciples were then made in all Countryes as well as in Iudea in cold Countries as well as in hot yea how soon saies he came the word to England it self baptism therefore in his account should be the same in England as in Iudea not by dipping in Iudea more then in England because that was a hot Country and this a colder but the commission is a like in all places cold and hot this is the sense those words of his sound forth but if Mr. Blake were silent in this case the Scripture speaks loud enough that there is but one baptism for all Nations and no Rantism ordained for any for then the commission must include Christs willingnesse to dispense with colder climates in this point and in our understandings at least run thus viz. go and teach all nations baptizing them that live in hotter countryes and rantizing them that live in colder climates he that believeth and is baptized if he live in Iudea or any Hoter Countrey or is but rantized if he live in England or any cold Countrey shall be saved in which silly unsound sense to understand those Scriptures is to be silly indeed and without either sense or understanding and yet thus it may be understood if this be the reason why they in Iudea must be dipt and we in England must be no more then sprinkled for fear of danger viz. because Iudea was a warm Countrey and England a cold one for either Christ did ordain the thing to be done in this different manner in different regions or he did not if he did then it must be first some way or other intimated in the commission but there it is not and secondly it must be done accordingly in this different manner in the execution or else they are high transgressors that do but rantize in Iudaea and they high transgressors and so Mr. Blake and Mr. Cook say they are with a witnesse but will never prove it that baptize by total dipping in England but if he did not ordain it to be done in such several waies in several Regions according as they are hotter or colder but in one way only in all places then that one way is by baptizing i. e. dipping onely or else by rantizing onely and if by baptizing onely then they are high undertakers that take upon them to correct Christs commission saying t is better and safer to rantize only in some places if by rantizing onely then non tutum est ludere cum saâ—ris they were vain persons that made a Maygame and matter of pleasure of the ordinances of Christ that in Iudaea and the hotter Countreys would chuse to be baptized for delight and coolnesse sake by totall dipping and bathing in water rather then otherwise when Christ ordained no more then sprinkling or infusion Secondly Sirs you grant so much as to say possibly probably it might be done by dipping in Iudaea and the Hot Regions round about but may not be in these colder pray tell me from the bottom of your consciences without stifling them or shuffling with them so as not to suffer them to speak what constructions must be made of those Scriptures which we have canvast to and fro which relate the manner of their baptizings that then were viz. Matth. 3.16 Mark 1.9.10 Act. 8.38 where it is said of the people and Christ that they were baptized in Iordan into Iordan went down into the water and came up out of the water yea were buried with Christ in baptism Rom. 6. Collo 2. yea and of all the other Scriptures that tell us of the baptism that was dispensed in those Hot Countries as Iohn 3.23 Act. 16.13.14.15.33 where it is said Iohn baptized in Aenon because there was much water and Paul went out to a Rivers side and spake the word at which time Lidya and hers were baptized and a while after the Jaylor and his tell me I say what construction all these and all the Scriptures that talk of baptism as dispensed in those Hot Countryes must consequently bear if it be once granted that such total dipping was the manner of baptizing in the primitive times in those Hotter Countreys must they not then needs have the senses we put upon them viz. that Christ and the rest did really descend into the water were buried under the water and raised again and not those forced senses into which you would rest them to your own ends viz. that they went but to the water and there were wetted onely by sprinkling or pouring and from the water again without going into it or being dipped in it if you give us one for granted viz. that in Iudaea and those Hot Countreyes as Rome Phillippi and Collosse the manner of baptizing was by going down into the water and being dipped therein in this Sacramental washing you must necessarily give up also all the interest that you claim in those Scriptures for sprinkling they being no other then the relation of what baptism was done in Iudea and those Hot Coun-Countreys and not what was done in cold if then it be supposed that baptism by submersion and not aspersion was the custome in the Scripture times it must semblably be supposed that the Scriptures themselves that story out the baptism of those times do speak of that Manner of baptism that then was and not of another unlesse we suppose it must be interpreted as speaking of another thing then that it only speaks of and so consequently this Scripture this Testament must be supposed to be wholly on our sides and to speak only of mens baptism by submersion and you must suppose out some New Testament of
so far as to undertake that the Church or Churches where such are shall declare every such person as hath wrought such abomination incommunicable without solemn repentance for that sordid practise or be themselves incommunicable by all other Churches But I beliâ—ve he cannot do it though I cannot positively possibly prove a Negative much more am I confident that he cannot make good his charge against us viz. that it is our ordinary and usual practise for besides no lesse then between one and two hundred which in grosse I can ghesse at which with these hands I have baptized I have seen with these eyes many a one more baptized by others yet never did I see male or female baptized naked to this hour nor next to naked neither if I understand Mr. Baxs meaning in that bawbling phrase of next to naked Yea I suppose I may safely say my converse for these 5 years together and upward hath been with them that are commonly called Anabaptists and my businesse hath been for so long time at least among that people more then I perceive Mr. Baxs hath and much more then among any other people being more or lesse acquainted with a score of their Congregations yet howbeit Mr. Blake flings a little at us too and hath his fingers so far in this spatter as to say page 8. Those that have put a kind of necessity upon dipping have spoken much of being received naked â—n baptism I never heard the least speech of such a thing nor a syllable among them to such a purpose And if Mr. Ba. cannot prove it to be our ordinary known practise to dip naked then in the name of the Lord Jesus before whom he and I shall shortly both appear I intreat Mr. Ba. who as concerning zeal yet persecutes the Church of God poures out reproach upon true Christians giving his voice for them with as much modesty as Haman Est. 3.8 as for high way Murderers alias that they may all suffer execution being through blindnesse and excaecation exceedingly mad against them that of an ignorant Saul he would become a seeking a searching a seeing a preaching Paul of the faith which he hitherto destroies and though he verily thinks with himself that he ought to do what he does against the truth yet I beseech him to know that he is but as others have been bâ—fore him zealous of God but not according to knowledg sith it is but of the Traditions of his Fathers Gal. 1.14 And sith he avers from his heart page 129. that for his part he neither knowes the day nor year when he began to be sincere no nor the time when he began to professe himself a Christian in which I believe him if he mean a Christian in Scripture sense I begg of him in the bowels of Christ Jesus that he would now begin to be sine cerâ a Christian indeed not by the halves but altogether for there is yet a mixture of much wax among his honey and of much antichristianism in his Christianity and as sure as he is ignorant when he began to professe to be a Christian so sure I am that he never yet began to professe to be a Christian in truth who knowes not that ever he was otherwise but hath and holds his profession as the Turk and Jew do theirs viz. for the true one at a venture because they were born and bred in it and received it by Tradition onely from forefathers And as he will prove himself to be what he professes to be viz. a hater of ignorant violence so I advise him to be a hater also of violent ignorance of which hateful quallity in my mind he hath as much as any of the greedy gang Gangraena it self onely excepted not excepting Dr. Featley Dr. Bastwick Mr. Bayliff Mr Pagit not any among the proud pack of Prelates that most perheminently prate against the Gospel And sith Mr. Ba. saies this much more that it is very suspicious and to him unsavory that Mr. T. should say no more but that it is not necessary that they be baptized naked as if he took it to be lawfull though not necessary and thinkes he should rather have given his Testimony against it as sinful and expressed some dislike if he do indeed dislike and judge it sinful and if he do not he dare boldly say he is very far gone let me say thus much more that then it is as suspicious and to me unsavory that Mr. Ba. should say no more but that it is a breach of the seventh commandement ordinarily to baptize the naked as if he took it to be lawful to do it sometimes but not ordinarily me thinks he should giue his Testimony against it as sinful to do it at all and express some dislike if he do indeed dislike and judge it sinful and if he do not I dare boldly say he is gone farther in filth then Mr. T. or any baptized person ever went yet save such as are gone quite off from the way of truth to the dishonour of it since they owned it whose sin yet the more shame for Mr. Ba. he in his next argument laies to the truths charge and theirs who both own and honour it by abiding in it who are lesse gladly and more sadly sensible of their sins and villanies then Mr. Ba. can be by how much by reason of their lasciviuos wayes which many follow the way of truth they walk in is as was foretold it should be 2 Pet. 2.1.2.3 by Mr. Ba. and his admirers evil spoken of But if Mr. Ba. shall still say it is suspicious and unsavory for Mr. T. to say the one but not for himself to say the other and will none of the foregoing advice to repent and be baptized but rather reject the counsel of God against himself being not baptized because he hath experience by hearsay that we baptize females naked then a rod and a rod for the back of Mr. Baxter who pardons to himself the same defects wherein he holds others guilty who so slenderly takes up every tattle against the truth and proclaimes it for truth to the whole world for the simple believeth every word but the prudent man looks well to his going Prov. 14.15 a prudent man foresees evil and secures himself but the simple passe on and are punished Prov. 22.3 As for his next and last argument against us which he drawes from the judgments of God that ever follow us wherein he jumbles all kinds of sectaries into the name of Anabaptists as the Antibaptists use commonly to do witnesse Featley and others and makes them bear the burden of all the mischiefs that were ever perpetrated by all the mad braind men in all the world as Iohn of Leyden and all the rest of his ranting strain it is scarce current consequence to say Gods judgements are upon a people therefore that people are none of his for all things come alike to all none knowes love or hatred by what
appear concerning them Mr. Baxter professeth that it is utterly unknown to any man on earth and unrevealed in the word whether God give infants any inherent spiritual grace or not p 301. Therefore to salve his baptism of infants that have not that grace and faith in them that is prerequired to be in persons to be baptized as a condition he very goodly tells us that by grace and faith being prerequired as a condition he means either in the party or another for him so then though infants have no faith in themselves yet o mirandum they have faith in the loines i. e. in the hearts of their parents and so are to be baptized thâ—y are buryed in the dipping of the Ministers hand saith Featley and believe by the faith of their Parents saith Mr. Baxter Thus oh how these men who more stink of the Schooles then skill in the Scriptures are at variance about their own inventions bending their brains some one way some another to botch up their businesse of infant-baptism and yet as fast as one builds up another of them saves us a labour and razes and pulls down to our hands oh what stoch what stuff what stirs what strife what stickling what striking flatly against each others principles what a ditty what a do is here among them as if the Divines were all mad so let all the fraternity of divines be divided o God and fall out ever about their own falsities till they find thy truth and never let them agree better among themselves on what account to baptize infants till they ashamed of themselves and people ashamed of waiting on the Seers for determination of what is truth be all driven to confesse as blessed be thy name Mr. Baxter doth already p. 301. That they find it a hard controversie to prove infant baptism it is so dark in the Scripture much more a hard task to prove different uses of it to men and infants as needs they must if they prove it to be of use to infants for it signifies not at all to them as it does to men and so to conclude to the freeing of themselves from that puzzle and perplexity and fire of contention that now they fry in for their hatred of that one onely plain way of truth that leades to piece that verily t is not thy will that any infant at all should be baptized and let Mr. Ba. who was once in doubt of infant baptism upon sight of the slender grounds that other divines did hold it from till satan seduced him back again to the belief of it again be perswaded if it be thy will on sight of the more weak and slender principles which with much ado he hath found out whereon to satisfy himself and others and to sit still in the shadow of that superstition to be not almost onely but altogether saving their sufferings from him such as thy servants are whom he yet vilifies what he can As then to Mr. Baxters Appendix of Animadversions on Mr. Bedfords Dr. Burges and Dr. Wards absurdities about baptismal regeneration of infants t is no matter to us yea I conceive it a likely means of it self to make wise men renounce Infants baptism that read there at what ods they are and how they wrangle among themselves that own it beside sith he that passing by meddles with a strife not belonging to him is like one that takes a dog by the ears Pro. 26.17 I le passe by for my part and not meddle with it at all Fourthly another part of Mr. Baxters book is a small slender tract of about one leaf long penned in proof of baptisms abiding a standing ordinance of Christ to the worlds end and therein so far am I from excepting and contradicting that I rather approve it considering the high head of contradiction that in this last loose age already is and within a while much more and mote headily will be made against it and how the subtility of Satan is such that sith he can uphold his kingdome now no longer by his old souldiers the Rantizers which changed the lawes and ordinances of Christs kingdome he seeks to do it by erecting a new moddle of men I mean the seekers and Ranters who rase the very foundations of it and how sith he can prevail no more to deceive the nations from the narrowway of truth by his old Spiritualty the spiteful Priest he hath spit a new Spiritualty out of his mouth from which as from a greater Carnalty then the other the earth that it may be ripe for the sickle as it must be at Christs coming shall abound with abomination i. e. they that separate themselves from the true Church after their separation with them from the false sensual having not the spirit yet pretending more highly to it then ever any considering all this I say I seriously side with Mr. Ba. as to that subject and to shew him who simply supposes we are all a people posting towards the pulling down of Christs ordinances because some do and because all of us as we are sworn to iâ— seek what we are able to pull down mens to shew him I say notwithstanding his conceits to the contrary how close we keep according to the counsel both of Peter and Iude in that behalf 2 Pet. 3.2 Iude 17. to the commandements of Christ and his Apostles in these last daies wherein they declare that others should depart from and despise them to shew him also how little reason he hath to charge us with their evils who are to use his own phrase p. 26 above ordinances i. e. above obedience to God and so Gods themselves I intend God willing beâ—ore this work escape my hand that is now under it to bestow some few lines on the same subject having been often requested to it by others in vindication to the truth Fifthly as for the forepart of Mr. Baxs book for more then a fourth part of it is worn out in Preamâ—ular passages apologies epistles to the Church at Kederminster at Bewdley which Churches alias parishes of Kâ—d and Bew for all the people till of late that some few have separated themselves together to Mr. T. are Church-members with Mr. Ba. in those two places p. 280. which parishes I say howbeit sowing pillowes that they may sleep the more seeurely in superstition Mr. Ba. by a dedication of his doings to the Church at Ked to the Church at Bew. would fain flatter into a faith that each of them is a Church of Iesus Christ yet I must crave leavâ— to inform those Churches from Christ that as yet they are no other then Churchâ—s of the Popes calling and constitution for the parochial posture of Christning and so inchurching of all that are born within the bounds and barely abide within the precincts of the parish had its order from the head of those Churches viz. the Vicar of Christ but not at all from Christ Iesus himself yea and though there may be many
Ba. argues from the samenesse of the Olive tree the Jew was broken off from and the Gentile was grafted into that therefore as infants stood members then so they must now I answer it is true there is some kind of indentity between the Jewish and the Gospel Church but not such as concludes an indentity of membership for infants they are the same ingenere visiblis Ecclesiae they agree in the common name of Church and visible Church elected and segregated from the world but there 's little else that I know of wherin they are the same they differ in circumstantials in their accidental forms in their officers ordinances customs constitutions subjects members that being constituted of one whole nation of people or fleshly seed of Abraham taken out from all other nations this of a spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. believers scaterred here and there taken out of any nation as they happen to be called almost every nation some the ceremony of inchurching Abrahams own much more any other mans meer fleshly seed being ceased Mr. Bax. peddles on apace and brings a company of Scripures in proof of infants Church-membership and baptism which though he stile them as indeed his whole book Plain Scripture proofs for those two yet a man that is not minded to force the Scripture into the Service of his own fancy because it does not serve it freely may look till dooms day before he see in them any plain perspicuous proof of either one of these or of the other Christ saith he Mat. 23.37 would have gathered Ierusalem oft as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings but they would not therefore sure he would not have put them or their infants out of the Church the strength of the consequence lies here saith he he would have gathered whole Ierusalem and that into the visible Gospel Church therefore infants also Now that Christ does not speak of whole Ierusalem here as he saith he does both men and infants the circumstances of the text do fully evince to us for he speaks of the same persons he speaks to and the same persons he complains of saying ye would not the same and no other are they to whom he speaks when he saies Oh Ierusalem how often would I have gathered c. but those were men and women only whom he called to believed in him and not infants Again he gathered them by preaching of the word into baptism and membership and received all that came and no more viz. sometimes the children and not the parents sometimes the parents and not the children so that a mans foes for the truths sake sometimes were they of his own family his own flesh therefore he offered not to gather infants for he preacht not to them nor called them at all nor were any more baptized and added to the Church-fellowship in the Gospel then they that gladly received the word that did not infants yea 3000 were gathered into the first Gospel Church by preaching and baptism in one day and never an infant among them all for they surely did not continue in fellowship in breaking of bread and prayers Acts 2. Therefore whereas Mr. Ba. in his Epistle to the parish of Bewdley challenges Mr. T. to name him one particular Church since Adam either of Jewes or Gentiles where infants were not Church-members if they had any infants till 200 years ago I name him the first Gospel Church that ever was Act. 2. in which there was not one infant yea there was three thousand baptized in one day and it is a hazard but that those three thousand had many perhaps no lesse than three thousand infants belonging to them all and yet as Mr. Cotton thinkes so think I that none of their infants were baptized with them much lesse were added with them to the Church or continued with them in fellowship as the whole Gospel Church did in breaking of bread and prayers yea though there was no infants in that Church which was gathered at Ierusalem it self to which Christ saies how oft would I have gathered thy children c. and therefore Mr. Baxs sense is very sinister so I challenge him again to shew me not by such dubious muddy cloudy circumlocutory inconsequential consequences as he doth but undeniable evidences any one of all the Gospel Churches of the primitive times either of Jewes or Gentiles which we are all to reâ—orm by viz. Ierusalem Rome Corinth Galatia Philippi Ephesus Thessalonica or any other to fellowship in which there was one infant baptized added and admitted and I shall cry him mercy and lay down the Cudgells at his feet and acknowledge he hath broke my pate The next Scripture he uses is more impertinent then this yet Mr. Ba. makes a certain shift to squeese an argument out of it and to compel it invita minervâ not a little against its own intent and meaning to corroborate his crooked crazie creed concerning the inchurching and cristening of infants viz. Rev. 11.15 whence he thus Syllogizes If the kingdoms of this world either are or shall be the kingdomes of the Lord and of his Christ then infants also must be members of his kingdom i. e. the visible Church the Antecedent is the words of the text indeed as he saies but the sequel is so sure and follows so firmly in his fancy that he saies nothing can be said against it that is sense or reason but indeed it self is against both sense and reason Who would ever think if the word did not declare that the things of wisdome are hid from the wise and prudent that such a disputer as Mr. Ba. holds himself to be should deduce the now membership of infants from such a premise as this viz. because the kingdomes of this world are or else shall be the kindomes of God and Christ what 's this I trow toward the eviction of the other much every way saith Mr. Ba. yea so much that for any thing he can see this text alone were sufficient to decide the whole controversie whether infants must be Church members Amen so beit say I let this Scripture decide it and let 's see what Mr. Ba. saies on t If they can say quoth he by kingdoms is meant here some part of the kingdom excluding all infants such men may make their own creed on those termes let the Scripture say what it will I know in some places the word kingdome and Ierusalem c. is taken for a part but if we must take words alwayes improperly because they are taken so sometimes saith he then we shall not know how to understand any Scripture so of necessity it must be understood properly i. e in its prime signification of the whole kingdoms and whole Ierusalem with him and not improperly for a part onely though Mr. Blake to Mr. Black saith upon occasion of our pleading for the proper signification of baptize nothing more ordinary then to have words used out of their prime signification whereby
the mercy here promised to thousands of them that love God necessarily to include church-membership he confesses at last that it lies doubtful in the text what mercy in particular is there meant which if he do then t is not necessary that church-membership be implied in it for there may be much mercy yea special yea eternal saving mercy shewed to persons to whom the mercy of membership in the visible church and baptism is not vouchsafed or else what becomes of such infants as notwithstanding your timely admittance do yet dy without both membership and baptism are they shut out of the kingdom of heaven Secondly he confesses it is doubtfull in the text to how many generations God shewes mercy to the children of parents that love him whether it be to the remote or neerest progeny onely and though he passe his judgement that it is onely to immediate children of godly parents that the promise in the commandment is made yet thereby he contradicts his own sense of the place and overthrowes all that he contends for in that if the words were as he would have them read viz. I shew mercy to a thousand Generations or to the thousandth generation of them that love me it were evident that he meant not the next generation only for that to a thousand generation should signifie no more then one generation to come is most irrational and plain brutish to imagine and if he say t is to a thousand generations if such children succeed their parents in godlynesse that sense excludes infants quite from the mercy here promised and extends it to such children onely as are at years and that on condition of being godly themselves and on that condition of being godly themselves God shewes mercy to the immediate seed of the very wickedest parents as well as of the Godliest parents in the world But in very deed to put him out of all his doubts at once about this place viz. whether God mean the remote or immediate children I desire Mr. Baxter to consider that this promise is not made to any mans posterity at all but only to all such individual persons as love him and keep his commandements for the words are not as he reads and construes them viz. I will shew mercy to a thousand generations of them but to thousands of them that love me i. e. to thousands of such people such persons as love me and keep my Commandments and so if the mercy were that of membership yet it were nothing concerning infants in their infancy at all but concerning thousands of such individual persons as love him and keep his commandments or else God must shew mercy to all infants in their infancy to this day meerly for their father Noahs sake though the immediate parents be wicked and if he he do not he shewes not mercy to the thousandth generation of believers infants there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day We may see what little plain proof these men can find for their false way of inchurching and baptizing of infants in the New Testament in that they are faine to fetch it so far off as the old thus doth not Mr. Ba. onely but others also as well as he who would certainly never look for it so far behind as he second commanment if they could easily find it neerer hand among the rest this mindes me of one of more then ordinary note viz. Dr. Channell of Petworth in Sussex who Ianuary the first 1651. in a publique discourse with my unworthy self being desired to assign some particular place of Scripture where Christ commands the practise of infant-baptism assigned the second commandment to whom as I said then before hundreds of people so I testify here again before the whole world that if any man see infants baptism commanded in the second Commandment it is because his eyes are out for though he tell me that the generall scope of the second Commandment is to command all Gods people to observe all Gods institutions from time to time yet I tell him again as also I did then that infant baptism is none of those institutions yea I tell him yet further and Mr. Bax. also that unlesse it can be made appear by plainer Scripture proofs then ever were yet brought by either of them that Christ Jesus injoined the baptizing and inchurching of infants or that its any other then a tradition of man and an addition to the Gospel which was not so from the beginning and that is more then either of them will ever make plainly to appear the second Commandement doth rather forbid them both yea Ah si fas dicere sed fas the second commandement the general scope of which as their own selves expound it is to prohibit all will worship and superstition all serving of God after our own invention all customes devices innovations Traditions of men all addiâ—ion to and alterations of Christs will and Testament all teaching other doctrine then is contained in the word doth forbid it and therefore as haled in by head and shoulders to serve the turn of these men and to help to uphold them in their rantizing of infants into the same visible body with them whom yet they deny to drink with them into the same spirit as all that are baptized into the same body are to do 1 Cor. 12. which infellowshipping persons by the halves into Gospel participation if it be of Christ what else is of man I plainly know not His 17 plain Scripture-lesse proof for infants Church-membership and baptism is drawn from Psalm 37.26 where it is said that the seed of the Righteous are blessed whence he argues as before and therefore need not have made a distinct Argument of this if God have pronounced the seed of the righteous blessed then certainly they are members of his visible Church its absurd once to imagine quoth he that god should pronounce a society blessed and take them for none of his visible Church But I am ashamed of such trifling stuff such straw and stubble as he here builds upon as if God himself can no way be said to blesse the seed of the righteous unlesse he require them to be baptized and inchurched visibly in their infancy as if God had but one blessing even that of baptism and church-membership upon which all other blessings are so eternally intailed even to infants that such of them as attain not to an actual inrerest in these are ipso facto accursed in all respects else that for ever wheras to say nothing how that phrase the seed of the righteous may be taken for the race of righteous ones that succeed one another in righteousnesse as well as a seed of evil doers Is. 1.4 for the whole race of evill doers that succeed their fore-fathers in evil doing for these indeed I take to be the seed to which the Scripture oft pronounces blessing and cursing and not alwayes the meer natural seed of good men and
bad for then there is manifest falsehood in many promises and threats the natural seed of righteous men often perishing and being not counted their own fathers children unlesse they be like them in righteousnesse as Iohn 8.39 Christ denies Abrahams natural children to be Abrahams children and blessed with him because they did not as Abraham did and contrary wise the natural seed of the wicked prospering when they do well contrary to Prov. 2.21.22 Is. 20.14 Ps. 37 20. if the word seed were there taken for the natural seed where it is said the seed of evill doers shall never be renowned And so the seed of the serpent and the children of the devil expresses those that do his works to say nothing I say of this which yet is enough to blunt the edge of Mr. Bas. argument grant the word seed here to be taken for the natural seed of the righteous even those in infancy may be many wayes blessed though they neither be baptized in infancy nor inchurched yea they may be blessed with eternal salvation dying in infancy without either baptism or membership in the visible Church for I hope you will not say those 1000s of Jewes and belieuers infants that have died before circumcision baptism and visible admission are damned without any more ado because they fell short of your admired membership and if these be blessed with salvation to whom you delay baptism why not those to whom we deny it doth our denying baptism to an infant before he dies send him to hell sooner then your delaying it till he be dead But however the seed of the righteous may be blessed with many temporal blessings as provision fruitfulnesse multiplication and yet not be taken into the visible Church and to say the truth if Mr. Ba. had not been resolved to wrest this Scripture besides its true sense to botch up his proofs into a multitude he might easily have seen by consultation with the verse before that it is not such a thing as membership that is here meant by the word blessed but meer matter of outward sustentation I never saw the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread he is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed i. e. provided for and preserved from beggery and considered by others in time of adversity as he considered others in the like case And lastly whereas he challenges us to shew where ever God pronounced any blessed and yet took them for none of his visible Church saying t is absurd once to imagine it that he did I assert it is most absurd in him to imagine the contrary for God himself by promise pronounced Ishmael blessed saying as for Ishmael behold I haved blessed him and I will make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly and make him a nation because he is thy seed and this at the very same time when he denied to establish the Covenant with him which he establisht with Isaac and commanded that he should be cast out of Abrahams family from sharing with Isaac in that very covenant which Mr. Baxter contends with all his might p. 64 65. that whoever are not in it are not under the promise of the mercy which Church-membership is with him a speciall part of In proof of this consider and compare Gen. 17.18.19.20.21 with Gen. 21.10.11.12.13 as if there were no blessing but that of Church-membership or at least no blessing without this of Church-membership whereas as admired a mercy as this meer membership is with Mr. Baxter persons may be blessed without it and also witnesse the Jewish Nation which for the most part were reprobates they may have admission to the meer mercy and bare blessing of membership and yet perish and be accursed for ever The 18th plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and baptism is this If infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted then certainly it was not proper to the Iews and consequently is not ceased but infants are therefore The Minor of which argument Mr. Baxter endeavours to prove aswell as he can and this he doth First partly by perverting the sense of the text Mal. 2.25 where it is said God made two one i. e. instituted the ordinance of marriage between man and woman that he might seek a seed of God i. e. a legitimate Issue for legitimacy onely in the issue is the result of marriage and that among what parents soever even heathens as well as others for whom as well as others that state of marriage is sanctified yet Mr. Baxter saies he made two one or ordained marriage that he might seek a seed of God in another sense that better serves his turn i. e. to seek Church-members as if Church-membership in the seed were the direct result of the state of matrimony in the parents which every simpleton knowes to be false for marriage is honourable among all and was ordained for all mankind as well as the Godly and yet the seed are not therefore Church-members besides marriage was instituted in the state of innocency to this end that mankind might be propagated in a more modest way then other creatures and not that the seed so propagated might be Church-members Secondly partly by a heap of frivolous conjectures of his own in which a man may warrantably enough chuse whether he will believe him or no but whether his Minor viz. that infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted be true or false it makes nothing to his purpose unlesse he had made surer work in his Maior for that is so inconsequent and utterly unsound that had I happened to have heard his argument before it came in Print I should have spared him all his paines about the Minor and have put him to the proof of his Major the consequence of which hee 'l never make good by fair play while he breathes for there were many things long before circumcision was instituted which were proper if not to the Jewes till the Jewes were in being yet to the ceremoniall law that was after more clearly given to the Jewes and to that old Testament of which Moses was the Mediator and circumcision the sign and the Jewes the subject and yet were tipicall and ceremonial onely and so ceased together with circumcision as the keeping the seventh day the sacrifices the cleannesse and uncleannesse of certain creatures and if that were at all before circumcision as Mr. Ba. does not plainly prove it to be among the rest the Church-membership of infants His 19. plain Scripture-lesse proof is this If God be not more prone to severity then to mercy then he will admit of infants to be members of the visible Church but God c. therefore c. Oh the wit of this man how wonderfully doth it work and wind to and fro and wander far and neer to fetch in any manner of fewell wherewith to feed that false faith men live in concerning infant baptism for fear it should be quite extinguished and brought to nothing
he drawes as he saies from Deut. 28.4.18 32.41 blessed shall they be in the fruit of their body that keep the covenant and cursed in the fruit of their bodyâ— i. e. that break the covenant c. he may well say he drawes it for there 's no such thing as he draws flowes freely from that or any other Scripture he produces he drawes indeed but at such a distance that I see nothing followes from thence at all he does not fall flatly upon it nor deal down rightly with the text alledged nor doth he interpret the blessing and cursing to be membership and non-membership so as to say that by blessed shall be the fruit of thy body is meant thus i. e. thy infants shall be inchurched and by cursed shall be the fruit of thy body thus i. e. thy infants shall be dischurched for that had been too palpably to pervert it but he keeps a loof off from it and doth not draw neer to the heart and center of it but syllogizes in a circumference and fetches it from far for fear I think least it should fly in his face The Argument that I fetch hence is this That doctrine which maketh the children of the faithfull to be in a worse condition or as bad then the curse Deut. 28. maketh the children of covenant breakers to be in is false doctrine But the doctrine which denyeth the children of the faithfull to be visible Churchmembers doth make them to be in as bad or worse condition then is threatned by the curse Deut. 28. Therefore The Minor of which Syllogism is most false for infants may be both unbaptized and no visible Church members and yet be in a better condition then such as are under the curse and the captivity threatned Deut. 28. and so are all these to whom baptism and admittance into the visible Church is delayed by yourselves who in the Church of England in old time were wont to defer the baptizing of all infants to two times in the year viz. Easter and Whitsuntide and so are all those also to whom we deny it for both those to whom you delay it and those to whom we deny it dying in infancy without it may be saved without it as well as if they had it And at the same rates as they dispute them to be under cursing to whom we deny baptism and visible Church-membership and our doctrine to be false that denies it may we dispute those infants to be under cursing to whom they delay baptism and visible membership though but for a week during the time of their delaying it and their doctrine to be false that delaies it if we retort the same Argument on themselves which I shall do and leave it That doctrine which makes the children of the faithful in as bad or worse condition then is threatned in that curse Deut. 28. is false But that doctrine which delaies baptism and visible Church-membership to the infants of the faithfull till the tenth twelfth or twentyeth day of their age till Plumcake be made maketh them during the time in which t is delayed in worse Condition then is threatned in that curse Deuter. 28. Ergo t is false Till then you have ingrafted your children into the Church by baptism they are it seems with you in worse state then if they were in captivity and all the poor innocent infants of those parents that are in England to which your selves O Presbyters deny baptism unlesse the parent will confesse his faith before the Bason are in worse and more cursed condition then if they were in captivity And if an Indians infant should be born and bread up here in England and be in never such a hopeful way of comming in time to the knowledge of the truth yet all the time he remains unbaptiz'd and not visibly added to your corrupt church of England he is belike under a worse curse and condition then if he were in slavery or captivity I wonder where Christ or his disciples ever preached such kind of Gospel His 21 plain Scripture-lesse proof for infant-Church membership and baptism runs upon this disjunction viz. Either they are in the visible Church of Christ or in the visible kingdome of the Devil for there is no third state saith he in which they are but if they be not in Christs visible Church they are visibly out of it and if they be visibly out of that visible Church then they are visibly in Satans Kingdome This is the summe and substance of what he laies down and the basis upon which he builds a necessity of admitting the children of the faithfull into and reckoning upon them as in the visible Church of Christ or else we must saith he say they are in the visible Kingdome of the Devill which to say saith he is false doctrine the rest is but amplification and augmentation rather then Argumentation of this position now howbeit a wise body that is not resolved to trouble himself and fill the world with curious pryings long proofs and prolix prates about matters which the wisdome of Christ in the word of his Testament which was written to for and concerning men and women and not infants is pleased to be silent in would surely have sat down satisfyed with that sober saying which Mr. B. himself cotes out of Mr. T. Apol. p. 66. viz. that infants are neither in the Kingdom i. e. visible church of Christ nor Satan visibly till profession For really so it is and no otherwise properly and quoad nos who have no warrant to take cognizance of them as in either one or in the other visibly but as at years they visibly appear to cleave to either neither are these two viz. the visible Kingdome of Satan and the visible Church of Christ the adaequate dividing members of the whole world but excepting infants of the adult ones in it only which visibly obey either Christ or Satan neither doth Satans visible kingdome consist of any infants visibly at all but of such as visibly are acted by him even the children of disobedience in whom he works Ephes. 2.2 nor Christs visible Church of any infants visibly at all save when some were inchurched and incovenanted as a type for a time but of such onely as visibly obey him these I say are visibly the subjects servants disciples and children of each Rom. 6. his servants ye are i. e. visibly to whom i. e. visibly ye obey whether c. 1 Ioh. 3.10 in this i. e. doing or not doing righteousnesse are manifest i. e. visibly the children of God and of the devll so Iohn 8. They are visibly of their father the devil who do the works of their father i. e. in Gospel account for else in the lawes account they as Abrahams seed were then the Churches children howbeit I say any one that is not willing to be wise above what is written and to have vision of more then is visible would rest in this yet sith Mr. B.
Adam to save them but because not they themselves for they have no more ability so to do then a new born infant hath to dresse its naked body but their fathers put it not on by faith for themselves and theirs which if the dying infants might live to years as Christ said of Sodom they happily would do therefore millions of these poor innocents must perish so then belike it is thus and this is the covenant of the Gospel the fathers faith saves him and all his dying infants and the fathers sin of unbelief damnes for ever not himself onely but all his dying infants also All infants that are damned then are damned through the fault of two unhappy fathers a remote father for sinning and and immediate father for not believing between which two the love of the heavenly father cannot come at them a wise man may spend all he hath with looking but never find such as this in all the Scripture earthly inheritances are oft stated and removed to and from posterity for fathers faith and faults as all Abrahams posterity by Isaac and Iacob did enjoy Canaan and Esaus lost it but the eternal inheritance is neither won nor lost by the children through the faith or unbelief of the parents and besides if Adams sin though a remote parent doth so damnifie all infants that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot save them without the fathers faith me thinks he being their great grand father Adams faith should recover him and all his at least from that guilt his sin brought upon them by interessing them in Christs righteousnesse as well as his single unbelief at first destroyed them if any fathers faith shall entitle his infants to salvation or else God seems not to be so prone to mercy as severity yea indeed he that saies God is not more prone to severity then to mercy and shewes it no other way as to his dealing with innocent infants then by saying he saves no more dying of infants then those few i. e. some of the dying infants of believers and from the Mothers womb damns eternally all the rest may say over that his creed in my hearing 500 times and ten before I shall learn to believe it after him once Thirdly as to threatnings of damnation I find none at all to infants in their ininfancy from one end of the book of God to the other but all that ever is spoken as concerning eternal wrath the second death everlasting damnation the Lake of fire is declared as the portion of those onely that do and do not that which was never at all much lesse in order to salvation and on pain of eternal fire enjoined by infants either to be done or forborn yea this is the condemnation and nothing else that I know of that light more or lesse comes to persons and they love darknesse more then light because their deeds are evil those that Christ speaks nothing at all to as he does to heathens themselves Rom. 1. Rom. 2. but not to infants that yet know not the right hand from the left much lesse either good or evil they have not sin for sin is the transgression of that law that is lent us to live by whether a law within onely or without also Rom. 2. but when he hath spoken and they obey not when they know God and glorify him not as God then they are without excuse and have no cloak at all for their sin and the word he hath spoken to every one being rejected that same word shall judge him at the last day I find it said no whoremonger fornicatoâ— c. no actual impenitent sinner shall â—ver enter or hath any inheritance at all but not no unbelievers dying infants in the kingdome of God or of Christ and that the Lord shall come in flaming fire taking vengeance on all them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of Christ c. and yet on no dying infants though they neither know him nor obey him for if he should then believers infants should therefore to the pot as well as others as who in infancy obey no more then their fellows that the fearful and unbelieving and dogs and socerers and murderers and all liars c. but not hars dying infants shall have their portion in the lake of fire burning with brimstone which is the second death and that the unprofitable servant that traded not with his talent and not infants that in infancy have no talent to trade with shall be cast into utter darknesse that those on whom Christ called and they would not hear and to whom he stretched out his hands and they regarded him not and would none of Christs councel nor reproof shall call on him at that day and not be heard and not infants on whom he never called that the Lord added to the Church dayly such men and women Act. 2. not at all such infants as should be saved that he that believeth not the gospel shall be damned but not infants to whom he never preached that it shall be said to the wicked go ye cursed into into everlasting fire for I was hungry and you fed me not c. among which if there were any that died infants they might justly reply indeed as no wicked men at years can do Lord when saw we thee in distresse and neglected thee and did not come and minister unto thee In a word the whole body of the new Testament or covenant in the promissory praeceptory and minatory parts of it saving some two or three such gentle touches about infants as those above named whereby we may have hopes that none of them dying such are for ever lost was written and given to and concerning men and women and not infants to declare unto them the way of everlasting salvation and in what wayes God would and would not accept of them and he that with an unprejudiced spirit observes all this will trouble himself no more about his infants to in church and baptize them for remission of sins which is the prime use of baptism to sinners and utterly lost when diâ—penst to infants that have not sins nor indeed to do more then instruct them as they grow up and pray for them while they live infants and hope well of them if they dy in their minority but it pitties my heart for them to see what moyl and toil the Priests create to themselves and the people and what much ado they make about their poor infants even much more then about themselves As for Iacobs being Lovd before he was born he means in contradistinction to Esau wch is Mr. Bs. tenth ground of hope that believers infants are from the womb in a hopeful way I suppose he takes it to be so declared but is miserably mistaken if he think the ninth of the Romans saies so for t is true the elder shall serve the younger which relates to the posterity of those two and not their persons for Esau was mostly
Jacobs Lord was said before they were born by God who foreseeing it might easily foretell how it should be and did so too but for the words Iacob have I loved Esau have I hated as they also were spoken of the two Nations that came out of their loines viz. the Edomites and Israelites and that not without respect to Edoms being the border of wickednesse â—o far was it from being spoken of them before they were born that t was hundreds of years after they were dead and rotten Mal. 1. But if it were just as Mr. B. understands it that before they were born and without any respect to their personal rebellion and obedience in time it had been said Iacob have I loved Esau have I hated would it prove that article in Mr. Bs. creed that God hath promised to be merciful to Godly mens seed in general in contradistinction to the seed of the wicked in no wise I suppose since as godly as Isaac was even one of his Sons was hated from the womb if Mr. B. conceit were true aswel as the other of them from the womb beloved but surely had not Esau sinned and set so light by the heavenly blessing he had not lost it much less if he had dyed from the womb Fourthly as for the universallity of redemption which is by Jesus Christs dying as Mr. Ba. saies tâ—uely for all for every man for the sins of the whole world which he had meant to have drawn an Argument from but did not he might easily have drawn one that would have served my turn in this place viz. to have proved that very age even the whole species of infants to be savd by Christ from wrath and ruine except they live to reject his grace afresh as in infancy they do not but it utterly overthrowes his hopes by the halves of infants for it is both a good ground and as good a ground whereon to hope the redemption from wrath to come of every dying infant as of any one And lastly to conclude my answer to this 22 Argument of Mr. B. which I have insisted the longer on in much hope of helping him to a better hope of all dying infants that neither are nor are to be added to the visible church whereas I was once set upon by a Gentleman with this objection who if ever this book came to his hands and this passage to his eye will remember it though I forbear to name him Viz. Obj. If we may be assured of the salvation of all our dying infants we may then in love to them knock them on the head in their infancy and so be sure to prevent their perishing by condemnation I intreat that Gentleman to beware of so much as saying that we may do such gross evil that so great good may come thereof least his damnation for it be just and then what little benefit will accrue to him all men may judge that to save his infant damnes himself There 's but four Arguments of M.Bs. behind brought in proof of the right of membership to infants whereof two viz. his 24th and 26th are the one from 1 Cor. 7.14 the other from Mark 10.13.14.15 Two Scriptures that I have talkt on so much in the book above and given the genuine sense of that I shall but tautologize to speak particularly to them again seeing I see nothing new taken notice of in them by Mr B. but what is abundantly answered in effect above where I have shewed the abrogation in Christ of that birth holinesse he means and the uncleannesse consequently opposite thereunto so that there 's no man however born though a barbarian can be called in opposition to others as by birth holy by nature a sinner in that ceremonial sense from Act 10. Gal. 2. yea M.B. confesses p. 81. the Common sense of holinesse was one and the same in all i. e. Priests and Levites under the Law c. Temple Altar Sacrifices children of believers and believing yoak fellowes viz. a separation to God so then if that holinesse of Priests Temple c. was ceremonial so this is and if that holinesse is abolished in all other things why abiding onely the seed I have also proved that the other place where it is not evident that the infants brought to Christ were ever baptized by his disciples or any other doth more deeply disprove infanâ—s-baptism and membership then all the places ever brought by Mr. B. are capable to prove or make good either Yea as good a man might have said as send me to those two places for infant-baptism you may find it if you look in the bible I le say no more therefore to them His other two viz. the 23th and 25 hare both as he confesses but probable and and by and by will appear not to be so much His first is this If an Infant were head of the Church then infants may be members But Christ an infant was head of the Church Ergo. That cannot be half so much as a probable Argument whose premises are neither of them true yet such is the syllogism here brought by Mr. B. both the propositions of which I deny his consequence is true indeed that infants may be members if an infant were the head i. e are capable out supposing Gods will that it should be so now in the Gospel which a man may suppose if he will but shall never find to be so in his word nor does his curious crotchet out of Irenaeus that Christ went through every age to sanctify it unto us prove the other to be a truth for there 's no truth at all in it self yea t is falsum per falsius for Christ did not passe through every age of man that he might sanctify that age for he lived not to any old age here though now he that was dead is alive again for evermore for his life was soon cut off from the earth And as concerning his headship in his infancy I admire a man of wisedome should assert it for to say nothing how little this agrees with that above page 62. where he saies t is disputable whether ever Christ was a Churchmember properly or no as if the head because the principal that rules the rest were no member at all of the body t is evident to me that as man he had not any of his Prerogatives settled actually upon him till after he had purchased them by his death he was perfect first through sufferings Heb. 5.9 and after his death and resurrection he was made Lord and Christ Acts. 2. And exalted highly above all Phil. 2. and set far above all principality and given to be head over all things to his Church which is his body Ephe. 1. ult Moreover to me there is as much force in it if Christ had been head of the Church in his infancy and much more then in Mr. Bs. to argue thus if Christ the head of the Church that was circumcised in his infancy yet was not
but as t is asserted in the argument as a practical part of the Law will and Testament of Christ concerning baptized believers as one of the oracles or holy things of God as one of the very principles of the doctrine of Christ as a part of the foundation or beginning word of Christ as well as baptism or of the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles on which the true visible Church is built as upon a certain basis and from which the whole building growth up an holy temple in the Lord toward perfection an habitation of God through the spirit being first fitly framed together by a joint uniform visible obedience unto that one whole form of doctrine whereof I say this laying on of hands was a part and was practised at their first beginning to be disciples at or about the time of their baptism and before actual fellowship in the visible Church this all is clear enough of it self to him that consults Heb. 5.2.6.1 considerately comparing them with Eph. 2.20.21.22 Rom. 6.17 Act. 2.42.8.12.14.15.16.17.19.2.6 out of all which places at least collectively consulted with we cannot but see that after baptism and before fellowship in one body or building in higher things there was this of laying on of hands practised owned observed as one of the first principles of Gods oracles of Christs doctrine Antecedent to fellowship and laid as a part of that first form of doctrine that was delivered and obeyed after obedience to the whole of which they were counted babes in Christ new born begotten to him belonging to him and in present capacity as no fleshly babes are to be added and admitted into his Church and as one piece of that foundation or word of the beginning of Christ on which the Church it self is built and therefore necessarily precedent among persons to their fellowship together in it for the foundation must ever be wholly laid even in every part of it and therefore why not in laying on of hands before there can be any firm or any but a deformed or defective building no more therefore as unto that Again that it was dispensed together with prayer for it on all baptized believers in order to their receiving the holy spirit t is not denied by any for ought I know as indeed it is undeniable to all Act. 8.15.16.17.19.2.6 And further there is not the least hint of any limitation of that doctrine of laying on of hands on all baptized believers to those times onely or intimation in the word of Christ that t was his mind there should then be a cessation of it any more then there is of baptizing all believers or any other ordinance or outward administration or any other of the principles of Christs doctrine if there be I desire of the Enquirers who use inferences themselves and yet allow not us to speak any thing as to the continuance of this ordinance but some expresse text of Scripture to shew some Scripture if they know of any that speaks expressely or if it be but consequentially it shall serve my turn though from us it will not theirs so the consequence be legitimate and truly rational of the continuation of all other the principles of the doctrine of Christ and the cessation of onely this of laying on of hands on all baptized believers for what we are sure was in use among all baptized believers in the primitive times it concerns them that call for a cessation of it alone among all the principles of Gods oracles to shew us some plain word of Christ for the right of such a cessation of that onely and no other before they blame us for calling on them for a continuance of that still but for my part as I find none so I suppose they may look till their eyes are weary before they can out of Christs testament not a tittle of which is yet disanul'd produce any text tending to such a purpose And because I have inserted and asserted no lesse in the Minor of the Argument I am yet in proving then this viz. that as there 's no intimation of any cessation of laying on of hands on all baptized believers till such time as the work of baptizing all believers it self shall cease but also a plain injunction from Christ for the continuance of the one of these as long as the other and for a continual teaching and observation of both as well as either among all the disciples that should be in all nations to the worlds end I le direct the enquirers to a plain text of Scripture for it viz. Matth. 28.20 whence suppositis supponendis taking it for granted till I shall see more then ever I have yet seen from them or I believe ever shall see from any to the contrary that the dispensation practise use and observation of laying on of hands among the Apostles and the primitive baptized believers who expected that whatever the Apostles delivered to them was first commanded them of God Act. 10.33 was no other then what God commanded then to them all it is as plain as the high way that the very same is commanded to be continued downwards even to be taught to and observed by all that ever should be discipled in the nations to the worlds end for on the very day in which Christ was taken up after that he through the holy spirit had given commandments to the Apostles whom he had chosen being seen of them four'y daies after his resurrection and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdome of God among which I quaery of the Enquirers whether laying on of hands were not one he expresly charges them that whatever he had taught and enjoined them to observe they should teach all the nations i. e. the disciples and baptized believers in all nations to observe the very same promising his presence in the observation of the same among his disciples not to the end of that generation or age onely but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have shewed above to the end of the very world itself Going out teach all nations baptizing them i. e. that believe teaching them i. e. the now newly baptized believers to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and therefore laying on of hands surely it being one of the principles of his doctrine and lo I am with you i. e. not your persons onely but your party not your selves onely whilest you live but your successors also in what age soever they shall live in the observation of what I have commanded you and shall command them by you alwaies to the end of the world Finally that laying on of hands on baptizd believers hath the same ends grounds and reasons why it was to be used continuing still to this very day as much as as in the primitive times is as evident as all the rest for as the grounds and reasons why they observed such a service then were and could be no other then the manifestation of
oppositions and imprisonments which Paul met with from the adverse party whereby they intended to smoother it in his daies fell out rather to the furtherance of the Gospel for it came to be the more manifest in all places by means of errors so earnest appearance against it 1 Phil. 12. to 19. Thus truth hath gained ground not a little in these latter daies by the ominous onsets wherewith falsehood fights it and would fain fright and force it to hide its head and wisdome works out it self not a little to light by follies flying so furiously at the face of it 3. That the truth mihgt be better loved and more price set upon it we prize lihgt the more by our knowledge of darkness health by our sense of sicknesse errour is a foil to a Diamond truth looks more lovely being compared with it The lilly looks most lovely and beautifull when it stands among black thornes 2 Cant. 2. the stars though ever obvious to us would never shine if there were no night contraria juxta se posita maxime elucescant contraries set together discover each other more lively in their severall loathsome or lovely formes the light of the Sun shewes brightest seemes sweetest when it breaks from under a dark cloud so does the Sun of righteousnesse now arising appear the more lovely by how much it hath been hid from the earth now of long time by that dismall darknesse and smoak of Heresies erroneous false worships and foolish figments with which the CCClergy hath filled all parishes throughout CCChristendome 4 For the punishment of hypocrites nominall Christians curious Minds such as have itching eares and heap unto themselves teachers stragling sheep fall into the wolves clutches such as will not keep the steps of the flock but go after the flocks of the Companions ever fall into most dangers of seducement all which is most plain by too woful experience in all Nations of CCChristendome for while Christianity and the Gospel was professed sincerely as it was saving some remote beginnings of mens traditions to take place against the commands of Christ in the first three hundred years wherein t was evidenced by the ten bloody persecutions that Christians served Christ for love then and not for loaves nor for lives sake neither for they loved not their lives unto the death there were not half so many Hereticks or Heresies as have been since but when once after Constantine Christianity comming into credit and being not onely owned by the Emperors themselves but established by their edicts in all things according to the pattern shewed them in the word not of Christ but of the Catholique Clergy convened in Councels as the Religion sub paena to be submitted to men turned Christians upon such sleight grounds and were born to that Name of Christianity without the Nature no otherwise then of the will of man and were no more then nomine tenus professors of it the Lord in his just and severe judgement to these nominal Christians permitted those Spiritual plagues that we see Rev. 8. Rev. 9. seconded the sounding of the trumpets to fall thick and three fold upon the world suffered the Clergy to fall to contentions jars and janglings about their ambitious interests viz. primacy and universallity c. and to Apostatize more and more from the plain primitive truth and to degenerate be degrees into darknesse till they came at last to be totally blinded in things of God and blind leaders of the blind Princes and people that implicitly give up themselves to be guided by them that both might drop together into the ditch yea he suffered that great star the Bishop of Rome that sometime shone very bright to fall as wormwood upon the third part of the waters the pure doctrine of the Gospel i. e. to foist in his heresies to the poisoning and imbittering of the doctrine so that many died even all that drank thereof because it was bitter and unwholsome and he suffered the third part of the Sun and Moon and Stars all the means and waies of Christs own institution and appointment to give light unto men by to be smitten and darkned corrupted covered with false glosses depraved with heaps of heresies and traditions c. crept in and authorized by the Pope and his Ecclesiastical Doctors so that what with the damnable and horribly devillish heresies by means of Mahomet and his Alcoran infecting the Orientall Christians through all Asia and these Papisticall errors of those Arch-Hereticks the Pope and CCClergy and Scholastick Rabbies who with vain deceit seduced the Occidental part of the world from the simplicity that is in Christ the day shone not for a third part of it the might likewise i. e. the third part of that pure and pretious truth of Christ which shined in the primitive Churches was now exclipsed and extinguisht neither had men by the third part so much of that clear light of Christs Gospel that they were wont to have in former dayes yea further in way of plague and punishment to hypocrites and meer nominal Christians the Lord at last suffered that star which fell before or angel of the Church of Rome when he was fallen from all his heavenlinesse and love of truth to earthlinesse and love of money and honour from beneath to open the bottomlesse pit i. e. the way to the very depth of hellish darknes and to raise up a smoak or thick fog of errors and heresies lies traditions which as the smoak of some great furnace darkened the sun and air i. e. totally put out the light of Scripture and pure administrations which were but in part ecclipsed before so that now nothing could be seen as it were but Popish legends and such stuff by the advantage of which smoother the Locuâ—ts came out i. e. the Clergy that swarmed all over the earth in every parish one at least stinging hurting wounding to eternal death by their poisonous doctrines propounded under pretence of the word of Christ all persons save such as have the seal of God in their foreheads even a few witnesses to the truth that withstood their doctrins which locusts are said to be scorpions i. e. carrying a fair face but stings in their tailes and to have crowns because of their great power for under their great King Apollyon they rule all and reign ore the Kings of the earth These are they that outwardly wear the sheeps cloathing i. e. cloth themselves with the denominations of Clergy Gods heritage Spiritual men Priests men of God which are the true titles of the sheep but inwardly are ravening wolves into whose clutches the stragling sheep that would not keep the steps of the flock of Christ but turned aside after the flocks of the companions going at a venture which way the most went for companies sake right or wrong did fall and by whose Heretical principles men are in danger of perishing for ever Thus when the world would be
the committee to be able godly and Orthodox which Independent proposition I hardly know what to make of it is so odd what Sits 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 right â—orm i. e. free fellowship of such together 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 Hetâ—rodox does the church loose its true constitution or I would I knew what you mean by constitution for perhaps I do not and why do you talk in singulari so much of the Pastor and Pastor of a Church as if you were of the mind that a church might have no more Pastors and Overseers over it but one whereas t is 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 one 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 so 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 see people ignorant of it whether they will hear or forbear though all the Committees yea and all the Kings and Popes and Priests and People in the world should declare 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 approbation 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 businesse 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 Apostles or Messengers to be sent forth not by the State but by the Church it self to preach his Gospel to the world at the Churches and not the worlds charges and to preach the Gospel to the Parishes without pilling the poor parish people making way for the Gospâ—l and the truth by force and law whether they be free to have it to buy aâ—d 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 on t 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 baptisms 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 here allow them settle longer in one place then till they have more means or be more to their minds in another had this piece been propounded by parish ministers and people it had become them as sounding somewhat sutable to their posture and principle for t is the usual tone they talk in when one Pastor having left them to take up another call from Christ or imployment somewhere else to his advantage they addresse to the Committee for the approbation or settlement of
the trade of preaching you cannot set up possibly to any good purpose thus Featley p. 101. prophecy quoth he is an extraordinary gift of the holy spirit preaching a special faculty acquired by many years study and Mr. Evans in his Sermon to the Lords my Lords quoth he we know you would have a learned Ministry but it is impossible for learning ever to flourish without maintenance you may as well set carpenters to build without tooles as send forth Ministers without their parchments we plead not my Lords for our backs and for our bellies but for good books and furnisht brains there are some that will seduce upon cheaper tearms but there must be honest provision made that every Minister may have a good library or elâ—e the Land is like to have but an ignorant Ministry and a perishing people again my Lords we know you would have a gracious people to fear God honour the King and obey your honours but it is sufficiently known that a base Ministry can never do good upon the people the generall pride of man is such that poverty is enough to bring a man into contempt c. As if because the pride of man specially of great men is so great that the poor mean Ministers of Christ are subject to be despised by them therefore they must have a kind of pompous Priesthood that may delight their daintines and fit their vain fancies and haughty humors what the Lords of the earth would have I know not so well as themselves I believe they would have a learned Ministry to lean to and live at ease on and a people to fear God as far as themselves do among whom the fear of God hath been taught still after the precepts of the men called CCClergy and to honour the King and obey their Honours but this I know and therefore t is but flattery not to say foolery to tickle them up with talk of their great zeal of the Gospel as their fawning Chaplains do that few or none of their Honours are effectually called to Christ or have ever yet honoured him so far as to honour own and acknowledge his truth in that primitive purity wherein t was at first given out partly because the CCClergy claws them too much into odd conceits and with untempred morter dawbs them into a belief of an Omnia bene in that easie gaudy gospel they sow as a pillow under their elbowes and partly because not many of these mighty and nobles ones will stoop when t is discovered to them to that plainness and simplicity that is in Christ 2 Cor. 11.3 to that foolishness of mechanick preaching that basenesse of baptizing that streightway of self-denying that needlesse work of Scripture searching with their own eyes that weak nothing of Christs choosing by which to confound and bring to nought in the end the prudence of the Scribes and wisemen of this world whom they wonder after so the great King of Kings and Lord of Lords Christ Jesus was not over-seen and yet he chose such base things and sent forth such a poor base Ministry of illiterate mechanicks to preach his Gospel at the first beginning of it too which surely he would not have done if it were his own mind that the contempt of his ministry which by their poverty illiteracy and outward basenesse is apt to arise in the hearts of the proud should be prevented by putting the outward pomp of much earthly riches and that low literature of this foolishly wise world upon them Mean while I am not against a Ministers having learning let a man have as much as he will on 't so he use it as a telent to serve the truth with when once he he hath found and owned it but against that necessity of outward learning to the Ministry of Christ so as to say as the Priesthood doth that ordinarily a man cannot be a Minister of Christ without it for verily the spirit which onely makes a Minister blows where it lists and doth for ought I see bestow it self now as of old it did more frequently upon poor Mechanicks and illiterate Artizans then learned Scribes and Schoolmen Nor am I against a Ministers having a library and looking into other books if he have a mind to it and have money enough of his own to buy them so be he do not lose himself therein as the CCClergy in all ages have done from his serious study and sincere search of the plain Scripture it self but I am far from desiring that poor people should be charged to fill and furnish Ministers studies with books and their brains with notions out of other Authors that are no more to be heeded then themselves further then they speak according to the word nor shall I ever acknowledge such a necessity as you plead that men must needs busie their braines about abundance of other mens writings or else cannot but be ignorant Ministers of the Gospel sith the Scriptures themselves are of themselves if the CCClergy could once consider it or one could possibly beat it into their braines profitable for all things and able to make Ministers and people wise enough to salvation and to make a man of God perfect and throughly furnisht unto all good works but that they do not store their hearts as they should do with study of them onely or at least mainly as the primitive Ministers of the Gospel did and the purest Ministers of it now do 2 Tim. 3.14.15.16 I wonder what our Clergy men would do to preach the Gospel if there were no other books extant but the very bible they would surely either cease from being Ministers any more at all or else make better Ministers then they are I do not speak this to excite men to make such a bone fire of all books but the bible as Dr. Featley saies Iohn Matthias made p. 165. and yet by the Clergies leave I dare not say as Dr. Featly there saies that t were better all those who in his sense are obstinate Sectaries for many such are pretious Saints were burnt at a stake then that such a bone fire were made for I know no absolute necessity to the salvation of men of the being of any book in the world but the bible which as it was once alsufficient to make men wise to salvation without looking into any other and before there were many other besides it so I know not sith we have them in such plainness as now we have maugre all the malice of the Pope and Clergy who would once have made a bone fire of the Scriptures why it is not as alsufficient as heretofore whilst yet there was no more Gospel Scripture then in self but I speak it to excite the CCClergy for whom I have great sorrow of heart to see their miserable neglect of wretched ignorance in the Scriptures to give more attendance to the reading of them as which are alsufficient and onely necessary to a Minister if there were
contrary unto truth for women may be Magistrates but not Church Ministers and may be Supreme in authority in a State as Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth but are bid to be under obedience and fordid in Church matters so much as to speak much more to usurp authority in the Church 1 Tim. 2.11.12 1 Cor. 14.34.35 viz. in refusing to be judge in matters of faith and religion * For Custos et vindex ut ciusque tabulae under the Gospel because it was sounder that typical standing of the Law is but a tale and a trick of our Priests whereby to curry â—avour with their princes the truth is that whole Jewish State which was also a Church as no one whole nation under heaven now is was a type and both the Kingly Priestly and Prophetical office that then headed that Church were typical of that tripple true head of the Gospel Israel Christ Jesus and are no more to be drawn in as an example so as to argue more warrantably from the Kings then to the civil Rulers now then from the High-PriestHood to the Popedome * my Petition to the powers on behalf of the Church is that it may have as much peace and as little preferment as they please for ever Cum Ecclesia peperit divitias filia devoravit matrem y Two spritualties whereof as bad as the first is the latter will be more sensuall then the former having not the Spirit Jude 17. though pretending to it more supremely then the other under which last the devil now acts as under a new vizard to the deceiving of people from the way of truth perceiving his old vizard worn so thin that all men begin now to see through it * Luk. 9.53.54 55. * Witness the Iesuites that may kil Kings if Hereticks the Northen presbitery that may lawfully fight England if it receive not their directory and the Episcopal war against the State * So Iulius the second who seeing himself vanquisht â—hrew away Saint Peters keyes into the River Tyber protesting he would thence forth help himself with S Pauls sword * The contrary to which where ere t is well may men submit out of fear till they can help themselves but never out of love while the world stands for conscience is a tender thing and though but a worm yet if trod upon wil turn again * Howbeit they shall never want flatterers to perswade them that they are Abj. Ans. * Vid. Tho. Beacons Reliques of Rome set forth cum privilegio 1563. Pope Servitius ordained that Hereticks should be banisht An. 588. fol. 214. Pope Pelagius the first that all Hereticks and Schismaticks should be put to death by the secular power provided that the Bishops in their spiritual courts do first prosecute convict and condemn them for Hereticks and then commit them to the temporal Magistrate to dispatch them out of the way by fire sword or halter for they say as the chief priests to Pilate it is not lawful for us to put any to death In the councel of Lateran by Innocent the third 2 Patriarchs 70 Arch-bishops 400 Bishops twelve Abbots 800 Priests the Legates of the Greek and Roman Empire the Embassadors of Spain Jerusalem France England Cyprus it was decreed that all Hereticks and so many as should in any point resist the Catholique faith should be condemned that the secular power of what degree soever should be compelled openly to swear for the defence of the Catholique faith and to the utmost of their power to root out and destroy in their kingdomes all such persons as the Catholique Church should condemn for Hereticks and if any King should be a Heretick or defender of them and not reform within a year then his subjects should be absolved by the Pope from yielding any further subjection or obedience to him or keeping any fidelity with him and so t was in the case of John here in England who resigned to the Popes Legate his Crown kissing his knee as he came into England which John was after poisoned by a Monk who having his pardon from the Pope poisoned himself first to poison the King and also that the Pope may give that land to Catholiques to possesse peaceably and without contradiction all Hereticks being rooted out of it Obj. Ans. * 1 Sam 5.24 * which he hath more faith then I that believes they ever will for surely the CCClergies Win all or lose all will pull them down at last * 2 Es. 15.5 to the 12.49 to 57. Rev. 11.10.6.19.2 * for howbeit it was the Roman civil power in Potius Pilate passing sentence yet it was the Priestly malice that caused him to be crucified or else Pilate had released him so its Princely power but PPPriestly malice crying out crucifie him crucifie him that hath caused him under the Gospel be crucified in his truth and Saints or else many of the civil Powers would release him * Rom. 13.1 1 Pet. 2.13 Magistrates are called the ordinance of God as the materiality of the thing we call government is of him the ordinance of man as to the particular form of government viz. whether it shall be by Kings Parlia c. and also the particular persons that shall execute that form is altogether in choice of the people * Act. 18.12.13.14 * Se supra p. 279. * For that name Clergy however by themselves improperly impropriated to themselves as if they onely were the heritage of God for that 's the plain English of that Anglico-greek word Clergy yet in plain truth pertains properly to all Christs people and that in contradistinction too from the Ministry for the spirit speaking of the Elders and Pastors of the Church charges them not to Lord it over the heritage i. e. in other location not to domineer over the Clergy 1 Pet. 5.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we see therefore God calls the flock and not the Sheepheards muchlesse the Sheepshearers by the name of Clergy but the Pope as if he had projected purposely to betheeve Gods people out of all their priviledges and rights leaves them not so much as their own proper name to be known by but bestows the name of Clergy upon the Creatures of his own creating and leaves them the name of Laicks in its stead telling them when they begin to charge his CCClergy with impropriation of preaching and pay to themselves that they are but a Clergy of Laicks see Featleys Epistle but to say the truth excepting some few of his sons of the Episcopal and Presbyterian CClergy that are come from him two wayes viz. by dissent and descent who may be honester and wiser then the rest and yet are not so wiâ—e as to know their own father the rest are mostly A CCClergy of Lazicks or lazy locusts In like manner hath he ingrost other titles to himself and his CCClergy all which the Scripture gives to all Christs people as namely that of Spiritual men as if all the world
were but Natural at least but Temporal men besides themselves thus the Bishops were called Lords Spiritual and other Lords Lords Temporal so that of Priests see the book of Common-prayer and of ordination of Priests and Deacons whereas these are titles afforded by the spirit to all the Saints of God as well as some 1 Cor. 3.15 1 Pet. 2.9 Rev. 1.6.5.10 yet I call them by these names because these are now the most common names whereby they are known or else properly I cannot call them by these nor by any other names whereby they commonly call themselves I cannot call them the Spiritualty for not one of many of them hath any Spiritualnesse in him I cannot call them Divines for they are rather Humanes if they have their due whilst they teach Gods fear after mens precepts and for doctrines the Traditions of men I cannot call them the Tribe of Levi for Levi though he took Tith according to the Law whereof he was the Priest in the loines of Abraham paid Tithes to the person of that high Priest that we are under viz. Melchizedeck or the King of Righteousnesse Christ Iesus but these are so far from paying Tithes to Christ that they most grievously gripe his people if they pay it not to them I cannot call them Ministers i. e. servants of Christ of the Church for they are rather Lords and Masters over his heritage unlesse Servus Servorum and Dominus Dominorum may stand together I cannot call them Pastors or Shepheards till I can own their Parishes for Christs Sheep for if we denominate them by the General temper of their people they profess to stand Pastors too they seem to be Swinheards rather by their people swallowing in the mire I cannot call them Presbyters or Elders though some of them be Seniores annis unlesse they were Saniores Animis then they are for they are not yet sound nor Orthodox in either their judgements doctrine or practise so long as they are against the truest baptism and abide unbaptized I cannot call them Preachers of the Gospel for they preach down that Gospel which was at first preached concerning Christs dying for the sins of the whole world I cannot call them Bishops or Overseers of Christs flock in the spirits sense i. e. in respect of their care to take heed to or feed it but Overseers in another sense rather I may properly stile them for verily Christs flock is so little and low poor and plain mean and base hated and dispised and themselves so lofty and high minded that as not many noble and mighty so few or none of these wise men after the flesh can stoop or look so low as it is and so for the most part they oversee it and lastly if those be the true Clergy and Priests of God that are obedient to his word as the Scripture saies they are the CCClergy need not find fault as they do with the Mar-priests of these times for in very deed the CCClergy PPPriests and Presbiters have been the truest Priest-biters Claw-clergies and Mar-Priests themselves * Rem enim indignam esse putant c. saith Calvin Inst. li. 4. c. 11.5.15 they deem it a disparagement that they should be made to answer in their own personall causes before any civil Magistrate and suppose both the liberty and dignity of the Church i. e. the Clergy to ly in an exemption from the common seats of judicature and their laws but the Bishops of old who were otherwise strict enough in pleading the priviledges of the Church did judge it no disgrace either to themselves or their function to subject themselves to civill powers * whose work lay mostly in reading service in old time till the Gospel came again to be pâ—eached in these latter daies Act. 19.24 to 39. * who saw some truth in their daies wherein t was twilight but not all that is now to be seen for though I reverence the men as I do every man that sees truth as far as it shines clearly in his time yet Luther left much truth unseen to himself behind him and some of Calvinsâ—nstitutions â—nstitutions too are none of Christs * For verily these Starrs for their light of learning as Dr. Featley confesses p. 165.166 have been the Authors devisers and broachers of Heresies yea peruse saith he if thou please all the antient Heresies listed by Epiphanius Austin Philastrius Alphonsus a castro Ambrosius de Rusconibus and others and therein thou shall find the Ring-leaders great Clerks and accute Sophisters whence is that true observation of Tertullian Philosophi Hereticorum Patriarchae Philosophers have been the great Grandfathers of Hereticks Nahum 3. thy crowned are as the locusts O King of Assyria Apollyon in the Antitype * Of which chain of succession of Ministry if but one link fail or chance to be lost so that it meets with interruption you confesse all your Ministry lies on the ground too and cannot at any hand be counted valid or raised again and yet if there was not a breach of that line in the link of Pope Joan aliâs Gilberta an English woman born at Lin who was both literally and mystically the Whore of Rome and therefore far I wot from being a true Presbyter or Minister of Christs Church in which women are forbid to usurp authority then my understanding failes me not a little * Who by Austin the Monk dispatcht an Ordination hither with resolution about infants viz. that in case of necessity they might be baptized by which ordination men have ever since bin authorized to ordain here and such as have been ordained to baptize * For the civil Magistracy may reside in women as is also shewed above who though by Pope Ioanes example they may yet by Pauls rule they may not usurp authority in the Church * For now that 's put down also as to the present session as every power will be and that suddenly and with shame that puts down others for tyranny covetousness unrighteousness self settlement in greatnesse and delay of justice to poor people that cry for it in these latter daies and yet succeeds them in the same sins and in such security as to say Populus me sibilet at mihi plaudo Ipsa domi simulac nummos contempler in Arca. * I mean take tith for you pay none * of which you have the fift not the tenth if the husbandmans charges be all considered * If you were not blind your selves you would gather thus much from that viz. that while men are blind they sat under your ministry but when once they begin clearly to see they can see no ground to sit under you any longer * Nicholas the first was I think the first that prohibited the Clergy marriage saying that it was more honest to have to do with many women privately then openly to take one wife Insomuch that a Priest of Placentia being accused to have a wife and children was deprived of his Benefice but