you and me though I suppose I shall not be more critical in considering nor volumnous in dilating on them than your selves are numerous in bewraying of your own negligences ignorances contradictions fictions â—…nakednesses and abusive shifts throughout this your three-fold thing yet I shall make little less than a totall transscription of your Papers before I have done and therin take notice of such absurdities at least whereby you most notoriously delude the world most grosly oppose the truth most unworthily wrong your Respondent and most palpably proclaim your selves to be rather true Dissemblers than true Discoverers of the Ashford Disputation and Smotherers rather than Publishers of that Gospel-truth in the point of Baptism which you pretend also to give as true an Account of to the world as of the other Report You talk first of Propositions agreed upon between your Respondent and your selves the Ministers at the Communion-Table in the Church of Ashford in Kent before the Disputation began Reply Give me leave Sirs sith silence with you may be taken else for Assent to say a word or two to this you stile your selves the Ministers both here and else-where throughout your book But if you mean Ministers of Christ and the Gospel I am yet to learn that from you which I never found you very forward to teach me viz. that you came truly and honestly by that Title you have hitherto wanted no provocation from me to prove the lawfulness of your calling I made bold to denominate you Antichristian Ministers in my Position upon the very day of the Disputation before those Thousands which you say were Auditors thereof And I have asserted the same more abundantly since in that letter to Mr. G. C. which it seems you know so well as even thence to take occasion in a Pet to publish so much as you have done of your Disputation all which is enough to give you to understand that I own you not at all in that capacity yet did you never no neither then at the Disputation nor since in your so true a Relation of it so much as once open your mouth or strike one stroke with your pen whereby to evince it that you are Christs Ministers which gives me to believe that howbeit you have a habit of calling your selves so yet you had rather men believed you on your bare words than put you to prove your selves to be so and that you are as utterly uncapable to clear it as 't is clear you are unwilling to be urged to it You speak of the Church of Ashford and a Communion-Table in it 'T were strange if I should not know what you mean thereby yet had you told this peece of your tale in other Terms it had been so much the less lyable to correction I know but one Church of Ashford that hath a Communion-Table in 't and that is those few persons who since they have gladly received the Word of Truth have been according to Christs will in that kind baptized in his name for remission of sinnes and do now continue in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers to which the Lord I hope will add dayly such in those parts as shall be saved in this Church there is a Communion-Table indeed even the Table of the Lord at which they meet blessing and drinking that Cup of blessing which is the Commemoration and Communion also of the blood of Christ breaking and eating that bread which is the Commemoration and Communion of the body of Christ at which you and your Respondent never yet met but may do yet in due time if the Lord please to grant you for till then surely it never will be repentance to the acknowledgement of his truth But for other Communion-Table I wot not Sirs that there is any at all at Ashford As for that common Table which stands in the great stone house where the Bells hang where the people meet once a week but never do that they should do if they were disciples of Christ indeed which house you call the Church of Ashford and I cannot but allow you so to do sith you disclaim the true one the very Steeple being well nigh as much a truly constituted Church of Christ as a parish people the one whereof is but a compacted number of dead stones in a literal sense and for the most part no less in a spiritual sense is the other besides stone Churches and wooden Priests such as if you are not yet most of the Popes children are suit well enough each with other as for that Table I say where you and your Respondent agreed better about the Articles of the Disputation then they do for ought I see to this day about that Article of faith they disputed on you had need to find some fitter phrase for it than Communion-Table for it hath long since ceased to be of any such use as for people to communicate at it The Gentleman my beloved friend that is now Resident there and President too in pretence at least as a Pastor over that flock having never administred it at all since his abode among them nor since the Classis possest him of that Relation and gave him orders to feed them with that ordinance why he doth not meddle with that service in his parish would be farre more wonderful to me then 't is had not mine own conscience been of the same constitution with his when I was with him in the same condition for as my own feet stuck once in the same stocks when I stood in Pastorall relation to parochiall people so I believe him to be further inlightned then to be free for a promiscuous admittance to the Supper of such Societies among whom he discerns not a few more goats than sheep or to hold Communion there with them whom in the Pulpit he cries out on as unbelievers as knowing well enough there 's no fellowship to be held between light and darkness believers and unbelievers in that holy ordinance yet he sprinkles the Infants of all as you also do and my self blindly did or else that parish will prove happily to hot to hold him upon what account he doth so I know not for sure it cannot be upon this because onely believers Infants are to be sprinkled The Lord open all your eyes to see those sorry shifts wherein you shroud your selves for a time from your own sight so that ye see not when ye interfeer nor feel when you hack your own shins for who so blind as those that cannot see how you act quite contrary to that you argue for and overthrow your own principles by your practise Report These Propositions say you were as followeth First that both parties should publiquely protest that they sought for verity not victory Reply I acknowledge this is very true and it was protested on both sides accordingly as was agreed nevertheless whether it be the Proud Priest-hood that seeks to tuck all
repentance from dead works and faith and been baptized into Christ aâ—…d thereby listed your selves visibly under him as his Souldiers and are hereby become Servants to righteousnesse therefore now you must not let sin have dominion over you This verily is the very meaning of the Apostle in the whole chapter yea and in those very words know you not that as many of us as have been baptized viz. not to have us suppose that but some of them had been baptized but to give them to understand that as all of them had been baptized so as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death in token ofit that they should now all become new creatures if we speak his mind in a Syllogistical form it runs thus viz. As many of us as are baptized must know this that we are baptized into Christs death and therefore must dy to sin and live holily But we have been all baptized or buried with Christ in baptism into his death Therefore we must all dy to sin and live holily If this were not his sense but we must take the words as many of us as have been baptized to be conclusive of himself and but some of that Church and exclusive of the rest of them as to baptism then I testify they are much more exclusive of many of them from that duty of dying to sin which he there presses upon the whole Church by the consideration of their being baptized yea if that phrase as many of us as have been baptizd doth intimate to us that not all but some only of the believing Roâ—…s had bin baptizd then it must needs intimate to us that not all but some of the believing Roms were engaged by their baptism and pressed by Paul in that chap. from the consideration of their death and burial with Christ in baptism to dy to sin and live to righteousnesse which no rational man can imagine but rather as they were all urged by an Argument drawn from their baptism to live to God so they had assuredly been all of them baptized And the same may be said of that same phrase as t is used to the Galatians Gal. 3. to whom Pauls drift was to prove what he had said of them all in the verse above v. 26. viz. that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ and how doth he prove it that they were so no otherwise but by this Medium viz. that they had been all baptized you are all the children of God by faith in Christ for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have visibly put him on and thereby declared you have faith in him which having you are the children of God in form his Argument runs thus viz. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are thereby apparently declared to be the children of God by faith in him But you have been all baptized into Christ c. Ergo c. This must needs be his sense here too or else if the term as many of you as have been baptized must not be taken as conclusive of all the Galatians to whom he writes but exclusive of some of them from baptism it must be exclusive of the same persons from being proved by Pauls Argument drawn from their baptism to to be the children of God as many as received him to them gave he power to be come the Sons of God is as much as to say he gave power to become the sons of God to no more then such as received him so as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are thereby visibly declared to be the children of God by faith in him though it do not signify that all the Galatians had not been baptized but some of them onely yet it signifies this however that no more then such as had been baptized into Christ had put him on and were thereby declared to be Gods children and consequently that if but some of the Galatians were baptized but some of them onely appeared to be Gods children which were absurd to think and would render Paul as contradictory to himself in the verse above where he saies ye are all the children of God so very ridiculous in his Argument and render his proof as pedling as if he had said thus by way of position viz. you are all even every one of you the children of God and then by way of proof thus viz. for some of you have been baptized and by that baptism of yours are declared so to be though the rest are not Ranterist You make baptism I perceive very needfull but the Apostle Peter who very well understood the Commission given to him and the rest of his follow Apostles Matth. 28 29 20 Mark 16 15. 16. when he speaketh of the baptism that saveth 1 Pet. 3. 21. leâ—…st any should think that he meant the baptism of water whereof we speak by which the filth of the body is put away he excludeth the putting away the filth of the flesh and places baptism wholly in the answer of a good conscience towards God neither can any man truely say that by putting away of the filth of the flesh is here to be understood the putting away of the filthy works of the flesh for then could it neither be excluded from salvation which is promised them which mortify the deede of the flesh but walk after the spirit Rom. 8. 1. 17. nor opposed to the answer of a good conscience which springs from the putting away of dead works such as the works of the flesh are for he only is truly said to have a good conscience who is not conscious to himself of walking according to the flesh Baptist. That by the words putting away the filth of the flesh is meant that bare outward dispensation of water I freely do and every one must grant and therefore what is spoken by you in proof of that might well have been spared also that the bare submâ—…ssion to that outward dispensation of water is not that which simply of it self and abstract from the inward i. e. the answer of a good conscience doth save us must needs be granted also but what of this will it therefore follow that it is to be omitted and not made use of at all in reason surely it cannot be so assertter for as the bare outward hearing of the word without doing it will do us no good but rather hurt yet that outward hearing is an ordinance at no hand to be neglected but necessarily to be used in order to the doing of the word without which we had beuer never heat for we shall not save but deceive our own souls Iam. 1. 22. and shall perish in the end Mat. 7. 26. and as bare outward fellowship in breaking of bread is so far from saving that we eat and dâ—…ink judgement to our selves unlesse withall we dâ—…cern the Lords body and be pattâ—…kers
actual sin though it also ask you plainly enough how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard and consequently how can they be saved by faith though it tell you also plainly enough Act. 8. where that question is expressely askt what hinders c. even because they yet believe not with all their heart you had said true therefore had your words bin thus viz. we do it not in other articles of faith And whereas you say the renovation of a soul is no lesse miracle then the matter of infants having faith it seems you confesse it to be a miracle that faith should be in infants and for my part I fully confesse it with you for surely t is such a thing as was seldome or never yet seen since the world began to this day but the renovation i. e. conversion of soules of men and women depraved and corrupted as infants never were by any actual sin p. 5. is no lesse miracle indeed then the other for the one is not at all and the other where it is is yet no miracle at all but a matter that happens ever and anon in the ordinary course of things as a miracle doth not and besides you are of those I am sure who are in the mind that miracles are ceased And lastly for you to sprinkle all the new born infants in all the Christian nations at this hour as taking it for granted that these all have faith for so you suppose though you see not any individual or particular infant hath it that is brought to you and yet hold in fants faith to be a miracle and yet to hold miracles to be ceased also it is if not miraculum yet mirandum monstrum et horrendum at least to me i. e. a marvelous work and a wonder that ever the wisdome of wise men should so perish and the understanding of prudent men so come to nought Thus having done with your forlorn hope I le march on now to give checkmate to that wretched crew of cavillers that are so impudent as to be responsive against reason and its Regiment and to undertake to make it good against them that infants have faith and must have baptism Review The objection that reason makes against it will easily be answered it is done for satisfaction to the Reader Re-Review Yea Sirs is Reason in so little request with you as that you not onely dare so audaciously ingage against but also set so light by it as to say its objections are easily answered let it be put to the vote if you please throughout the whole earth whether you deserve the title of good Logicians i. e. Reasonable men who here professedly wrestle against reason it self and whether your faith can possibly be found any other then faction and meer fiction against which Reason it self is by your selves confest to be opponent I confesse I have heard men called divines speak of many points of Religion and faith as above reason but I yet never met with men under the name of ministers so far devoid of Reason as to say that Religion and faith are against Reasoâ—… till I met with you whose faith and practise of baptism to believers infants upon account of their appearing to believe more plainly then the profession of persons at years can make it appear of themselves is as seems by your selves a faith and practise against Reason why else doth reason object against it Indeed the Papists are so unreasonable in sundry articles of their faith that they hold some things not onely above but against Reason and that 's the worst that can be said of the most absurd and abominable tenets that are amongst them and that is so bad that even thereupon the Protestant priesthood finds occasion enough to abhor them witnesse their Tenet of transubstantiation or real presence of Christs very body in the supper of which when we say how can this be its not onely against other articles of faith viz. his bodily ascention session and local mansion in heaven but also against common sense and reason it being in reason impossible that one body should be at once in two places as well as in consubstantiation it is for two distinct bodies viz. the bread and Christs body to be at once in one place they say much what as you say here and in the lines above viz. that howbeit its difficult to understand how it should be so in Reason yet if we had learnt to believe the Scriptures which in plain terms assert the thing saying of the bread this is my body we would believe it and leave the manner of its being so to him who saies it with whom all things are possible as we do in the articles of faith e g. the resurrection of the body not asking how it can be because the Scriptures have declared it The Reformists tell them again that the resurrection of the dead is a thing not onely in respect of God who can do all things save such as imply imperfection as to lie and die c. and contradiction for its impossible utterly that pure contradictories should be both true but also in respect of the thing it self possible to be effected but the ubiquity and the actual universal eating of one and the same numerical body and so smal a body too as that of Christs and at one and the same time in so many several places are matters and fancies savouring of such contradiction and so adverse to the very nature of God that as Kekerman system log p. 42. saies Ne deus quidem producerâ—… potest et logica e as e suis excludit ordinibus such as God doth not and Reason knows not O but saith the Papists nothing but humane reason judges this impossible and repugnant to other articles of faith to whom among other things our Divines use to reply that in matters of religion and faith and things of God reason is not to be laid aside as if we were to bring bare bruit sence i. e. blind implicit faith onely to the word of God but to be used by us that we may thereby as without which we cannot distinguish truth from falshood yea to speak yet in the very words of your own author in this case I mean Ursins Catachise to which you send us whose these words mostly are which I have already spoken see page 414. 415. For even therefore was reason given us of God that we might by the light of the mind discover contradictory opinions and clearly understanding what is agreeable to the word of God and what repugnant to it may imbrace this and refuse that Hoc nisi firmum maneat nullum erit dogma tam absurdum c. Unlesse this stand for granted no opinion though never so absurd and impious yea nothing in the sincks of all hereticks though never so impure and monstrous can be confuted out of the holy Scripture for hereticks and deceivers will reply their opinions do not contradict
head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three daies burial which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning 2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures those few that were in the Ark only excepted were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion not by dipping so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping and to the preservation of Noâ—…h and those that were with him in the Ark on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptism as its Antitype Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16 17. And then again p. 19 20. 21. he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large and to prove that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things that are signified therby then it may be as well nay must be rather by washing pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water sprinkling and infusion being as if not more agreeable to the nature and institution of baptism then dipping or immersion for as the word used i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing so the thing represented sigâ—…yed and sealed saith he in the wonted implicit phrase in baptism is a washing 〈◊〉 Cor. 6. 11. ye are wasted c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10. 22. t is a cleansing and purging 1 John 1. 7. blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9. 14. blood of Christ shall purge your conscience which things viz. washing clonsing purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping and though it were granted saith he that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water and being dipt therein that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now then the examples of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying but it may be objected saith he that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there the face or head onely I answer first saith he the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly with as good reason one may plead thus that t is most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as his stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who would endure saith he such reasoning These outward elements of water bread and wine are for spiritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing yea the spirituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism viz. The application of Christs blood and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring sprâ—…kling and that probably if not certainly with allusion to the administration of baptism Isa. 44. 3. Joel 2. 28. I will powre out my spirit upon all flesh Ezech. 36. 26. He spâ—…inkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean this clean water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Christ represented in the water of baptism so in the new testamet Act. 2. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12. 24. Now saith he let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken of and withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to iudge whether sprinkling be not as if not more agreeable to the nature of this sacrament as dipping or immersion In this manner Mr. Cook delivers his conceptions in his to A. R. we will onely see what his parallel saith who argues as Mr. Cook doth epitomizing as it were the labors of Mr. Cook unto his own turn against C. B. wee l first fully receive his charge also and then fully return what in right reason remaines to be returned to both If by baptism saith he we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death and also made partakes of his resurrection will it follow therefore that there must be some ceremony in the application of the water to resemble it if you may take this liberty of argument give me leave saith he to attempt the like and with as good reason to conclude that baptism must be no other then sprinkling that there may be proportion between it and that sprinkling of blood and water that did foreshadow it or baptism must be onely by powring of water there being a lively representation between that and pouring out of the holy spirit or that baptism must be by washing with water only there being a lively proportion between that and washing away of sins by Christs blood you see saith he what you will gain from these disputes from Analogy and proportion To this purpose Mr. Blake p. 6. as if he had stopt all our mouthes by this at once for ever yet I hope he shall see that he hath left us room enough yet to breath in and by which to breath out some reply Now to give the more plain quick cleer and condign check to these two palpable controulers not to say contramâ—…lers of the present piecious and apparent Truth reducing Mr. Blakes sharp and snap-short Syllogisticalls unto that long circumferaneous collation of Mr. Cook out of which for ouhgt I find he fetch it and in the answering of which Mr. Blake is answered as well as he I most earnestly intreat both those two and all other opposites to that one and onely true way of baptizing we plead for viz. of total dipping seriously to advise what is granted and denyed what is asserted and argued and by what weak Mediums and on what crazy grounds those things are that are
baptism that was in the primitive and purest times and for a reformation of all things according to the word and example of the Churches the word speake of it is true those Churches indeed worshipped thus were congregated thus ordered thus baptized thus viz. by dipping when they believed but sprinkling infants is the way and fashion now adaies and as for what was done of the Churches of old we have nothing to do with it and if any list to be contentions for it we have no such custom now nor the Churches of God! of which sure Mr. Cook cannot but be ashamed who hath covenanted to reforme according to the word fiâ—… a covenant keeper and a Custom-monger cannot possibly be denominated both of one Rantist Nay stay a little you 'l forget your own words I think anon did you not say your self even now that we must put difference between examples in substantiall matters and in matters meerly circumstantial we desire to keep as close as your selves can do to the primitive custom in things of weight and that there may be no variation from it without a violation of the will of Christ in any point that is positively commanded but I hope you will not make such a matter of moment of the manner of baptizing as if Chrst had injoined this way or that way of dispensation of it viz. dipâ—…ing so strictly as that sprinkling may not be used nor yet sprinkling so as that dipping may not be used nay rather its a meer ceremony a prudentiall point in which the Church may use her discretion so as to dispense it either way as conveniency and charity may dispose her and no lesse is very well observed by Mr. Baxter p. 135. Christ saith he hath not appointed the measure of water nor manner of washing no more then he hath appointed in the Lords supper what quantity of bread and wine each must take and as it would be but folly for any to think that men must needs fill themselves with bread and wine because it best signifies the fullnesse of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies our burial with Christ c. Christ told Peter that the washing of his feet was enough to clense all a little may signisie as well as much as a clod of earth doth in possession of much lands and a corn of pepper fignifies our homage for much and much to such a purpose are those words of Mr. Cook p. 20. some of which having been quoted and spoken to before though not so satisfactorily but that they sway with me still I am almost loath to repeat them yet sith they be so among the other I can hardly decline the mentioning them once more by your leave in answer to the objection that a little water doth not so fitly and perfectly represent as dipping and plunging sith in the one the whole body is washed in the other the face or head only He saies first that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly that with as good reason one may plead thus that at the supper it is most convenient that every Communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as stomach and head will hold to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who saies he would endure such reasoning Thirdly These outward Elements of water bread and wine are for speciall use and to signify special things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not to represent nor so much as to take of the heart from the spirituall to the corporal thing not the washing away the filth of the body in baptism nor the glutting or satisfying of the natural Appetite in the Lords Supper is to be looked after but the washing and refreshing of the Soul which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water eating and drinking of a little bread and wine In circumcision a little skin was cut of You see what these worthy men say you need not be so hot as you are for the ceremony if so be you keep the substance Baptist. I have received as much as all this comes to long since in a loving letter from a worthy friend of mine whose words shall sway me where I see them suit with the word of truth where not I must be excused to the full as much as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxters sway you be they right or wrong Grant that dipping was alwaies used in those Hot Countreys yet you know saith he that necessity and charity dispense with Ceremonies even of Gods own institution nor is the Nature of the Sacrament altered by this change viz. from dipping to sprinkling for seeing the whole vertue of the Sacrament is in signification perablutionem it no more matters Quantum quisque abluatur then it doth in the Supper Quantum quisque comedat But verily I am not able to discern either in this or in that you say above or in that you cite out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter the least warrant in the world for the way of sprinkling or for waving the old wonted way of dipping with all the wisdome I have to weigh it by at this instant as for what you take notice of that I said my self above viz. that there is difference between matters circumstantial and substantial so that we need not be so strict in the observation of the one I will not eat any thing I then uttered but me thinks you might as well had you not been partial have taken notice of what followed as of that which had you done you would have seen how little accrues to your purpose out of that grant of mine for I told you there and now tell you again sith I see you so quick to catch at things by the halves and slow to mind what in them makes against you that howbeit it is not so material which way you baptize so you baptize yet if you Rantize onely you vary not onely in a circumstance but in the very substance of the Ordinance doing quite another matter then that you should do and not the matter i. e. Baptism in another manner onely for we will bear with that as a thing neither here nor there whether you baptize i. e. wash a person by overwhelming or burying him in water in this gesture or that this form or that with his face up or down yea be it by infusion of water on him or immersion or putting him under it which of the two is most proper and easy we weigh it not so you see to it that you bury and overwhelm him for all this while you retain both the true outward sign which is baptism or burial