and people did begin so high as Abraham or before such time as Moses and Aaron had according to Gods command to them ceremonially sanctified by the bloud of sprinkling and dedicated both the Book of the Covenant and all the people and all the vessells of the Ministery and all other things pertaining to that Tabernacle for both that holy people and all their ceremonially holy things whereby you need not be ignorant unless you will that the holiness of that seed and their sanctuary was the same and began and were to end both together were first consecrated didicated purified sanctified all at one time under Moses Heb. 9.18.19.20.21.22 c. whether I say the holiness of the seed began so high as Abraham is a thing so out af doubt to me that I dare say that as the holy land was not relatively holy till they came into it so the holy seed as well as the other holy things of that Covenant were not ceremonially consecrated nor formally sanctified nor vouchsafed that title of a holy seed though vertually they were a choise seed before till a little before they were to enter it and howbeit I challenge no man yet I intreat any man in the world to shew me if he can where they were denominated and distinguished from all other people as unclean by that term of a holy people till God intituled them so by Moses Exod 22.31 ye shall be holy men unto me neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts ye shall cast it to doggs which place compared with Levit. 22.8.9 Deut. 7.6 chap. 14.2 chap. 26.19 doth so plainly shew these two things First That the holiness there spoken of began but thenceforth Secondly that it was but a certain ceremonial distinction and a holinese opposite to that kind of defilement which might be contracted by eating of unclean beasts and so fully ceased in Christ that I even blush to read Mr. Blake and have been ashamed in my mind to hear some Independents also bring those Scriptures wherein God called Israel a holy people to himself to prove that an inchurched believers meer fleshly seed is now by nature holy in the same sense Now then let us hear the conclusion of this whole matter of the things that have been spoken this is the summe viz. that there are three kinds of holiness of which when you say children of believing parents have holiness and consequenrly the spirit you undoubtedly mean one viz. Matrimonial Ceremonial Moral The Middlemost of which because your fellow laborers against the Gospel intend that chiefly in their books I have treated on last and most largely and I now say three things of it in special First That it is a Holinesse which once was but now is not in being Secondly That it is a Holiness which of it self when it was in being as it was at the beginning of the Gospel before Christ crucified could not without faith and moral holiness interest the persons in whom it was seated in any of these three things viz. Gospel Promises Gospel Priviledges or Gospel Ordinances 1. Not the promises for they were made to Abraham in Christ and his spiritual seed not his own fleshly seed upon such terms as bare birth of his body or such holiness and righteousness as was under the Law intituling to Canaan Rom. 4.13.14 Gal. 3.16.29 2. Not the priviledges viz. Gospel immunities and Church-membership for those that could plead they were under the typical freedomes of the old house or Church under the Law as Abrahams seed only were are denyed by Christ to be that holy seed that should stand in the Gospel house that was now to be built or share in that spiritual freedome which the sonne gives which is the only freedome indeed unlesse they did Abrahams works Iohn 8.32 to the 40th 3. Nor yet the Ordinances no not so much as Baptism the initiating ordinance it self for when that old holy seed remaining yet under their relative and denominative holiness unabolished did plead it as to baptism they were put back by Iohn and not permitted barely upon that account upon which they stood in the old house without faith unless they now believed and amended their lives whose repulse of them when they came to his baptism was this viz. begin not to say we have Abraham to our Father c. Mat. 3.7 8 9. Luke 3.7.8 Thirdly suppose baptism were entailed so to that holinesse and a meer fleshly seed of believers or of believing Abraham himself as truly as t is true it is not yet how grossely were you overseen Gentlemen in undertaking to prove the holy spirit by it to be in infants for that 's the probandum the very thing which by the holinesse of infants you went about to make good for the minor of your first sylogism which was this but little children have the holy spirit being denied was proved say you first by their faith secondly by their holinesse thirdly by those Eulogies given them in Scripture if then by holinesse you mean this kind of holiness I mean ceremonial which once was in the Iews by nature you have a wet eele by the tail then indeed for ask but Mr. Blake and he 'le tell you that that holinesse was in thousands who yet had not the holy spirit yea in truth all the Iews had that holinesse of whom not a Tenth even then when they had it were either in infancy or at years morally sanctified or indued with the holy spirit and as I have said these three things in special concerning that one kind of holinesse so I have three things in general to say in short concerning al these three sorts of holinesse viz. First one of them was in infants of old and now is not but is vanisht and when it was it proved not the spirit viz. ceremonial Secondly another is but nothing to your purpose I mean the proof of the spirit though it be in most infants viz. matrimonial Thirdly the other is not yet come for ought yet appears to infants viz. morall which if it did appear to be in them positive qualitativè as an inherent quality not negative onely so as to be without sin or absolutely innocent for absolute innocency hath no need of baptism then I should say something more to you but you see it doth not therefore though you said nothing then as I wish since I had suffered you to do from infants holinesse to the proof of their having the spirit and right to baptism yet I have searcht but cannot possibly find what holinesse you could possibly have proved it by I have been the larger here though you gave me but a bare hint by the nomination onely of infants holinesse first because here lies indeed the very principal knot and basis of this controversie which you erring in are consequently erroneous in all your wayes for Error minimus in principio fit major in medio Maximus in fine And as for all oâ—her arguments pro and
a sanctified sight of such sins as you are as truly guilty of as here reproved for and me under my miscarriage in reproving 6. Finally Sirs having briefly premised these things and praying earnestly that our Lord Iesus Christ would vouchsafe you all that holy spirit of his even the spirit of promise which I fear you are more strangers to then you are aware of and in order thereunto adjuring you to repent from your dead works to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord so resteth as to this Epistle Your truly loving though as little Beloved as Believed Friend SAMUEL FISHER SOME FEW GENERALL Hints given out as time would give leave where to hit upon some few of those particulars that are handled in the Book above A BElieving Abrahams own children born of his body not his own in Gospel account nor in right to stand in his Family the visible Church now under the Gospell nor heires with him of Gospel promises much lâ—sse the meer fleshly seed of any believing Gentiles without faith and doing the workes of Abraham proved at large p. 95. to 105. The Ashford Disputers prov'd throwout their whole Disputation to have brought not one inch of Argument or dram of reason to evince the right of believers infants to baptism more then what were it of any force that way would as fully evince the right of unbelievers infants to it also to whom themselves deny it p. 60.61.62.63.64 B The Triple Tower of BBBabell i. e. the threefold kingdome of Priests or great City BBBabylon standing now divided in three parts viz. Papall Prelatical and Presbyteriall now comming down to ruine by the division of languages p. 34.531.532 Two parts of the great City BBBabylon that 's to fall first here in England before it falls in other nations viz. Papacy Prelacy fully fallen here already the third viz. Presbytery now falling dayly together with all its Accountrements as the other did before it p. 605.606 Baptism Gods sign not Gods seal but the spirit onely his Seal of the Gosspel-covenant and though a sign and resemblance of the death burial and resurrection of Christ to persons at years yet not so much as a sign to infants but destroyed utterly in its nature use and office as a sign and outward representation if dispensed in infancy p. 154. to 159. Mr. Baxters Baby-Book as occasionally toucht upon throwout this whole volume So so far as it pleads infant baptism from its three Mediums Infant discipleship Church Membership and right to be dedicated to God summarily plainly and entirely by it self answered p. 414. to 464. C The Babish Disputing of the Ashford Disputers for believers infants baptism above other infants from the Rule of Christian Charity which say they is to presume every person to be good till he appear to be evil discovered and disproved p. 146. to 151. Circumcision set as a seal to Abrahams person onely but as a sign only and no seal to his posterity in what sense t is said to be a seal to him Ro. 4.11 the sense of that Script which is perverted by the Priesthood is plainly discovered p. 18.19 also p. 24.154 also 269. The Argument from the Analogy that the Priests say is between Circumcision and baptism called by Dr Featly Pons Asinorum a bridge which the Asses i. e. the Anabaptists could never passe over examined and such Dialogy and discrepation discovered to be between those two services not onely as we use but as themselves abuse baptism that two administrations cannot be said nor shew'd to differ more then they do p. 159. to 189. No Command for infant-baptism as there was for infant-circumcision neither syllabical nor consequential Mat. 28.19 where Dr. Featley Mr. Marshal Mr. Blake positively say its commanded in the word all Nations they being a part thereof and where not these three onely but Mr. Bayly Mr. Baxter Mr. Cook Mr. Cotton and even all intimate it to us as commanded in the clause make disciples cleared to be no Command but a plain prohibition of infant baptism p. 162. to 169. The Command for circumcision of infants Gen. 17. not so much as a consequential or vertual Command to baptize them as Mr. Marshal would prove it to be unlesse the Priesthood will yield themselvs to be transgressors of that Command who baptize females on any day when only males were bid to be circumcisied on the eight or if the Command for circumcising children Gen. 17. were a consequential Command to baptize them then the Contramand to circumcise children Act. 21.21 must be a Contramand to baptize them p. 178. to 184 Mr. Cotton confesses that the infants that were brought to Christ Mark 10.14 were not baptized and that no infants were baptized with the rest in that place where it s recorded that 3000 were baptized Act 2.38 39 40. p. 138. The Babish disputings of the Ashford Disputers for infant baptism from a necessity of making the Gospel Covenant worse then that under the law contrary to Heb. 8 6. if believers infants may not now be baptized as well as the Iews infants were then circumcised discovered and disproved at large p. 151. to 189. The law and Gospel though one a type of the other yet are two really specifically distinct Covenants and not two different administrations only though so also of that one Covenant of grace nor one Covenant only for substance as the Priests make it a diversity in them discovered contray to that identity they plead p. 251. to 254. The great and mighty Argument for infant-baptism from the practise of the universal Church which the Ashford Disputers complain much that we would not hear of ventilated and the little verity great vanity and utter invalidity therof discovered p. 238. to 247. Clergy no proper name to the National Ministry but to Christs people p. 553 D No Damnation to any dying infants p. 105.106 to 462. Infants not possibly capable to be Disciples of Christ and The dribling disputings which the Priests make for infant Discipleship from Act 15.10 and from infant Discipleship in proof of their right to baptism discovered p. 169. to 178. also 207.208 p. 410. to 423. Total Dipping proved at large to be the onely true way and form of baptizing 1 from the prime signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 from the example and practise of the primitive times 3 from the proper end and use of baptism which is to be not only a sign but resemblance of the thing signifyed and from divers other considerations and the frivolous fendings and provings of the Priests against Dipping and for sprinkling discovered and their Obulary Objections answered p. 308. to 397. Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxters bawbling false and refusely charges of the Totall Dippers as Dipping naked as no lesse then Murderers and Adulterers refelled and refuted p. 397. to 412. E No Example of infant baptism in all the Scripture the pedling proof of the Priesthood
for infant baptism from the several Housholds that are said to be baptized discovered and disproved p. 185. to 188. Old England Scotland New England concurring together by the ears about their infant-rantism 227. to 237. All those Eulogies or high commendations that are given to little infants in those Scriptures Mark 10.14 Mat. 19.14 Luke 18.16 cannot possibly prove them to have any right to baptism and the childish disputings of the Ashford disputers therefrom disproved also Dr. Holms's weak Arguings from Mark 10. for infant baptism and that Scripture opened and urg'd as a strong Argument against the Priests in that point p. 132. to 142. F Faith their apparent having of which is the first way whereby the Ashford Disputants would prove believers infants to have the Spirit not possible to be in any infants much lesse to be manifested to be in believers infants more then in those of unbelievers the childish disputings of the Ashford Disputers in proof of infants Believing from Matth. 18.6 from Faiths being and witnessed by their circumcision to be in the Jewes infants from their uncapablenesse to be justifyed and saved without it and from all other considerations whatsoever abundantly disproved p. 69. to 75.195 to 201.271 to 279. and their unreasonable repulses to such objections as themselves confesse Reason makes against infants faith on Reasons behalf replyed to p. 279. to 299. Not onely the primitive Fathers viz. F. Peter F. Paul F. Jude F. James F. John are all for us but the sub-primitive Fathers which the Ashford Disputers pretend they would fain have pleaded it from perhaps are more versed in then in the other discovered to be more against then for Infant baptism p. 214. to 226. H Imposition of Hands asserted unanimously by Paraeus Calvin Hophman Marlorat Bullinger Cotton and Dr. Holmes who cites these to be dispensed in antient time to baptized persons when at yeares in order to their admittance into church-fellowship p. 139. One undeniable Argument for the present use and practise of that doctrine of laying on of Hands on baptized believers before their admission into fellowship in the Church p. 492. in prosecution of which A Paper newly extant stiled Questions about laying on of Hands with the grounds thereof is answered p. 493. to 510. What Heresie and Schism is who is a Schismatical Hereâ—ick p. 524.525 the PPPriests proved to be the chief Hereticks and Schismaticks p. 526. to 528. the Churches of the Baptists clearing themselves from the crime of Heresie and Schism out of Calvins own mouth p. 529.530.531 Heresies Idolatry false worship 〈◊〉 to be tolerated in civil States the parable of the tares and Wheat Mat. 13. opened liberty of conscience in matters meerly of Religion proved and pleaded therefrom and by many other Arguments as the mind of Christ and the Higher Powers of the earth strictly summoned in the name of Christ as they will answer the contrary at their peril to cease acting according to the PPPriesthoods bloody Tenet of persecution for cause of conscience p. 532. sundry causes why God suffers Hereticks to be four great causes of the CCClergyes so great Heresie and erring from the truth viz. 1 Amor sui self conceit 2 dislike of their own places 3 Gloriae secularis Aucupium a desire to be Some body 4 Covetousnesse p. 590. to 608. Holinesse threefold 1 Morall none of this in infants p. 75. to 78. 2 Matrimoniall this in all infants as well as some save onely Bastards but proves not the holy Spirit to be in its subject nor gives any right to baptism yet this proved to by the Holiness onely meant in 1 Cor. 7.14 p. 78. to 85 3. Ceremoniall viz. that of the Jewes by nature that entitled them to circumcision commonly called Faederall by the Priests the common Topick whence they Analogically plead a Birth Holines in believers infants consequently their right to baptism proved abundantly to be abolished and the extream contradiction follies absurdities of Mr. Blakes Baby book stiled the Birth-priviâ—edge discovered p. 85 to 132. The Holinesse of the Iews seed confest by both Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter to be the same whereby the Land City Temple were holy which being ceremonial and abolished the other must needs be so also p 114.115 The Babish disputings of the Ashâ—ord Disputers and of Mr. Baxter for infant baptism from the Hope or Hopelessnesse of their salvation according as we dispense or deny baptism to them discovered and disproved and grounds to hope the salvation of all dying infants whether baptized or no exhibited p. 189. to 193. also 442. to 462. I Innocency of infants no argument for their baptism but much rather for the contrary p. 77.78 As Ishmael and his seed was cast out of Abrahams house before Isaac so Isaac and his seed before Christ. Gal. 4.22 to the end and many other Scriptures illustrating that truth opened Johns Baptism why called Johns how differing from Christs and how it was Christs p. 478.479.480.401 M The National Ministry whether we consider their ordination or manners and many more matters no Ministry of Christs making but of the Popes p. 558. to 588. O The reasons ordinarily rendred against the use of baptism or any Ordinances at all refelled p. 476. to 491 509. to 522. P The Gospel Promise not made to believers seed as such nor to the meer fleshly seed of any man in the world Act. 2.39 which is made so much of by the Priests as of force to prove infant baptism opened and cleared to make against them p. 89. to 95.261 to 266. S Scripture up in armes against infant baptism as coted in proof of it out of Mr. Baxters own mouth 206.207.211.212 Of Sprinkling when and how it came instead of baptism p. 311. P. 311. line 27. for Fidus read Magnus Caetera tam nil sunt ut vix funt digna notatu Crimina Typographi parva remitte precor ANTI-DIABOLISM OR THE TRUE ACCOUNT A TRUE COUNTERFIT ANd now Sirs to say nothing of your pretty Preface till anon for even that also must then be forth coming to give Account of its dawbery and incongruity as well as your Account it self I will begin with your book which as diminutive as it is you have for all that stitcht up in no less than three Treatises First A Report of your Disputation Secondly A Review of your Arguments Thirdly A Ratiocination about Hereticks In all which how far forth you quit your selves like men of truth and reason comes now before the world to be examined The first I say is a Story of the long Disputation that was held at Ashford Iuly 27 1649. from noon till neer seven at night and it 's contained in the five first leaves whereof two whole ones at least but say so they had need are spent in your exact setting down of the Arguments and Answers and the rest in praevious and posteriour passages So that in this first part of your Pamphlet there are two things in generall
were then called sinners of the Gentiles yea if that distinction of Iews by nature and sinners of the Gentiles spoken of Gal. 2.15 were now in being remaining unabolished it would be so farre from establishing that indeed it would utterly overthrow what Mr. Blake pleads for from it and instead of advancing the naturall seed of believing Gentiles so high in holinesse as he would have them to be by birth debase them rather into a worse condition then I dare say any unbelieving Gentiles seed is in by birth as to such a kind of uncleanness as they once were denominated by in all the world specially if it be so as he himself saies p. 10. of his birth priviledge viz. That the seed of believing Gentiles are now under one of those two heads in the text For if that distinction be not now destroyed and all men by birth come under one of those two denominations now under which of them I trow will Mr. Blake rank the infants of believing Gentiles he will not render himself so ridiculous sure as to say they are Iewes by nature and therefore unless the distinction be totally taken away he must say they are by nature sinners of the Gentiles which in the sense of the Law is as if he should say Doggs unholy common and unclean and more then we our selves dare say of any now new-born infants under heaven as in contra-distinction to other If he say they are neither sinners of the Gentiles nor Iews by nature neither then either he must say they are some third thing which if he do Mr. Blake himself will contradict Mr. Blake in that for he asserts pag. 10. of his Birth priviledge that the seed of believing parents under the Gospel must be lookt upon under one member of this division in this text and that the Apostles distinction and distribution is so full and compleat that a third cannot be assigned or else he must grant that this distinction is now wholly ceased under the Gospel which because t is the giving up of his whole cause he will be very loath to do and therefore rather than do so then which yet if he well understood what is best for him he could not do a better thing of the two he choses to the utter contradiction of himself to rank them under a third head to assert them to be some third thing namely a sort of carnal holy seed of his own and the Clergies coining a Relative holy seed of their own consecrating a faederall holy seed of their own feigning a holy seed hatcht in their own heads which are neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring nor sinners of the Gentiles nor Iews by nature nor Iews besides nature neither i. e. by personal faith as all true Christians are but quartum quoddam a certain fourth thing called Christians from their mothers womb or ever they are so much as christen'd into the name or discipled into the nature and yet for all this a seed set forth in such a transcendent manner as if all other were in comparison of them by very descent p. 13. unclean sinners unholy dogs and filthy swine 'T were enough to make a wise man wonder to see how superlatively Mr. Blake magnifies this seed of believing Gentiles above the seed of all other men in the world even above the fleshly seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves who only at least mainly had the promise of this priviledge of transmitting a Covenant holiness to their issue and this but typically and for a time neither even till that seed should come i. e. Christ and believers in him to whom all and only the Gospel promises were made He calls them Children of God and Saints by very nature Little ones of Sion in reference to infants of Infidells which with him are little ones of Babylon and yet to go round again this Babilon in his own opinion is not the Infidells but Rome a Church of Christians in name at least as well as the Protestant nations and consequently to go round again in his own opinion such see pag. 26. as transmit a covenant-holiness into their seed so far as in his own sense to make them little ones of Sion as well as the other and yet for all this too to go round again though it be execration with him to hurt the little ones of Sion i. e. in his sense the infants of such as are not infidels but Christians in name yet to go round again it is an happy thing to dash the little ones of Babylon i. e. in his sense infants of Papists who yet are Christians nomine tenus and not infidels and consequently secundum se the Lords heritage and such as have Christs name upon them and such as for a Turk to persecute were to be guilty with Saul of persecuting the Lord Jesus p. 30. against the walls p. 29. which little ones of both Syon and Babylon he is yet much mistaken in when all is done in taking either of them for fleshly babes of what parents soever Syons little ones in the true spiritual or gospel sense being the Saints themselves onely and not their fleshly babes as such even the little ones Christ Paul Peter and Iohn speak of Mat. 10.42 Gal. 4.19 1 Pet. 2.2 1 Iohn 2.1.12 13. And Babylons babes being no other then the C C Clergies adult disciples or A A Antichristian C C Christian creatures And to take notice a little more yet of Mr. Blakes high expressions of the birth holinesse birth happinesse birth mercy birth dignity of meer nominal Christians fleshly seed as they lie scattered up and down in p. 28.30.31.32.33 and other pages of his book he calls them a seed in relation to God as well as their parents and so indeed they may soon be if he mean of such meer outside Christians as he doth the inheritance of God the Saints and Servants of God a holy seed having a royall transcendency above all others as onely worthy the name of a people injoying the light nigh unto God a people of hope and expectation children that have blisse as if they were actually and inalterably already stated in it and possest of it and all other infants and people as inalterably designd and devoted universally to cursing and damnation as having no Gospel at all belonging to them no not that Gospel which is to be preached to every creature a seed by birth priviledge to be baptized p. 27. which yet is more birth-priviledged then Abrahams own seed could have Mat. 3. even before their birth priviledge did perish from them such as have a large and full right to all the ordinances of God and priviledges of the Church appertaining to members as they shall be capable of their use by personall faith and good demeanor when at years and grown up and I wonder who hath not the like upon those terms even infants of infidels surely as well as they when at age and whilst infants they
so belike must be baptized and Mr. Blake in p. 24. of his birth-priviledge who saith If the ground of a childs admission to baptism be not the faith of his immediate parents but the promise made to Ancestors in the faith whose seed is though at a greater distance then the loose life of an immediate parent can be no bar to his baptism this is plain if Josia have no right from his father Ammon yet he is not shut out in case he have right from his father David or his father Abraham yea even all the national Clergy I think excepting your new English and congregationall men and lastly they themselves too witnesse Dr. Holmes who p. 11 makes the remote father Abraham he upon whose belief those 3000 Iewes in Acts 2. were to be baptized aâ—d Mr. Cotton himself Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus who p. 79. of his grounds c. affirms all the seed and then surely the seed to many generations as well as the nearest to be holy by adoption and wearies himself and his reader in about 20 pages to prove remote Abraham to be the parent upon whose faith the Iew shall be taken in at last viz. from p. 79. to p. 100. Some again put the practise of infant baptism upon the score of neither the childs nor the fathers faith necessarily but on the faith of Christian Sponsors and of these there 's two sorts too considering Sponsors as either witnesses or sureties aliâs Gossips or Guardians first some sprinkle them upon the witnesses or gossips faith thus all that still retain the old English deformation after which yet the New English Christians that were born here were Christâ—ed by the Priests saying I baptize thee when they did but Rantize which practise though the directory allow as the ordinary way yet the common prayer book did not save in case of necessity which Priests when they should by right baptize the spâ—nsors professing their faith and repentance from dead works and desires to be baptized in that faith in these words we forsake them all all this we stedfastly believe that is our desire instead thereof take a child of what parents it matters not out of the midwifes arms putting two or three drops of water upon the face of it and so there 's an end of the business this is that which Mr. Cotton the great Gamaliel of New England though after that fashion possibly himself was sprinkled is now utterly and bitterly against professing for himself and those Churches p. 88. of his way of the Church of new England that they know not any ground at all to allow a faithful man liberty to entitle another mans child to baptism upon the pretence of his own promise to have an eye to his education unlesse the child be either born in his house or resigned to him to be brought up as his own and then he is confident but from no other law then that of circumcision from which I may be as confident that males onely and that on the eighth day must be baptized it may be done Some upon the faith of the sureties or guardians as Mr. Cotton who from Gen. 17 12.13 grants but very doubtfully and therefore whether damnably or no let him look to it so much liberty to a Christian Sponsor i. e. Surety that if a stranger or a very wicked man should give him his child from his infancy to be brought up as his own it may be baptized as his own in confutation of which I le quote no Author but Mr. Cotton who in that same 88. page where he speaks this but two or three lines above it saies thus The Covenant is not intailed to Sureties i. e. to such for whom they undertake but this is the utmost bounds of liberty Mr. Cotton saies he can give and I wonder who gave him power to give so much in this case he allowes a little bit and no more because he is not sure he may allow that but by his leave from that inch I le take an ell for if a wicked mans child may be baptized then it may and then why not a 100 as well as one in the like case and so at least the promise is not entailed to faithful parents only and their seed yea his grant p. 88. intailes baptism to the children that have believing Guardians as well as to such as have believing parents and so he gives the question as stated concerning believers children only Some again put it on the score of neither the childs nor the parents nor the sponsors faith but at least either the fathers or the Mothers membership in a gathered Church so as if this be not the parents though otherwise never so faithful may not have their children baptized thus the Churches in New England yea and I think all of this indifferent semi-demi-Independent way both in Old England and New and elsewhere witness Mr. Best Churches plea p. 60 61. who saith thus A man must not only be a Christian and by profession within the covenant only but also a member of some visible Church and particular congregation â—re his child be baptized For which Mr. Rutherford rounds him about again and takes him to do p. 174.175 of his Presb. and flatly contradicts him thus saying Baptism is a priviledge of the Church not of such a particular Independent Church and the distinction between Christian communion and Church communion in this point is needless and fruitâ—ess for none are to be refused baptism whose parents professe the faith c. howbeit not members of a settled Church Which also contradicts Mr. Cobbets Castle of come down whose whole structure is settled upon that same dainty distinction of Church choice and true choice of this mind also was my beloved friend Mr. Charles Nicolls of whom I have more hopes yet then I have of every one of his own form that he will fully own the truth in time forasmuch as he doth more fully appear for it against that Truth-destroying thing called Tythes then those of his way do in other parts of Kent who either per se or at least per aliâ—s take them not to say rake and rack both Christs flocks and the parish flocks also for them still which Mr. Nicolls preaching publiquely at Dover in my heaâ—ing Ian. 1650. whether he fetch his doctrine out of Mr. Cobbets book yea or no I cannot tell in page 17. whereof the same is found declared himself to be of Mr. Cobbets mind by the delivery of this doctrine viz. Thaâ— an enchurcht believers natural seed is faederally holy from 1 Cor. 7.14 which position I have also since seen under his hands so narrow a corner is the ease crouded into now that it is not the believing but the enchurcht belieuing parent i e. who leaving the perochiall posture betakes himself to membership in some seperated society who sanctifies the unbelieving parent and the seed else were the children unclean but now are they holy i. e.
compare Heb. 9.15 with Act. 2.39 answerable to that also is Rom. 9.7.8 where it s said in a figure that as the seed of Abraham himself by Ishmael were not children of God i. e. as to the old Covenant so as to be counted heirs of that Canaan and members of that Church though they were his true seed and the children of his flesh as well as Isaac was because Isaac onely and his seed were the children of that promise Gen. 17.19.20.21 for in Isaac shall thy seed saith he be called the children of Abrahams flesh the Ishmaelites these are not the children of God in the old legal sense but the children of the promise are counted for the seed so even the seed of Abraham by Isaac himself are not at all children i. e. the children of God as to the new covenant so as to be counted heirs of the Gospel Canaan and members in the Gospel church though they were his true seed and children of his flesh as well as Christ was because Christ onely and his seed are the children of this promise for in Christ who was the true Isaac of whom the other was but the type must Abrahams seed now be called i. e. they that are the children of the flesh onely whether of Abraham or of any other man in the world these are not now as of old the fleshly seed of Abpaham Isaac and Iacob were the children of God but the children of the promise are counted now for the seed T is true to Abraham and his seed the Gospel promises were made as well as those of the law but mark it he saith not unto seeds in plurali as of many but of one and to thy seed in singulari that is Christ Gal. 3.16 of whom being born by faith we are his seed to whom in and with him the promise is made for as the believer himself as a believer i. e. as Abrahams spiritual seed had no share in the old covenant promise i. e. Canaan if not descended from him by Isaac after the flesh because to Abraham and that fleshly seed onely in a type of something else and yet truly too those promises were made so a believers fleshly seed as barely a believers seed though born of believing Abrahams own body as the Iews are at this day and that 's a higher birth one should think to entitle to the Gospel if any fleshly birth could do it then to be born of our Protestant believers have no share in this new Covenant promise if not born as I may say of Abraham by Isaac i. e. Christ after the faith or by faith in Christ and so personally even every individual for himself not Catervatim or domesticatim whole families whole nations of parents and children at once ingraffed as branches upon the root and spirituallized into that stock or family of Abraham i. e. the visible Church in which his own natural branches much more any other mans meer naturall branches can have no place now any further then as they appear to believe Indeed the natural branches stood of right upon meer fleshly birth of believing Abraham without faith so long as that fleshly birth-priviledge lasted and could give a standing and till the time of faith and standing there by personal faith onely came and then they were broken off indeed because of unbelief yet not nationally as you say i. e. the whole body for the unbelief of some viz. the persons of the children through allages for the infidelity of the parents for its evident that as many as believed and those were not a few when the rest were rejected were then and thereupon admitted Act. 2. And as many children of them in any age as believe the unbelief of their parents shall not prejudice them but personally every individual that did not believe which the more is the pitty were for the most part both children and parents too in the primitive times save some few persons that did then believe whose children yet for all that promise to them and their children you so talk of out of Act. the 2.39 came all to nought through unbelief for else indeed the promise even after Christ crucified was to them as also to all others so sure in case of faith that that causelesse curse of their parents wishing the blood of Christ to be on them and their children should never have hurt any but them that wished it In further illustration of which yet I mean that personal faith onely not parental gives a standing in the Church now because I write to a generation of men that have more time to read then I to write I hope I may be bold to trouble my self and you with the transcription of at least a page out of a little treatise termed a confutation of infant-baptism by Thomas Lamb very plain and pregnant to this purpose and the rather because I fear you will not search the book it self soundly if I should send you to it onely by telling you t is worth your reading in this point though at your request I have all-to-be-read Dr. Featley in the 12. and 13 pages of which book of Thomas Lamb he writes as follows So then when Christ the true promised seed was come the seed in the flesh that lead to Christ ceased for the natural relation ceased at the death of Christ and not before at which time the distinction or different holinesse between Iew and Gentile ceased Act. 10.28 Eph. 2.13.15 In Rom. 11.20 it is said through unbelief they are broken off now t is manifest they were the true Church till the death of Christ and then broken off through unbelief why were not the Iews in the sin of unbelief before yes no doubt why then were they not broken off before and why then the reason is because the time of faith was come and therefore now they were broken off through unbelief the seed was come therefore the natural seed ceased Christ was come therefore the law ceased As long as the law lasted they did remain in the Church by being circumcised and observing the rites and ceremonies of the Law though they did remain in unbelief but when the time of faith was come Gal. 3.25 then they were no longer in the Covenant and Church by observing the rites and Ceremonies of the Law which they entered into by circumcision but now they were broken off through unbelief which notes out unto us that the standing in that Church before Christ in time of the Law and the standing in this Church since Christ in time of the Gospel is upon different grounds for the standing in that Church was by being circumcised and observing the rites and ceremonies of the Law but the standing in this Church is by faith and being baptized into the same faith Act. 2.38.41 Joh. 4.1 Gal. 3.26 27. Rom 11.20 And it is to be noted that the Iewes the same people that were circumcised and in covenant with Abraham according to the flesh and
and ye on the Sabbath circumcise a man that the Law of Moses may not be broken Ioh. 7.22.23 And not only circumcision and sacrifices but even the whole Law is said to come by Moses though circumcision and sacrifices which were parts of it came long before him and grace and truth to come by Christ i. e. the very things themselves of which Moses Testament was but typical and a shadow Though grace and truth were both in the world in part long before Christ came personally into it Iohn 1.17 yea something of both Law and Gospel came into the world before either Moses or Christ yet they are denominated after them Moses Law Christs Gospel and said respectively to begin in them to come with them to be given by them as if they had been altogether unheard of before these times because when they came they gave the things a new that were before and also the fullness of the things respectively perteining to each Testament which in part were but not in their ample perfection till their times and thus the Law was said to begin at Moses Gal. 3.17 and the Gospel to begin at Christ birth Mark 1.1 the one 400 years the other at least two thousand years after both Covenants viz. the Law and the Gospel too began in the word of Promise to Abraham and his two seeds Isaac and Christ to whom respectively the two promises were made of two several Canaans the Earthly and the Heavenly whereof the one together with the promise it self that was made of it and the Promised seed to which it was made viz. the fleshly seed of Abraham by Isaac was a clear type of the other i. e. of the promise and promised seed that by that promise were to be heirs thereof viz. a spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ Gen. 17. For there the Inheritances of both Covenants were both given in the word of promise the one viz. the Heavenly Canaan more darkly through the other typing it out the other i. e. the Earthly Canaan more clearly plainly and in terminis ver 7.8 I will give to thee and thy seed after thee meaning Isaac the onely seed and heir of that promise for Ishmael and his had not that typical covenant established on them p. 20.21 but Isaac and his fleshly seed as also Aâ—titypically Isaac and his fleshly seed who were sons of the bondwoman and a meer fleshly seed in reference to Christ though children of the free-woman and a promised seed in a type in reference to Ishmael had not the true or Gospell Covenant established on them meerly as born of Abrahams body but as believing and so it is established on all men but Christ and Believers I will give thee and thy seed saith he the Land of Canaan even then and there God gave out both the Covenants in the promise viz. the Gospel more implicitly and in a shadow the other i. e. the legal Covenant concerning Canaan in express terms together with a present grant of one of the grand Ordinances of it as a sign and token viz. Circumcision typing out the spiritual Iews or seed of Abrahams circumcision in heart that must be heirs only under the Gospel Rom. 2. Phil. 3. to which Ordinative or beginning or cardinal ordinance circumcision many more Statutes Laws Judgements and ordinances were to be added in after ages when the time of their entring their Possession should draw nigh to the observation of all which as in time God should give them out more clearly by his Servant Moses the Deliverer Minister and Mediator of that Covenant circumcision was an obligation and in these Respects that Covenant is called the Covenant of Circumcision Act. 7.8 and Circumcision it self called an Engagement to keep the whole law i. e. binding to the performance of all things required to be done on mans part i. e. the Jewes in order to their enjoyment of Canaan under that old Testament or Covenant Gal. 5.3 For though Circumcision as well as that promised Land whereof it was a token and that fleshly seed that were signed heirs by it and all other the Ordinances of Divine Service which the first Covenant then had and in a manner every thing else under the Law related thus far to the Gospel Covenant as that they were types and shadowes of something answerable under the Gospel i. e. Circumcision of the heart and that other seed i. e. Iews inwardly both answering to that Circumcision and those Iews which were outward only and in the flesh Rom. 2.27.28 29. Phillip 3.2 3. and of the Heavenly Inheritance which these inward Iews i. e. believers or circumcised ones in heart are heirs to by promise yet both that sign Circumcision and the promise signified by it were all alike relating immediately to that Old Testament of Moses as parts thereof and were not parts but paterns only of the new nor was Circumcision any other then an ordinance of the Law of Moses and not a direct rule for us to square or steer by in our dispensing any ordinance of the Gospel for that were to disparage the Law-giver we are under even that other great Prophet Christ whom Moses pointed at saying Deut. 18. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you him shall ye hear in all things c. as if he were not as faithful and punctual to the full in fitting lawes for his house the Gospel Church as Moses was for that old Israel or Church under the Law which was his Heb. 3.1.2.5.6.7 Though therefore both Covenants were in being i. e. the Law and the Gospell before either Moses or Christ the one concerning the Earthly Canaan to a fleshly seed in a Type the other a Heavenly Canaan to a spiritual seed as the Antitype yet are they said to begin the one in Moses the other in Christ because these two were respectively the two Mediatours of these two Covenants and as it were the two several Masters and Law givers to the two seeds or the two several families of Abraham viz. the two Churches under the Law and the Gospel the fleshly Israel and the spiritual the personal comming of which two Mediators and abiding for a time in their several houses did perfect what was lacking in them before in point of outward Ordinances and institutions and from thenceforth i. e. from the several periods of their presence with them establish them in a more compleat posture then before and each Church severally in its own proper order Moses then was the Mediator of the Old Testament established upon Earthly promises and so gave precepts accordingly but Christ the Mediator of the new which is called a better Testament established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 and so gives his precepts not by the mouth of Moses but as he pleases Besides all this though the Covenant of Circumcision made with that fleshly holy seed began before Moses yet whether that denomination of a holy seed a holy Nation