outward Ordinances and institutions and from thenceforth i. e. from the several periods of their presence with them establish them in a more compleat posture then before and each Church severally in its own proper order Moses then was the Mediator of the Old Testament established upon Earthly promises and so gave precepts accordingly but Christ the Mediator of the new which is called a better Testament established upon better promises Heb. 8. 6. and so gives his precepts not by the mouth of Moses but as he pleases Besides all this though the Covenant of Circumcision made with that fleshly holy seed began before Moses yet whether that denomination of a holy seed a holy Nation and people did begin so high as Abraham or before such time as Moses and Aaron had according to Gods command to them ceremonially sanctified by the bloud of sprinkling and dedicated both the Book of the Covenant and all the people and all the vessells of the Ministery and all other things pertaining to that Tabernacle for both that holy people and all their ceremonially holy things whereby you need not be ignorant unless you will that the holiness of that seed and their sanctuary was the same and began and were to end both together were first consecrated didicated purified sanctified all at one time under Moses Heb. 9. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. c. whether I say the holiness of the seed began so high as Abraham is a thing so out af doubt to me that I dare say that as the holy land was not relatively holy till they came into it so the holy seed as well as the other holy things of that Covenant were not ceremonially consecrated nor form ally sanctified nor vouchsafed that title of a holy seed though vertually they were a choise seed before till a little before they were to enter it and howbeit I challenge no man yet I intreat any man in the world to shew me if he can where they were denominated and distinguished from all other people as unclean by that term of a holy people till God intituled them so by Moses Exod 22. 31. ye shall be holy men unto me neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts ye shall cast it to doggs which place compared with Levit. 22. 8. 9. Deut. 7. 6. chap. 14. 2. chap. 26. 19. doth so plainly shew these two things First That the holiness there spoken of began but thenceforth Secondly that it was but a certain ceremonial distinction and a holinese opposite to that kind of defilement which might be contracted by eating of unclean beasts and so fully ceased in Christ that I even blush to read Mr. Blake and have been ashamed in my mind to hear some Independents also bring those Scriptures wherein God called Israel a holy people to himself to prove that an inchurched believers meer fleshly seed is now by nature holy in the same sense Now then let us hear the conclusion of this whole matter of the things that have been spoken this is the summe viz. that there are three kinds of holiness of which when you say children of believing parents have holiness and consequenrly the spirit you undoubtedly mean one viz. Matrimonial Ceremonial Moral The Middlemost of which because your fellow laborers against the Gospel intend that chiefly in their books I have treated on last and most largely and I now say three things of it in special First That it is a Holinesse which once was but now is not in being Secondly That it is a Holiness which of it self when it was in being as it was at the beginning of the Gospel before Christ crucified could not without faith and moral holiness interest the persons in whom it was seated in any of these three things viz. Gospel Promises Gospel Priviledges or Gospel Ordinances 1. Not the premises for they were made to Abraham in Christ and his spiritual seed not his own fleshly seed upon such terms as bare birth of his body or such holiness and righteousness as was under the Law intituling to Canaan Rom. 4. 13. 14. Gal. 3. 16. 29. 2. Not the priviledges viz. Gospel immunities and Church-membership for those that could plead they were under the typical freedomes of the old house or Church under the Law as Abrahams seed only were are denyed by Christ to be that holy seed that should stand in the Gospel house that was now to be built or share in that spiritual freedome which the sonne gives which is the only freedome indeed unlesse they did Abrahams works Iohn 8. 32. to the 40 ta 3. Nor yet the Ordinances no not so much as Baptism the initiating ordinance it self for when that old holy seed remaining yet under their relative and denominative holiness unabolished did plead it as to baptism they were put back by Iohn and not permitted barely upon that account upon which they stood in the old house without faith unless they now believed and amended their lives whose repulse of them when they came to his baptism was this viz. begin not to say we have Abraham to our Father c. Mat. 3. 7 8 9. Luke 3. 7. 8. Thirdly suppose baptism were entailed so to that holinesse and a meer fleshly seed of believers or of believing Abraham himself as truly as t is true it is not yet how grossely were you overseen Gentlemen in undertaking to prove the holy spirit by it to be in infants for that 's the probandum the very thing which by the holinesse of infants you went about to make good for the minor of your first fylogism which was this but little children have the holy spirit being denied was proved say you first by their faith secondly by their holinesse thirdly by those Eulogies given them in Scripture if then by holinesse you mean this kind of holiness I mean ceremonial which once was in the Iews by nature you have a wet â—…le by the tail then indeed for ask but Mr. Blake and he 'le tell you that that holinesse was in thousands who yet had not the holy spirit yea in truth all the Iews had that holinesse of whom not a Tenth even then when they had it were either in infancy or at years morally sanctified or indued with the holy spirit and as I have said these three things in special concerning that one kind of holinesse so I have three things in general to say in short concerning al these three sorts of holinesse viz. First one of them was in infants of old and now is not but is vanisht and when it was it proved not the spirit viz. ceremonial Secondly another is but nothing to your purpose I mean the proof of the spirit though it be in most infants viz. matrimonial Thirdly the other is not yet come for ought yet appears to infants viz. morall which if it did appear to be in them positive qualitativè as an inherent quality not negative onely so as to be without sin or absolutely innocent for
meats drinks divers washings and carnal ordinances for that time onely a holy service their land of Canaan it self a holy land their language a holy language and in a mannet every thing of theirs was discriminated by the term holy from what ever was then counted common and unclean among the Gentiles in such sort that people were a holy people and their issue reputed not an unclean but a holy seed If this be his sense then me thinks its a very sensless thing for him to affirm that same holinesse to be removed from all other things that were the subjects then denominated by it and to remain onely in people and their seed but if he deny this to be his sense in those recited words of his I think he must either crack his conscience to evade the disadvantage that accrues to his cause by owning it or else grant that he was not sensible of what he wrote for I see not how he can shuffle those sentences into any other sense And as he so Mr. Baxter that backs him in his opinion of birth-priviledge sayes the same and confesses p. 81. of his book that the common nature of holiness is one and the same in all these viz. Priests and Levites Temple Altar Sacrifices under the law and in the children of believers and their unbelieving yoke-fellows spoken of 1 Cor 7. 14. i. e. a separation to God for so saith he there i. e. in such sense as the Priests Levites Temple Altar Sacrifice c. were sanctified both children of believers and also unbelieving yoke-fellows are here said to be holy and sanctified It being then in both Mr. Blakes and Mr. Baxters own account one and the same holinesse whereby as well the seed as the land people Priests sanctuary and service were all denominated and distinguished as holy which surely was no other then a meer ceremoniall holiness it s but folly for me to say more in proof of this that it was the same nevertheless forasmuch as here is the very foundation of all your falsity and confusion in that you either do not or else will not discern a difference between the time of the law and the Gospel for distingue tempora et reconciliabis scripturas and for that also I am jealous over you with a godly jealously that I may espouse you who are yet a treacherous and adulterous as a chast ministry unto Christ would to God you could bear with me in my folly and indeed bear with me if I yet insist a little further to shew the sameness of that holinesse that was then in the Iews land sanctuary service c. and in their fleshly seed which that it may yet more plainly appear I beseech you let it be considered that as your selves grant that the holiness whereby the seed was then said to be holy was not real and inherent but meerly dedicative relative denominative i. e. titular and discriminative so indeed it was but typical and consequently but temporal as all thâ—… rest was for in such wise as their Temple was but tipical of the Gospel Churches I mean not steeple houses but congregated and truly constituted Assembliesof people 1 Cor. 3. 17. Eph. 2. 21 22. 1. Pet. 2. 5. And as that nation and people in their holiness and all other particulars was tipicall of the Saints where ever locally scattered yet mistically imbodied and not of Christian nations collectively taken and as their holy land and kingdom flowing with milk and hony was typicall of the heavenly Canaan and kingdome flowing with rivers of pleasures and their holy City of that holy City new Ierusalem that is to come down from God Rev. 21. and their holy high priest-hood of our holy harmless undefiled high-priest Christ Iesus and their holy priest-hood of all the elect of God sanctified and anointed not with material holy oyle but the holy spirit it self or holy unction to be a holy priest-hood to offer spiritual sacrifice 1. Pet. 2. 5. and as their holy Altar and Sacrifices was a type pointing out our Altar Christ that immacculatelamb offered without spot to God whereof Paul saies they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle Heb. 13. 10 by which saying of Paul in that place you may by the wayif you be not stocks and stones take notice thus far of your selves that the same holy persons that by that holiness had a real right to be not onely in the neerest service but highest office also in that Church of the Jews cannot possibly upon the meer account of that holinesse plead a right to participate of Gospel-priviledges and if the holiness of the priests which was superiour in degree though the same in kind with that of the people and seed by which they were priviledged with so high a standing in that Church could not inright them of it self unless they were obedient to the faith also to membership and communion with gospel-fellowships in gospel injoyments shall we suppose the bare birth-holiness that was in the Jews seed if it were now as truly in the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles as t is certain there 's no such matter can entitle and give right to enter and partake of Gospel-priviledges without more ado be asham'd Sirs to assert it and lastly as all that holinesse of the old Testament and tabernacle and things thereunto belonging was no more then a type for the time then being of the New Testament and Tabernacle and holy things thereof so even that fleshly seed of Abraham and that birth-priviledge and Covenant-holinesse which they then had yea that law of infants Church-membership and Circumcision which Mr. Baxter p. 59. of his book will at no hand yield to be but typical and ceremonial or to have any anti-type that succeeds it was as meerly typical and ceremonial as all the holinesse that was in the other subjects viz. the holy persons and things above named and sith he there challenges us to shew what it was a type of and prove it to be so if we can as simple as he seems to make himself in this matter I dare be bold to tell him that there was not any one thing under the Law or in that whole Church of the Jews which though this will not down with him was all but a Cerâ—…mony but it was a more lively type in reference to its Anti-type than this Infant-birth-priviledge birth-holiness and that Law of Infant-Church-membership and circumcision were for verily as that fleshly seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were reputatively holy and were by Covenant and special promise from God heirs by that bare fleshly birth with Abraham Isaac and Iacob of that Earthly Canaan together with all the glory priviledges immunities rest riches and bodily blessings of that earthly inheritance and in token of their true title thereunto as so born were circumcised in the flesh so Anti-typically all the faithful seed of Abraham i. e. true believers in Christ and these only ate that truly
faith of any believing Gentiles onely I cannot therefore but stand amazed in my mind to consider how miserably Mr. Blake mistakes himself in taking that text from which to prove a present birth holinesse in the infants of believing Gentiles which if there were no other to compare it with doth sufficiently clear it of it self alone how much more if compared with those forecited out of Act. 10. Act. 11 that there is now no such holinesse and uncleannesse as was once between Iews by nature and such as 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
testimony serves to prove what Mr. Marshal brings it for viz. that it was practised in their times yet it serves not to your purpose who upon the Fathers and their churches authority would gather and ground the right of that practise for who but children will go about to prove the verity of a practise by the Authority of those Fathers whose witnesse agrees not together and who are contradictory to one another in their testimonies of it and some of whose testimonies in that thing are quite and clean contradicted by the testimonies of such as concurre with them almost in every thing else for so I may truly say the testimonies of Father Austin are who in one place viz. ad Volusianum Ep. 3. according to Mr. Blakes quotation of him p. 51. writes thus viz. The Custome of the Church in the baptizing of infants is by no means to be despised nor to be accounted superfluous nor yet were it at all to be credited were it not a tradition of the Apestles Thus this Father who though inferior to the other in time yet is not inferiour to the chiefest of them in your Account but he brings no Scripture neither any more then Origen for the same yet it is like some sleighted it as superfluous in his daies but Ludovicus vives a man so observant of Austin that he wrote Annotations upon him in those very Annotations of his upon the 27th chapter of the first book De civit Dei according to Mr. Denns quotation of him p. 51. against Dr. Featley is so far from crediting that he corrects Austin rather as to that piece of faith saying That of old it was the custome to baptize none unless they were of full ago and did desire baptism in their own persons and did undeestand what it was to be baptized Now who can safely build so much as you do unless he mean to be both blindly guided with you and a blind guide to the blind on the authority of such Fathers as saving their honesty in what they knew and eminency in some things were yet so silly in some others that they did the Church no such good office as they wot of who ere they were that canonized them into such fatherhood over the faith that their opinions must be as Oracles for all to act by witnesse good Saint Bernard the last in that Catalogue who saving that he knew some truth as other honest men did in those dismal daies wherein he lived was wrapt up into a mist of so many other errors besides that of infants baptism that we may boldly use the proverb viz. Bernardus non videt omnia for as Mr. Blackwood quotes out of his 65 ser. in p. 31. of his storm speaking of some Christians that opposed the popish stream he saith thus They laugh at us because we baptize infants because we pray for the dead because we require the praiers of Saints All which doctrine though falling from a father is yet indeed too ridiculous to be received for truth in these daies of its return from captivity by any but meer children in the Gospel Thirdly I appeal to your consciences not to Mr. Marshalls and Mr. Blakes here for they from the Fathers assert no more than matter of fact that infant-baptism was then whilest you matter of faith that it ought to be whether that foretold testimony of Tertullian may not ballance with those of Origen Cyprian c. who were not so â—…ear the pure times of the Apostles as he and whether he were not as likely as Origen and Austin to know if it had been so that infant-baptism was a Tradition from the Apostles and in case he did know it to what end he should deny it to be now dispensed or do you imagin him a man of so mean a conceit of the Apostles wisdome and so highly conceited of his own that he would forbid that as unprofitable which the Apostles prescribed and prescribe a more convenient way himself sure he must know as well as they if it were Apostolicall and they possibly might not know so well as he that it was not being all Iuniors to him and one of them viz. Cyprian so much beholding to him for much of what he had that he dignified him with the name of his Master such a diligent disciple i. e. reader and learner of Tertullian was he that Da mihi Magistrum was his common speech of him so that his rational diswasion from infant-baptism cannot but be a more cogent ground of faith on one hand then Origens Scriptureless position and Cyprians Antapostolick and reasonless reasons and perswasion to it are one the other unless you will needs so father it over the Fathers themselves as to authorize which of them and which of their sentences you please disowning the rest as not Orthodox or Authentick further then they serve your own turns and then by my consent they shall be no longer fathers to you but you fathers over them and us too in their stead But Mr. Marshall who hath a longer arm then every body reaches us a rap yet by a certain quaere which he propounds to Mr. Tombs p. 35. 36. 37. to which till he hâ—…h some answer he will conceive we are so sick of Tertullian that wee le say no more of him his quaere is this Babist Why may not the diswasion cited out of Tertullian de baptismo infantium reasonably be interpreted of the infants of infidells only whose baptism he would have deferred till they come to years and to profess faith themselves and not of the infants of Christians I am inclined to believe that to be the true meaning of the place for such considerations First because Tertullian alledges this double reason why he would have the baptism of little ones delaied viz. least their Sponsors or Sureties be in hazzard of not fulfilling the promises they make on their behalf by either their own mortality or the childrens proving untoward or inclineable to iniquity for whom they undertake Secondly Because t is clear and evident by the 39th Chapter of Tertullian book the 18th Chapter whereof hath this disswasion to baptize little ones that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of believers are by birth designati sanctitatis salutis counted holy from 1 Cor. 7. 14. not sancti till they be born of water and the spirit and have a kind of priviledge and prerogative by nature yea such a sanctity and the very same as is called faderall or covenant holinesse that gives right to baptism Baptist And so saies Dr. Holmes also p. 122. upon the same text of Tertullian Mr. Marshal quotes and out of which he raked his 2 reasons to which second reason of Mr. Marshal I answer First and that thus confessing that that good old Father who is no more infallible than your selves so that his Sentence without reason proves any thing at all to be de jure doth seem to me to erre together with you though not
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 ere his child be baptized For which Mr. Rutherford rounds him a bout 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 fruitless 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 alios 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 hearing 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. That 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 case 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. from the time of one or both parents entering the borders of a seperated society and so by this means if an old man or woman that hath ten or twenty children the youngest whereof is no less then twenty years old they all though never so morally wicked yet from thenceforth are faederally holy but not before no though their parents believed before Upon this Account the Churches in New England deny their Nullity sprinkling to infants of such parents as are either not yet joined to them or for which they are very oddly also at odds among themselves excommunicate from them in justification of which Gambole Mr. Cotton lapps himself up in such a manglement of discourse p. 81. to the 88. as betokens that wisdome is perishing from the wise for mans tradition sake which they hold up against Christs institutions yea he sticks not to assert p. 81. Thâ—…t the Apostles and Evangelists gathered men whom they baptized into a visible church estate before they baptized them unless they were church-members before they preached to them Which is as if he should say they brought them first into the visible Church that they might be baptized and then to go round again baptized them that they might be brought into the visible Church for unlesse he contradict all those thousands of Old England now becoming New whilest New England growes old who after sprinkling still used this phrase viz. We receive this child into the coâ—…gregation of Christs flock as in the English refined Masse-book the Priests universally did preaching baptism to be the entrance into the visible Church not in word only but in deed also by placing their Fonts at the Church doors unless I say he be contrary to all Paedobaptists who hold baptism to be the way into the Church and not the visible Church the way into baptism and then what another cross whet doth he wipe them with we must needs take Mr. Cotton in that manner and yet to say the truth the Clergy is cross enough to themselves in this case for this is but like that of them that say believers infants are born in the bosome or within the pale of the Church and so must be baptized and must be baptized and so enter within the pale of the visible Church or else they are out and in no better condition than the children of Turks and Pagans What prety Gim-cracks are here yet surely not much above the tyth of those round abouts and contradictions to themselves and one another that are to be found among the Paedorantists should I stand upon a full discovery of them but verily I am weary to see Old England New England and Scotland all together by the ears about their infants sprinkling and had rather if it were possible gain them all to be at peace in that point by laying down their dispensing it any more to infants and pitching all upon the undoubted subject of true baptism i. e. a professed believer without which it is impossible to reconcile them till they have routed each other and stormed themselves out of their strongest garrisons with their own hands Among whom and so to make an end what hold and keep is there likewise about the sprinkling of bastards may be seen by Mr. Cotton page 88. of his way e. Some and those the best Divines holding the baptism of Bastards but not sine sponsoribus i. e. not without witnesses or sureties Others holding it without witnesses for ought I find of which sort is Mr. â—…obbet who brings in Bastards to baptism by a certain fetch beyond his fellowes viz. the faederal interest of those bastard infants that are born in the Church saying Though the parents faith do not sanctify such yet the force of Abrahams covenant fetches them in which I much marvel at sith the law or covenant of Circumcision admitteth not such into the Congregation unto the tenth generation Others again denying that the Scripture warrants any such thing at all as the admitting of Bastards to come by baptism into the Congregation as his neighbour Mr. Cotton who gives liberty to Christian Sponsors to entitle wicked mens children to baptism by their undertaking for them yet can scarce find in his heart for ought I find to allow them the
strein'd and sold as poor folks kettles pots pans and platters are by the Priests and their publican tith-gatherers to pay them You tell us that the first Ministers were gifted from God to preach the Gospel extempore and therefore well might they work and yet easily preach the Gospel too but the Ministers now must attain to it by much study and hard pains and therefore had need to be sequestred wholly from all earthly imployments that they may give themselves wholly to that work of preaching and to have such sufficiency of means allowed them as may free them from all thoughts of other things and furnish them to buy abundance of books without which tooles you say in 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 else 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
for Gods sake yet how did he put him off with delaies as if the businesse were now dubious to himself when as formerly he had acknowledged that it was a tradition of the Church and would give answer nec per se nec per se Synodum When therefore they shall say unto you ask the Priest seek unto us I say seek not unto them that say they seek but are loath to find themselves or at least are afraid that men should find and see all that which they cannot clearly deny to be the truth seek not to them that peep and that mutter and speak not out as if the matter were not momentary to be mentioned as if they were in a quandary whether it be safe or no to seek too seriously after the truth out should not a people seek unto their God for the living to the dead to the law and to the testimony your selves oh yee people if they speak not plainly according to the word it is because there is no light in them Isa. 8 19 20. Ask therefore the High Priest Christ Jesus and if you cannot be resolved so speedily as you desire to your satisfaction and content be content to stay till God shall reveal in the mean time while you doubt suspend the practise and do nothing doubtingly but exercise your selves the while in searching the Scripture and prayer to which pretious practise God hath made many pretious promises in his word as namely That they shall be undefiled in the way that seek the Lord with their whole heart Psalm 119. 1 2. That if thou wilt turn at his reproof though thou hast been a simple one and hast loved simplicity a scorner that delightest in scorning and jeaâ—…ing at the truth and a fool that hath hated knowledge which all are high degrees of sin yet he will powre out his spirit upon thee which happily hath been thy laughing stock and make known his words unto thee Prov. 1. 22. 23. that if thou wilt receive his words and hide his commaddements within thee If thou incline thine ear unto wisdom and apply thy heart unto understanding yea if thou cryest after knowledge and liftest up thy voice for understanding if thou seekest her as silver and searchest for her as for hid treasure then thou shalt understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God Prov. 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Yet be assured of this humble ignorance in many questions debated in these daies by Divines and also in old timebefore us by learned Schoolmen and Casuists and by the Popish priests that reason about the unreasonable fopperries and refusely scum that arises out of the dead sea of their divinity is more acceptable to God then contentious curiousity yet not such humble ignorance about the ordinances of Christ as our Priesthood would hold men in as if the Law and Oracles of Christ which are all plain to him that understandeth were in things necessary to salvation so difficult and obstruse that poor mechanicks must meddle no more in t then they have leave from them in facili et aperto postta est salus the way of salvation is plain to be found in the book of God he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord for remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy spirit but the PPPriesthood hath led men the next way round about to salvation and framed a new Gospel for their followers which Scripture makes no mention of at all but as those Israelites that were led up and down the wildernesse so long God had sworne should not enter into his xest so neither shall those Christians that when the truth lyes plain before them delight rather to trace to and fro in the thicket of traditions received from their after forefathers then in the way of the first fathers of the Church and love more to wander then to walk in the narrow way of truth in the vast forrest wondrous wood and wide wildernesse of the PPPriests inventions 9. Consider sadly in heresie the sin the punishment the sin St. Paul places it among the works of the flesh Murder Idolatry Witchcraft Drunkenness c. and well may for t is onely in favour of the flesh and for some base fleshly ends or other that men depart from the way of truth and not of the spirit for that leadeth those that are resolved to be led by it as it speaks in the Scriptures into all truth as it is in the mind of Christ Jesus Iohn 14. The leaâ—… hereste cannot be excused the nature of it is to gather as it grows it is to run downhil and that 's the cause why so many follow it and so few the truth for its an uphill a narrow way that leads to life therefore few find it but facilis descensus averni the way to the bottomlesse pit is an easie and broad descent therefore many there be that go in thereat even whole towns Counties Kingdoms yea the whole world 1 Ioh 5. 19. Rev. 13. 3. a few onely excepted that obey the truth whose names therefore are written in the book of life the heretick that hath begun it cannot stop when he will but when once he ceases to receive and retain God in his knowledge and the love of the truth that he may be saved through some base love of the world and the lucre and lust thereof that he may be pleased profited preferred a 100. to one but he is hardned for ever in blindnesse God also giving him over as well as he himself to deeper and deeper delusion and at last to the love of lies more then truth Ieroboams rent turned into idolatry and the rent of such as run from the primitive doctrine of Christ is come to no less the Rantizer and the Ranter also are both sad examples to us how fearsul a thing it is to run away from the plain path of the word of Christ the one whereof when he ran down once but so far as to take upon him to mend Christs ordinances and teach for doctrine his own traditions never left adding more and more of his own odd constitutions till he sunk ore head and ears in a gulf of golden legends and a lake of lies the other when he had once declined the Scripture and denied all ordinances never left advancinxg himself into the clouds of his own airy conceits till his waxen wings melted with his soring so neer the sun and so he fell headlong into a sink of sorbid sensuality The punishment is either temporal the Donatists of old as some say the Anabaptists as they are commonly cal'd of Germany who if ever they ownd the truth abode notvery long in it are examples of Gods Iudgements in that kind spiritual blindnesse of understanding hardnesse of heart seeing and not perceiving hearing and not understanding and last of all eternal the worm that nâ—…ver