if you be not sanctified one in to and by the other as lawful man and wife by your union formerly contracted notwithstanding your now disunion in Religion then your children are unclean and this is truth for so the children are in this civil sense if begotten and born out of matrimony whether the parents be believers or no buâ— the other is not truth for whether both or but one or none of the parents believe the infants for that cause alone and without respect to matrimony are in no sense ere the more holy or unclean Thirdly and this will yet appear more plainly if you consider that faith alone in either one or both the parents begetting out of wedlock cannot sanctifie the seed so begotten with this civil holiness here meant no nor with that faederall holiness you plead for nor could it do so even then when that holinesse or birth priviledge you talk of was in force as now it is not viz. in the daies of the law for if two believers came together then out of marriage their seed were not onely base born and so unclean in this our sense but also to the tenth generation uncapable to be admitted into the congregation and so consequently unclean even in your own Deut. 32.2 whereupon how Pharez and Zarah were dealt with it matters not sith they were born before the law was given Ieptha was exempted from any inheritance with his brethren because he was the son of a strange woman Iudg. 11.2 and Davids unclean issue by Bathsheba that in the wisdome of God was taken away by death on the seventh day might not surely without breach of the law have been accounted holy and of the congregation if he had lived beyond the eighth whereupon your selves also are much fumbled about the holinesse of bastards and the baptism of base-begotten babies so that you scarcely know how to behave your selves about it though the parents sinning be believers at least en-churched in your Churches yea it s generally known saith Mr Cotton that our best Divines do not allow the baptism of bastards and though he is pleased to say they allow it not sine sponsoribus without Sureties yet I wonder sith Deut. 32.2 Gods denial of such of old is made the ground of their denial of such now to enter into the Congregation as unholy that our Divines dare take on them to admit cum sponsoribus and so to go besides their own Rule viz. the order of things under the law wherein God gave no such allowance but to let that tolleration pass which they take to themselves you may learn thus much of your selves if you will that though wedlock without faith make a holy seed in our sense yet faith without wedlock in the parents can make a holy seed neither in our sense nor in your own nor any at all for the infants of the married are holy but believers bastards are both civilly and federally unclean inso much that your selves see cause to refuse as federally holy the spurious seed euen of those whose lawfull issue you unlawfully sprinkle Fourthly if you more seriously consider that the holinesse in the Infant here must needs be the fruit and result of that and that must needs be the cause of the holiness here spoken of in the infant quo posito ponitur sanctitas sublato tollitur which being in the parents a holinesse must necessarily be thereupon which not being in the parents a holinesse cannot be in the seed for positâ causà ponitur effectus sublata tollitur abstract the cause and the effect cannot be suppose the cause and the effect cannot but be now that which if it be not in the parents the holiness is not but being in them the holinesse is consequently in the infants 't is not the faith but the conjugal or marriage Relation of the parents for as for the first of these viz. faith it may be in one yea in both of the parents and yet no federal holinesse at all be in the infants witness Ishmael the seed of Abraham the father of the faithful and his Sons by Keturah also born of him after Covenant made with him and his seed in Isaac and Iacob and yet neither of them in that Covenant witnesse the base born children of true believers among the Jews suppose David and Baâ—â—sheba which for all the parents faith could not by the law be admitted in thâ— Congregation nor have that birth-priviledge to be reputed holy which from the parents faith you universally intail to the infants moreover this birth-priviledge and Covenant-holiness by generation which did inright to Church ordinances which once was but now is a non-entity and out of date might be then when it was in being in children in whose parents faith was not found at all for most of the Iews were unbeiievers yet all their legitimate children were holy federally therefore faith in the parent cannot be the cause of such a thing yea if you will believe Mr Blake himself the strictest pleader for a birth-priviledge of federal holiness in Infants that ever I met with and that from this very place he condescends so far as to contribute one contradiction to himself toward the helping of the truth in this case viz. That faith in the parâ—nt is not the cause of this holinesse whilst making the holinesse in this text to be a birth priviledge or Church-Covenant holinesse and to be the fruit and result of the faith of the believing parents and consequently their faith to be the sole and proper cause of the same he confesses flatly elsewhere page 4. that a loose life in the parent and mis-belief which is as bad in some cases worse then unbelief for which is worse to believe false things or not to believe true yea Apostacy from the faith which all if they be not inconsistent with faith I know not what is do not divest nor debar the issue from having that holiness which himself saies is meant in this text Babist Perhaps he means not by faith strictly the parents true believing but in generall his being in the covenant and faederally holy himself and so a cause of this federal holiness in the issue Baptist. First Paul means true believing here in 1 Cor. 7.14 whether Mr Blake do or no. Secondly what will he get as to the point in hand by his Synonamizing faith and faederall holiness for still neither the one nor the other is made here the cause of the holiness of the seed for the holiness here spoken of may be where neither of them is and may not be in the seed even where they are both in the parent as for example in Ezras time Ezra 10 3. we find abundance of the Jews both Priests and people that were in the faith or at least in faederall holiness yet the children were put away as unholy as well faederally as otherwise because their marriage was unlawfull and that bed adulterous wherein they lay with strange
wives Ezra 10.3 and that both parents possibly may be faithful and faederally holy and yet their seed be in all senses utterly unclean is evident for the child of two believing Jews begotten besides the marriage bed was both a Bastard and also barr'd from the Congregation Deut. 32.2 again this faederal holiness as well as faith may be in neither parent and yet the issue not be unclean but holy still and so are all Matrimonially and civilly at least that among Pagans are the issue of the marriage bed and with the holiness of the Covenant of Grace too when they come to years and believe themselves as not a few children of unbelievers do and sometimes the seed of Turks and Tartars this therefore i. e. the faith or faederal sanctity of the one parent nor of both cannot be the cause of this sanctity is here denominated of the seed for holiness in the infants is not alwaies when this is and sometimes it is in the infant when this is not in the parent which being of each without other cannot be between a true cause and its effect but as for the second viz. the marriage sanctity in the parents it is that which being in the parents holiness is naturally and necessarily in the seed that is born of them whether they be both or either or either in faith or unbelief but being not in the parents there can be no holiness no birth holiness in their infants nor Matrimonial nor Congregationall neither therefore this is that which is the cause of the holiness of the issue in this Scripture the result of which and not of faith in the parents is this non-uncleanness in their posterity and so I have done with this kind of holiness and with this Scripture which speaks of this Matrimonial holiness and no other Thirdly Ceremonial holiness I call that same holiness which properly peculiarly and pro tempore only pertained to the whole nation and congregation of Israel denominating them all holy every one of them and distinguishing them from all other people and nations which during the time of the Iews pedagogy according to Gods own imposition were then accounted sinners common and unclean by a certain â—â—s-rationis an extrinsecall meerly notional and nominal rather then either real moral or substantiall sort of sin and uncleanness to which the others holiness was directly opposite and answerable The subjects of which Accountative holiness were not only the people of the Jews themselves which were a holy people Deut. 7. ver 8. Exod. 22.31 but also and more specially the Priests and more specially yet or in a higher degree but in the same kind of holiness for degrees do not vary nature the High Priests which were holiness to the Lord Exod. 39.30 also their parents which were not matrimonially only nor often morally yet to allow your own phrase here because they were outwardly in Covenant with God concerning outward promises and priviledges on performance of outward ordinances everâ— faederally a holy parentage a holy root Rom. 11. also their natural if withall matrimonial issue which were not at all in their infancy and but seldome when at years spiritually allwaies faederally holy branches a holy seed also their land of Canaan which was the holy Land their Metropolitan City Ierusalem which was the holy City their Temple which was a holy Temple the Utensills vessels vestments and other accomplishments which were all holy a holy Lavar a holy Altar a holy Ark holy Candlesticks holy Cherubims most holy place c. and in a manner all things belonging to the Law of Moses and that first Covenant made with Abraham and his fleshly seed whether hollowed or consecrated by God himself or dedicated to him by men at his appointment viz. the first born the first fruits tithes offerings sacrifices daies feasts which were al holy and had relation as shadowes and types for a while unto things Evangelically Spiritually and substantially holy that were to be there after yea with this same kind of holiness some meats were holy some flesh Hag. 2.12 13. was holy some birds and beasts were sanctified as holy and lawfull to be used and eaten when others were prohibited as prophane common and unclean not so much as to be touched without sin without contracting such an outward fleshly kind of guilt and impurity as made their souls in that ceremonial sense abominable yea with an uncleanness oppositely answerable to this carnall holiness those fleshly purities and purifyings that then were some actions as the touch of a dead body some issues of men and women some diseases as the Leprosie some bodily blemishes as crookedness dwarfishness blindness lameness yea the very easements and excrements that passed from them in the camp without covering did defile and render them sinners prophane unclean unholy and guilty before the Lord Levit. 5.2.3.5 11.43 to 46. also Chapters 14.15.22 also Levit 20.25.26 21.18 to the 24. Deut. 23.12.13.14 which defilements did then reach to pollute the flesh only which the bloud of Bulls and Goats that could not cleanse the conscience morally did sanctifie to the purifying of Hebr. chap. 9. ver 13. neither do these things defile any man now in any such sense at all This is the holiness which when you say infants of believers are holy I have ground to perswade my self you Ashford Disputants mean not but rather some inherent morall holiness when I consider how you talk of infused habits in the hearts of infants in your Disputation and Review and yet again I have ground to believe you mean this holiness which was in the Jewish infants and their implements if I may imagine your meaning by what is extant in the writings of your brethren upon the subject specially if I may measure your meaning by Mr Blakes in his Birth-priviledge or covenant-holiness of believers and their issue wherein he laies himself out at large and yet is too short when all is done in proving from the like under the law among the people of the Iews and their issue that even now in the times of the Gospel also a people that enjoy Gods ordinances convey to their issue a priviledge to be reputed by birth not unclean but holy persons and thereupon to be baptized the absurditie and inconsequence of which doctrine and so I hope to make it appear now I am upon it is little less then if he had argued thus as the Pope doth from that time to this viz. there was an Hierarchy or holy principallity among the Priests under the law therefore there must be such another under the Gospel and as then the high-Priests Aaron and his Sons who were holiness to the Lord wore holy garments in their ministration for glory and for beauty viz. Coats and robes embroydered with gold and blew and purple and scarlet and fine linnen and curious girdles of needle work nnd miters and holy Crowns upon the miters so his Holiness to the Lord the High-Priest of Christendome Appollyon
all the seed to whom as such it is made But sith now you say that the spirit is not bound to give faith and salvation to believers seed nor barred from giving it to any of the seed of infidels which is as much as to say he is at liberty from all obligation of himself by promise to either of these above the other and to work it in which he pleases you will I hope unless you be more ashamed of seeming to have been ignorant then ashamed of your ignorance so as to give glory to God by confessing it relinquish that wonted position of a birth priviledge in this point in believers seed more tâ—en in others which you ground and prove from that promise Aâ—t 2. and ingenuâ—usly confesse that for ought you know the one hath no more ingagemeat of God to them by promise then the other so that unlesse there were more warrant then you have to single out one from the other as the special subjects of baptism and heirs of salvation you ought to baptize them all alike i. e. in very deed to let them all alone till you come as in infâ—ncy you confesse you cannot to presume what children have the habit of saith and what have not Fourthly where as you say wheresoever the habit of faith is it inclines to holy actions when there is opportunity and the season for bringing them forth whether this be necessary to be held or no yet wee l hold it to do you a pleasure in calling you thereby from your false cause for else its like to do you more displeasure in your cause of infants faith then you well considered when you penned and printed it for wheresoever faith is the opportunity and season for its bearing fruit and working by love and other holy actions is ever present and perpetual yea its never unopportune or unseasonable for him that hath faith to be acting obedience in one thing or other yea if any one say I have faith and have not works and holy actions much lesse if no inclinablenesse to holy actions that faith cannot save nor stand him instead faith without works being dead and profiting nothing therefore if where ever faith is it inclines to holy actions when opportunity and season for it is then I am sure there is no faith at all in infants for there is no opportunity or season at all in infancy wherein faith is found fruitfull in them and if you will say they have faith though you have no evidence of it and prove it is so because it is so then it is a faith without works and that faith is dead unprofitable and cannot save them Iames 2. and if so you would be better opinioned towards infants in my mind to hold them saved without faith then to hold they have a faith which cannot save them for better never a whit at all then never the better Fiftly whereas you say that this inclination to holy actions is not equally alike in all in whom the habits themselves are that may be so too yet Sampson and David are no such sufficient instances of it but that more sufficient might have been given for as there are many worthy things recorded which both these did by the power of faith Heb. 11. so he of whom you say he exceeded in acts of piety was in some things not to say as impious yet impious as well as the other besides to make comparisons between two such worthies as doing the one more good the other lesse both which by faith did no lesse the subdue and in their times fully deliver Israel from the Philistines for which the spirit is pleased to record and recommend them both as examples to all ages and rank them among others of whom the world was not worthy in one line Heb. 11.32 caeteris paribus unproved too such comparison if any be so is beyond all comparison odious and subject to many exceptions but be it all just as you have said it yet as little yields it to the support of your infant faith and childish baptism as if you had said nothing at all Sixthly whereas you say that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort must go before any act of faith can be discovered And seventhly and lastly that no judgement of science can be passed i. e. true demonstration made of this habit of faith till the acts themselves be seen and examined and that a posteriore onely the discovery of habits is made and then from all these preparative premises draw up your conclusive answer in three heads answering thus in the first place viz. That it cannot be certainly presumed what children have faith what have not and that the working of the spirit in that particular is not known to us and ore again also that the spirit is not bound nor barred and therefore there can be no conclusion made I say t is all necessarily to be held for truth yea t is a truth so preciously pertinent to our purpose against the purpose of your own pamphlet that had we been to conclude in a little compasse all that need be said toward the appearance of this position viz. that it doth not sufficiently appear by any evidence of it in their infancy that infants of believers have faith any more then other infants we could not in so few words have spoken so pithily to such a purpose which when I consider I cannot but wonder and conceive you will once wonder at your selves when your eyes are open that they whose words all these are should act against them all so absurdly as to make it the biggest business throughout their book to make it appear and that sufficiently that believers infants have faith beyond other infants Babist A charitable judgement concerning their having faith is sufficient to admit them to baptism and that is the utmost that we assert can be had of their belief not a judgement of certainty Baptist. A judgement of charity that there 's faith in persons sufficiently warrantably and certainly grounded is sufficient to baptize upon and such is that judgement on which we baptize who baptize none but such as the word requires us to believe to be believers i e. such as personally profess so to be and of such as those though we have but a judgement of charity concerning their faith yet have we from precept and president out of the word a judgement of certainty concerning their right to baptism but a judgement of charity taken up on meer fancy and conceit without warrant from or rather against both Scripture and reason warrants no man to dispense baptism upon it as from God for if it do I may as well baptize the great Turk as a little infant and no better is your judgement of charity concerning faith in little infants upon which you attempt to baptize them Babist Our charity is better grounded then so yea far better than yours as certain as it is and is as due
proved to be his Luke 12.52.53 Math. 24.9.2 Tim. 3.12 1 Cor. 1.27 2 Cor. 6.4 5. So that where there 's none of this I avouch the Gospell in its purity is not there though where these are the Gospel is not the cause for that is men lusts and flesh fighting against the light but the only the occasion whereupon they arise when Satan the strong man holds the house the goods are all in peace but when Christ the stronger man comes to storm him out there 's contention in hearts houses Towns and Countries as when Christ came to Ierusalem all was in an uproar and when Paul came with his Gospel to Ephesus Athens Iconium Lystra Derbe lewd fellows of the baser sort were set on by others to raise tumults for truth tormented them into rage thus we often judge of Causes as good or bad right or wrong by the effects that flow from them but to reason upon a cause as good or ill true or false right or wrong according to the might or moaness the abilities or defects of the persons that stand up for it is the right way to wrong it indeed sith the Antichristian cause hath the mighty wise and prudent Priests and Potentates of the world for its Patrons when the poor only for the most part receive Christs Gospell and the strength that God ordains in defence thereof against the persecutor is the mouths of Babes and Sucklings Causes are to be rejected as wrong and false according to the defects and weakness that is discovered to be in the Arguments that are brought to maintain and not by the weakness and defects that may seem to be in those that are more zealous then able to mannage them if there appear to be weight in the Arguments these if strong however weakly and babishly propounded will carry the cause in the conscience of any but such Priest-be-charmed Christians as in Charity to their Churchmen are resolved to yield themselves up to be carried away with every wind of doctrine that passes from them and covering the weakness of them to be whifled any way by such arguments as the men themselves that make them are fain to grant to be weak to prove what they are brought for for no Argument is weak that is sufficient to evince the thing it s used in proof of though it fall from the mouth of never so weak a man if a weak feeble hand letfall an heavy Axe upon it or a sharp sword even the sword of the Spirit the word of God that is quick and powerfull it may serve to cut off the Popes head Tripple Crown and all but if the Pope himself and all his children which are the ablest Humanists in the world come out to warre against Christ and his cause with reeds and rushes blind non sequiturs weak and broken Consequences they must ride back to Rome for stronger swords or else they may force fools into conformity to their follies but never guide wise men after the spirit to believe their cause to be good as therefore t is not good that an ill cause that hath but weak Arguments to uphold it should be owned for good either in Charity or upon pretence of ability in the persons that patronize it as the Clergies crooked cause of Infant-sprinkling is for what saies the Parish to those poor ones in it that entertain the Gospel are you wiser than a whole Synod of able Orthodox Divines so it is a thousand pitties that a good cause that hath strong Arguments enough from Scripture and reason to prove it right should be wronged so as to be rejected as rotten yet so Christs true baptism is through the defects of the persons called Anabaptists who are supposed at least to have more zeal then ability to prove it of which sin of wronging a right cause upon account of such defects even the cause of Christs true baptism which in his strength those Babes that are baptized with it are not only zealous but able to make good against the Ablest Baby-Baptist that is among you I know no men under the Sun more guilty then you Clergy men who take your advantages to cry out the lowder against it as error by the defects of Christs Disciples that plead and practise it of whom you say commonly as you say complementally of your selves here they have more zeal then abilities to maintain it yea verily you who seem here whether more simply or more simulatorily who knows not so to implore the charitable benevolence of well disposed people to cover the weakness of your Arguments and not to suffer your cause of Infant-sprinkling to suffer throw your defects and inabilities to maintain it are men so far from teaching facienda faciendo from doing to others as you would be done to that you rather disclaim and proclaim those Arguments of ours as weak which as feeble a folk as we are are strong enough to storm you out of your strongest holds and cause that cause to be despised under pretence of our defects which though weak in our selves and pretending to little of that outward accomplishment which you call ability yet throw Christs word assertaining it to be his and his spirit assisting us thereunto we have both zeal and ability to maintain who is it I trow that trumpets about the eminency and learnedness of their party and illiteracy of the Anabaptists whereby to render the way the more contemptible more then the Priesthood who charm their people against the receipt of the Gospel in such sort as the Pharisees of old when they said are you also deceived have any of the Rulers of the Pharisees believed on him but this people that know not the law are cursed Ioh. 7.47 48 49. So brags Dr Featly and his fellows despising the way of dipping viz. joint suffrages of so many Bishops in such a Synod as for the Anabaptists they are a few mean sylly men and women an illiterate and sottish sect the father and head of whom quoth he was Nicholas Stock and a very blockhead was he p. 164. Simple rude Mechaniâ—ks Russet Rabbies Apron Levites whom we own not quoth he but detest and abominate p. 113 who know not how to dispute for truth because they know not the original and cannot conclude syllogistically in mood and figure p. 1.2 Thus Featly defeats them in their cause by dilating on their defects and which of you almost do not confirm your people against their cause by their infirmities of one kind or other like flies you feast your selves upon their sores and let go their sounder parts you make much of their little to your purpose you make your best out of their worst and out of their personal weaknesses strengthen your selves and others against the truth which wise men know is nevertheless truth for the poors receiving it you root in their very excrements whereby to find matter to make their good cause bad and yet here oh how mendicant of other mens mercy not only
cut off from standing as till Chirist they did now any longer upon their own Root Abraham because of unbelief I say then that no infant in infancy of what believing parent soever is either Abrahams spiritual seed or dying in infancy is saved upon any such account as a believers seed or Abrahams seed nor whilst living an infant onely may be signed by baptism as an heir apparent of salvation for if Abraham stand not a spiritual father to his own meer fleshly seed he stands not so sure to the meer fleshly seed of any believing Gentile for that were to priviledge every ordinary believer and his natural seed above either himself or his own Nor doth this hinder or deny the salvation of the dying infants of believers or dispose them ere the sooner muchless necessarily to damnation to say they are not Abrahams spirituall seed quâ believers infants nor heirs to salvation upon any such account as that for though neither upon that nor any other account at all they may warrantably be baptized yet it s more then possible or probable either because infallible that there 's other Scripture account enough upon which when we see them die in infancy we may assert them undoubtedly not to be damned for as it is most sure and true that all that are apparently if really Abrahams spiritual seed by faith must so living so dying be saved in token and farther evidence of which to themselves more then others they are by the good wil of Christ to be baptized yet is it neither true nor necessary that all that are saved must be Abrahams spiritual seed by faith but most certain that some shall be saved that never were Abrahams seed in any sense at all witnesse not onely the faithful fore-fathers of Abraham for he was their seed and not they his but also all dying infants of what parents soever both before Abrahams time and since of whom to salvation notwithstanding those are the onely termes on which it belongs to adult ones to whom it s preacht Mark 16.15 16. these being truly capable of neither 't is not required that they should either repent believe or be baptized I know this Iustification of dying infants without faith is uncouth and little less for all it holds forth so much salvation then damnable doctrine among you Divines that plead the contrary but I shall by the help of God make it good to the faces of you all when I come to consider the baldness of your consequence in this point as you give me good occasion to do in some places where me thinks you meddle with it somewhat clumsily as it were in mittins as if because there 's no other way revealed for the salvation of such by Christ to whom the gospel is preached who are capable to hear and do what 's required for such onely the word universally speaks of when it speaks of salvation in that way but the way of belief and actuall obedience onely therefore there 's no other way for the salvation of dying infants by Christ who can possibly neither believe in him nor obey him which as it is such shameful stuff that I cannot bear it with out inward blushing at your blindness so whether you have not as much cause to be ashamed on 't within your selves is well worth your inmost inquiry I say therefore again so far is this from excluding dying infants of believers from entrance into the kingdome of heaven to say they are neither Abrahams spiritual seed by faith nor heirs thereof upon that ground onely of being so that it rather concludes and supposes there 's some other ground that is common with them to the innocent infants of even infidels and all the world upon which these whom though they are hundreds to one yet your selves in your fierce wrath and merciless cruelty devote universally to damnation may dying in infancy universally be saved also which ground if you will yet know it is the righteousness of Christ the free imputation of which universally from the father saves not onely all that believe from both that and their actuall transgressions too but even the whole world whether they believe it or no from the the imputation of Adams transgression so that none at all ever perish upon that account in which respect he is said to be the Saviour of all men but especially of them that believe much more doth it and that without faith save all dying infants who as they believe not so have not as yet by any actual sin bard themselves or deserved exemption or become liable at all to the second death i. e. the damnation of hell which befalls not any but upon personal neglect of the light and grace of life brought in by the second Adam as the first death onely overtakes mankind for onely that sin of the first Adam Babist If all dying infants are saved then not few but many if not the maior part must be saved contrary to that of Christ Mat. 7.13.14 Luke 13.23.24 where he saith few there are that are saved Baptist. There are indeed but few inter adultos among persons that come to years of whom alone and not of Infants at all Christ there speaks and even every where else where he speaks to us of the way of life and this is plain by the reason he there gives why so few are saved which is the straitness of the gate and narrowness of the way that leads to life viz. of self-denial and suffering for Christ which men mostly being very loath to walk in it comes to pass that few of them come to life by it but infants being altogether uncapable to walk in it are are altogether dis-ingaged from walking in it till they come to capacity so to do and yet are not damn'd for not walking in it when we come to years of understanding and to apprehend the good will of God to us in providing a Saviour for us his good will concerning us in order to salvation by him is that we believe in him and obey him and apply his righteousness unto our selves Gal. 3.27 but whilst we are yet in such minority as neither to know what God hath done for us nor to be capable of putting on the Lord Iesus our selves he himself is pleased to impute his righteousness to salvation to us so dying even as we our selves whilst our infants are new born do not onely provide but also put on what clothes we have provided in our pitty towards them for the covering of their nakedness but when they come to years of such discretion as to discern and be sensible of their own shame and capable to dress themselves with their own hands we expect when in our love we have once provided raiment for them they should put it on themselves or go without it thus candid are we towards the dying infants of all sorts nevertheless though we tell you of our charity towards them and of your own cruelty in sending all
be declined that as he who preaches it though an Angell from heaven is to be hâ—ld accursed so he that doth thereafter shall have no thank for his labor for in vain do they worship him that either teach or take for doctrines the traditions of men Secondly and further to prove it least Mr. Marshal and the Dr. should not grant Vossius that Tertullians denial is of the baptism of all infants even of believers as well as infidels I argue that more plainly First from the universallity of the expression of himself in his disswasion which extends to all manner of persons without exception for it may be thought he was somewhat soiled with that superstition which was rife in after ages viz. that baptism was best dispensed towards the end of a mans life that he might have a sign of the forgivnesse of all his sinnes at once whereupon Tertullian would not have unmarried persons baptized until temptation was over so far was as he from desiring such early dispensation of baptism as that to infants I say his perswasion to delay it extends to all manner of persons and therefore to the infants of believers as well as to other little ones Secondly his indefinit and indifferent expression of these little ones concerning which he speaks for saith he specially about little ones promiscuously including all excepting none as it had bin necessary for him to do if he would be understood to speak but of some and not of others for if Mr. Marshall should preach or write his opinion against the baptism of unbelievers children onely retaining to himself his present earnestnesse for the baptism of other little ones and deliver himself downrightly and indifinitely thus onely in way of dissawsion viz. I would not by any means have little one baptized I find no ground baptizare parvulos to baptize infants c. so running on and never distinguishing so as to say in that sermon or speech I mean onely infants of infidels I should not take him for so judicious a man as I yet hold him to be saving his holding so stiffly still for infant baptism Thirdly by the reason he gives why he would not have little ones baptized viz. least their sureties should be in hazzard of non-performance of their words by reason of their own death or their God childrens untowardnesse which danger may come as well by baptism of believers infants as of others As whose Sponsors whether fathers or mothers or God fathers and God-mothers may die before they grow up or if they live be frustrated of their ends by the wickednesse of these children or god-children also Fourthly in that he speaks of such children of whom the Lord said forbid them not to come unto me which in the Priesthoods own sense at least are believers children yea and them onely by which clause according to you he may seem to speak of them onely rather then of infidels childrens onely whom you your selves forbid to be brought to Christ at all Fiftly in that he saies let them become Christians when they know Christ belike then if your sense be true some Infants may be warrantably enough made Christians before they know Christ but some infants again may not at any hand be made Christians till they know Christ which if it were Tertullians meaning as t is yours he might mean honestly in it as you do but t is too mean an opinion to keep touch with the word which never knew any way but one wherein disciples and Christians were made i. e. of profest faith repentance and baptism after they knew Christ by the preaching of the Gospel Sixtly in that he saies we should be more wary then to commit Divine substance to them to whom earthly substance is not committed now we know that earthly substance can be no more wisely committed to infants of believers in their non age then to infants of infidels Seventhly by one end why he would have them be capable to beg salvation first viz. that God may seem to give it to them that ask it which end is destroyed if baptism be dispensed to believers infants in infancy for they can no more ask it then the infants of uâ—believers Eightly because he saies it behoves them indifinitely meaning all them that enter into baptism to pray and confesse sin c. which conditions are as exclusive of all infants as of some those of believers being no more capable to do that then infants of infidels are Ninethly what ever children he disswaded from the baptizing of here and so saith Mr. Marshall and Mr. Blake its most evident de facto that they were wont to be baptized then or else there had been no object of his diswasion therefore if his advice to delay to them were concerning infants of infidels then its evident that in Tertullians time t was the custome to baptize infidels infants as well as Christians and so if antiquity of infant baptism were an argument of its goodnes it s as good an argument of the goodness of baptizing infidels infants also which with you is well-nigh as bad as the other is good Babist True de facto we have evidence that the baptism of infidels infants then was but that fathers disswading from it is an argument that t was nought and though crept in yet a thing that was not so from the beginning Baptist. Then I hope if ever you come to be perswaded and it is a wonder that none of the reasons above be cogent that t was indeed from baptizing of any children at all that Tertullian diswaded we have an argument of your own for it that the baptism of any mens infants is naught also and a thing that was not so from the beginning and so if Mr. Marshall himself be not by this time sick of Tertullian I assure both him and on all that I am and of all the Fathers also with whom in this controversie I would not have meddled but that your Pamphlet flutters so so with naming the Fathers and takes iâ—â—ll that testimonies from the Fathers were not taken on the day of the Ashford disputation I say again I am sick of them not so much with fear at the sight of any thing in any of them that makes against us for I find nothing that hath the strength of a straw against our way throughout them all even these few Iunior inferior ones themselves that are most against us for the Seniors are more fully on our sides and some of the Iunior ones also as Basil and Chrisostome both in the fourth Century whose words as Mr Blakwood cites them p. 28 29. of his storm are thus viz. First he ought to believe and after to be sealed with baptism and if any one have not corrected the transgression of his manners and hath not made vertue easie to himself let him not be baptized Which words are exclusive of infants t is not therefore any disadvantage that comes by them to our cause which I am sick
this because they understand not the nature of baptism it is Gods seal he sets it they that receive it are passive in that he appoints it to be set to whomsoever he hath made the promise and with whom he hath entered into covenant A seal of an estate made to infants in their cradles is firm so is God's Now here must be a sealing on the other side for both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when we believe John 3.33 The Covenant is sealed on both sides when faith comes God may set to his seal as he did to many of the Iewes and the seed made void to them through unbelief The End of Gods setting it to such as he foresaw would have no benefit of it is the same with the making of his promises and sending of his Sonne to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not Re-Review The reason of all your Objectations against our way of baptism and pleas for Paedo-Rantism which you practise is this you understand not the nature of baptism it is not Gods seal which he sets which you sillily suppose for that is his spirit only as I shewed you plainly enough above but Gods sign which man sets which they that receive aright are not altogether passive in but voluntary and very active i. e. confessing their sins calling on the name of the Lord desiring to be baptized professing faith in order thereunto going down inâ—o the water with the dispenser and there setting their senses and understandings on work upon the sign and things thereby signified submitting their bodies freely to the dispensation Neither doth God appoint it to be set to whomsoever he hath barely made the promise for in the word preached he makes it to every Creature Mark 16.15.16 but to such as professedly believe in that promise he hath made and visibly verily for ought we can judge have entered into covenant with him to become obedient such only so far as it is possible for us to know are those with whom he hath entred into Covenant for say you there must be a sealing on the other side and both parties must seal in a Covenant we seal when and not before we believe neither is the Covenant sealed on both sides so that it can be said these two parties are now entertained into covenant each with other till faith come and that is not in infancy but after And this your manner of speech viz. when faith comes here implies to be your own opinion as well as ours though else where as p. 3.4.8.9.15.16.17.18 19. you strenuously contend it yea and to say the truth t is well nigh the whole businese of your book to assert and assay to prove it that faith comes to infants in their infancy and to make it appear to us as well as you can by contradiction that infants do believe Moreover if ever men were troubled with the simples I think you are is baptism Gods seal of an estate i. e. the heavenly inheritance made over to infants in their cradels and is that seal of his firm to i. e so sure that it cannot fail then I wonder how that seal for so you still stile circumcision and baptism is made void and infirm to so many Iews and Christian people as it is for not all yea few of many do obtain that estate at last and that most lose it for all that seal you tell us by their unbelief but I had thought you had been of the mind when you wrote your 4th page that children of Iews and of believing parents did believe all without any exception for asserting it there positively that the Iews children did believe and consequently that believers children do now you prove the Antecedent viz. that the Iews children did believe because God did witnesse it by setting to his seal circumcision which if it were Gods seal to them of their eternall salvation by faith and witnesse to the world that they had faith also that seal must be firm and that testimony true concerning them all being set to all as well as some so that unlesse they depart from the faith which you say God who cannot ly witnessed they once had and that your principle of not falling from faith will in no wise give way too they could not possibly void it by unbelief and so must necessarily and universally obtain the inheritance but sith t is most clear you selves also yielding it that they do not therefore assuredly one of these must be true viz. either that circumcision was not to infants in their cradels Gods seal of their eternal salvation as you say it was or else that that seal of God is not firm as you attest it is or else that God did not witnesse by it that those to whom it was set had faith as you say he did or else that Gods witnesse and testimony was not true which were blasphemy to think or else that they fell from that faith which at first they had in infancy and at the time of their circumcision and that self confutes you in another case among all which grant which you will to be true you must contradict and convict your selves of falshood And lastly if the end of Gods setting baptism to persons be no other then the very same with that of making his promises and sending his son meerly to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not not to speak of your telling truth here unawares viz. that mans own will rejecting God first and not Gods own will first rejecting them without respect to their fore-seen rejection of him in time is the true cause of their condemnation then as God makes his promises to all and sends his son in his love a Saviour to all so baptism should be dispensed to all without exception belonging as well as Christ himself tell they appear finally to reject him to every one as well as any one in the world but that being denied by both you and us doth shew that the end of baptizing a person is somewhat more viz. not to beget him to the faith before he doth but to improve him in it when he doth believe To conclude this whole train of stuff or long tail of that short shower of shot that went before it is not of so much force as a scottish mist nor scarce enough to wet a naked man to the skin therefore bear with my folly in sheelding my self so much against it i. e. in saying so much in answer to it for a wise man would have said no more to it but mumm Review The third argument is this Those that have the holy spirit that have faith the Anabaptists will not deny but are the subjects of baptism but children have so as their justification declares without which there is no salvation Hence it is that the
the principle of reason and facultie of understanding in infants the faculty of understanding is an innate habit necessarily to be concluded and that in the highest degree to be in all infants t is in omni per se quâ ipsum but faith in Christ is by your own confession but an infused habit and by your own confession as not in all infants so in you know not which and which not till you see them act it and yet by your own conclusion to go round again t is in such not in such viz. not at all in Turks and Pagans infants for they are all in a damnable condition with you but in all infants of Christians even such as yet give no specimen of it and that so necessarily that a man may as truly deny that which is naturall to them even the faculty of understanding as deny the habit of faith to be in them Next in order to a fuller and more direct answer you prepare the way by a pannel of six or seven positions which you say you must necessarily hold concerning two or three of which we may say it s no great matter whether you hold them or no for any undoubted and infallible truth that is to be found in them in the sense wherein you take them or at least for any great matter of assistance that acrues to your cause by them and as for the rest of which you say you must necessarily hold them you might have said rather you must necessarily yield them to us for indeed they are the giving up of your cause and no other then the drawing of a dash with your own pen over all that ever you say throughout the residue of your works as concerning that sufficient appearance of faith you assert to be in believers infants yea he is blind that doth not see you thereby perfectly blotting out again what ever you penned in that particular with your own hands First say you the habit of faith must be before it can work I know no necessity of holding this for truth neither indeed would you hold it but that you imagine faith to be another kind of habit then it is for there are more kinds of habits then one though you speak of habit by the lump all along as if you were aware of but one for here 's ore and ore again habit habit habit habit habit but not the least hint of what kind of habit you mean you are never the men that distinguish of habits whereas qui bene distinguit bene docet there being some habits acquired and obtained no otherwise then by acting and faith it self is such a habit as will hardly be proved for all your confidence in the contrary to be any other at least to be apparent in any one or visible to the view of others till some act thereof hath past the persons in whom it is neither is any one in the world that I know of habitually a believer in Christ till having heard of him or his word he doth actually believe Secondly whereas you say the spirit of God infuses this habit I grant he infuses it if you take the word infuse in a true sense i. e. for begetting it in persons by the preaching of the word other infusion of faith if yet that may be properly called infusion which is a phrase rather of your own coining in this case the word knows none God indeed gives it but he gives it in the way of hearing the word of faith in the way of hearing Christ preached in which way he never gave it to infants neither is it his gift to them in any other the spirit works it but not without the use of means not per saltum and in nictu oculi i. e. so suddenly as you fancy but by the discharge of that office he bears from the father to that end and purpose towards the whole world i. e. moving striving perswading inwardly whilest the word doth without inlightning convincing a man of sin in himself of righteousness to be had and of a judgement to come wherein we shall be saved or damned according as we believe or believe not accept or neglect so great salvation upon which motions and convictions which are â—tricter and stronger in some then in other some some yield and believe and obey the Gospel and some for all this rebel and obey not so that t is true the spirit thus effects the business within us yet not so as that he is said wholly to do it without us he is the supreme efficient the operative cause of it but we are to be concurrent cum causà operante we have a part to do as well as he when he hath done his part towards us i. e. to believe which if we do not he will not force us he will go no further nor shall he be blamed but we and we not onely blamed but damnd for not doing it accordingly but if we do believe and turn at his reproof then indeed there is a promise of an infusion or rather effusion of the spirit in other i. e. those more special and peculiar offices of a witnesse to our spirits that we are Gods children a seal a comforter a revealer of the things freely given us of God a supporter under suffering c. all which it performes towards the Saints and in â—espect of which onely its called the holy spirit of promise Eph. 1.13 in this manner the spirit of God in order to that sweet infusion of it self into us may be said if you will call it infusion for which a fitter word may be found to infâ—se i. e. to work faith other infuâ—ion of faith into men much lesse into iâ—fants or such a downright infusion as I suppose you dream on the Scripture makes no mention of at all Thirdly in that you say he is not bound to work it in all the children of Christian parents nor barred from working it in any of the children of infideâ—â— this indeed you must necessarily hold as you say for t is undeniable truth but in holding it you must wholly let go all you held before concerning believes infants appearing to have faith and that in contradistinction to the infants of unbelievers for first you use to say as p. 14. out of Act. 2. that the promise of it is to believers and their seed i. e. as believers seed and so consequently to all and onely their seed not the seed of unbelievers for quod convenit qua ipsum convenit omâ—â— soli semper belongs alwayes to all of one sort and not any man of another and thereby you use to bind the spirit unlesse he will bee unfaithfull to work faith as without which you think he cannot give them salvation in all the seed of believers for a promise that is made to such or such a seed qua si must needs be sure as the Scripture saith Romans 4.16 and made good or else God that cannot lie breaketh his word to
required Fourthly it had been stark non-sense for Mark to have said of Christ as he doth Mark. 1.9 he was baptized of Iohn in Iordan if he were not dipt or if by baptized we must understand sprinkled for he was sprinkled into the River is as absurd and unelegant English as to say he was dipt into the rain Secondly it was not by powring water upon them that Christ and the Eunuch were washed this is the baptism Mr. Baxter pretends to as that and that only which ever he saw dispensed in all his life as it were disclaiming the way of sprinkling which yet is your onely wonted way I believe he saw good cause to be ashamed of owning that any longer for baptism as many a one besides him is who with him puts it off thus that their baptism is not by the way of sprinkling but powring of water upon the infans for my part saith he p. 134. I may say as Mr. Blake that I never saw a child sprinkled but all that I have seen baptized had water powred on them and so were washed And Mr. Blake saies p. 4. of his answer to Mr. Blackwood that he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled O the egregious shifts and shuffling evasions of these men who perceiving the perverse practise of sprinkling infants summoned and sub paena'd to come to a trial by the word of God do disguise it out of its old name that it hath born with content and without controul for ages and generations and doth still among many of their own party till now they begin to see it more strictly then ever enquired after and likely to come into trouble for its transgression from Christs command and shroud it under another name whereby to secure it so that now they know not nor ever saw or heard of any such manner of thing done in all the world No Sirs what never that is strange what parts of Christendome have you lived or do you live in I profess for my part I have lived a Sprinkler of infants my self about some seven or eight years not only in several parishes but in several parts of our English Christendome far distant yet so far as I remember I did never see till I came acquainted with the people whom you nick name Anabaptists any thing done by any in that particular that might well bear any other name then that of sprinkling yea I know where a dispensation of baptism as t was called was done so slenderly once to the child of a noted Clergy man that the father himself was so far in doubt whether there was so much as sprinkling or any water at all dropt from the fingers of the Dispenser that he doubted a while after whether he do still or no I know not whether it were not his duty to have it done over again a little better the Gentleman I speak of if ever he read this will surely remember both what and what Child of his I mean Mean while what more then sprinkling was ever done by my self or any other in that place or any other wherever I have been I cannot call to mind neither do I know that ever till of late that men see advantage lost by it in this controversy the name of sprinkling was denyed to what was done in all places of England save such where the manner was and very newly is upon sight of the falsenesse of the way of sprinkling to dippe a little more then the tippe of their Noses Besides though the Rubrick did prescribe dipping as the onely right form wherin baptism is to be dispensed and in case of weakness declared it sufficient to pour water upon a child yet what kind of powring was universally used by them who never used dipping is evident by the Rubrick if we will give it leave to expound it self for in the Catechism thereof which is not unknown to Mr Blake and Mr. Baxter both to have been taught or commanded to be taught all children at any years in all parishes of England this question viz. what is the visible sign or form in baptism is thus resolved viz. water wherein the person baptized is dipped or SPRINKLED with it in the name c. So that howbeit the Bishops were pleased to use the word pouring water as you do yet a great piece of pouring it was I promise you that their Priests practised to infants and it is a chance whether Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blake have not in the infancy of their administration which I suppose was in the bishops reign done the like though now happily they make a little better measure or at least seen the like at some time or other but me thinks they cannot chuse but have heard of the like in one place of the world or other a poor piece of pouring I say when their hands onely being put into water were after held up perpendiculariter over the infants face that it might be wetted a little with what fell guitatim from their fingers ends And this hath been the most usual way that I have seen in respect of which I may say the Priest that administred all commonly by book and wiâ—hin book did act beside book and without book in that service for howbeit he was in joined to dip the child in the water as the most expedient way at least and not so much as to dispence by powring water unlesse in case of weaknesse onely yet he made bold having an inch given him to take an ell i. e. upon leave granted him to forbear dipping in time of weaknesse only to forbear dipping altogether and being authorized by the same Ghostly fathers the Bishops to make powring suffice instead of dipping at such time onely wherein dipping might not be safely used to make sprinkling serve instead of pouring also and in this manner I am perswaded the world was gulled by the Clergy in Cyprians daies and after who having the verdict of so grave a Father as Cyprian was that application of water in the bed might stand for baptism in time of sicknesse in case the sicknesse proved unto death for if they recovered even in his judgement they ought to be had to the River and dipt for ease sake to the flesh and such like self ends made some slender slabber to stand for baptism altogether And that sprinkling only hath been the general way of England its evident enough to any save such as seeing see not and have ears and hear not yea as shy as Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter are of that name sprinkling as blind and deaf as they would make themselves in this case as though they never saw nor heard of any sprinkled yet there are Divines famous in their account who own it some of which seem to speak as if they never heard of such a thing as powring of water in the dispensation of baptism but only of dipping and sprinkling as the only forms that ever they had the hap to hear of witnesse besides
represent it yet so little is the quantity that you use not of water onely in the one but of bread and wine also in the other ordinarily nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing content with all in my heart that it be not too much on this hand provided that it be not too litle one the other so but that it may reach to resemble the things signified for the whole vertue of baptism lying in signification per ablutionem i. e. per submersionem per sepelitionem in aquâ and the vertue of the supper much what in signification per recreationem per representationem plenitudinis non multum interest quantum quisque abluatur modo obruatur submergatur sepeliatur nec quantum quisque comedat modo comedendo repleatur To conclude Sirs you are too short in that point of the outward element in the supper as well as baptiâ—m in the Church of Corinth there was so much bread and wine that if some hungred others were drunken as neither of these should have been so the latter could not have been but that the use then was to have more abundance of the elements then you have in your parish passeovers wherein the people are past over with so poor a pittance that all may in likelihood be hungry enough but none at all very easily drunken such niggardly snips and sups not at Rome onely where the Priests expounding Christ as speaking to themselves when of the wine saying drink ye all this and not to the people saying drink ye all of this do impropriate the liquor wholly to themselves but in England also do the priests supp I should say dine for it is done at noon dayes with them their poor patient dependant people at the Lords table There 's one thing among Mr. Baxters bedrow which I had almost quite past over without any answer which if I had you would have said it is like I willingly forgat it Christ told Peter saith he that the washing of his feet was enough to clense all Mr. Blake gives us a touch here too through the persons of a popish party p. 10. of Peters mind saith he not to be washed in one part onely which say some from the same place also viz. Iohn 13.9.10 is as sufficient as the washof the whole As if that Scripture even therefore because it speaks of washing doth speak of this ordinance of baptism either it doth Sirs in your opinion or it doth not if not to what purpose do you quibble upon it here if you say it doth I much marvel why you think so but more if in earnest you argue from it that a man need be baptized but in part onely sith you all confesse practically that the face and head but not the feet are the subject of baptism yea verily you had as good have said Pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude therefore the ordinance of baptism is no total dipping for the story of Christs washing Peters feet speaks no more of the ordinance of baptism then the other does yea it is most evident that the washing of the disciples feet was clear to another end and use viz. not to baptize them much lesse to shew how they should baptize others but meerly to teach them humility one toward another and to condescend to the lowest offices that could be for loves sake to each other this Christ expressed himself to be the direct meaning of what he did v. 12.13.14.15 c. after he had washed their feet he saies to them know you what I have done to you you call me Lord and master you say well so I am if I your Lord and Master have washed your feet you also ought to wash one anothers feet for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you this was Christs end therefore to learn them humility which was done as well in washing their feet onely as all the body yea the feet only indeed because the feet are the viler parts of the body for us to stoop to wash whereby to expresse our humility each to other in which respect and no other it is that when Peter yet ignorant â—o what Christ was about to do cryed out Lord my hands also and my head Christ replies that he that is washed i. e. not in Baptism but in this washing he was then about need not more i. e. ad rem substratam then to wash his feet but is clean every whit i. e. as much as he need be to this intent for which I now am washing you besides that the washing of the feet only is not a sufficient washing to denominate a man baptized according to Christs ordinance is evident by the Eunuch that went into the water and so was washed in his feet and yet not baptized for all that according to Christs will till Philip had baptiz'd or dipt him there it is a sign you are put hard to your shifts when you use such impertinencies to help you as these Rantist Impertinency I think all is impertenency with you still though never so solid that is brought in disproof of your idol dipping but what say you I trow to those two last unanswerable Arguments of Mr. Cook against totall dipping viz. that it is against both the sixth and seventh Argument both which Arguments Mr. Baxter also takes after him and â—angs you about with them a little better then Mr. Cook did and laces your sides so handsomely therewith that I believe you selves will be all sick of Mr. Baxter and your cause scarce be whole of those two Gashes he hath thereby given it salve it over as long as you will for he proves it plain that your plunging practise is no better then flat Murther and Adultery Baptist. I say these are knocking Arguments indeed if they be but as solid as they shew for but for all that let us see a little for our money before we part with it and hear what their Arguments are in words at length and not in figures if it chance to prove as you say they say and as they say indeed in this particular viz. that it is Murther and Adultery to dip as we do I assure you in the word of a Minister and a Christian that hopes to be saved in the way of innocency as well as your selves that dipping as it is no idol of mine for I adore it no otherwise then I ought to do every ordinance of our onely King Priest and Prophet Christ Jesus for his sake that ordained it so it shall never be adored so much as to be owned more by me but be abhorred rather with deeper detestation then I dispense it with affection to this houre but I believe that their proof will fall wondrous short of so high a charge as they venture to charge us with be pleased therefore since you mention it in gross to repeat their Arguments more at large
is before him here Eccl. 8.14 and the 9.1.2.3 yet sith he speaks of ruinating judgements let the consequence passe as valid but then his minor is utterly false for the Anabaptists are not all ruinated yet nor will be till the Clergy are quite cashiered as evident as it is that they have every where withered and suddenly come to nought heretofore and since he speakes of spiritual judgements e. g. that practise saith he hath never helped but hindred the work of God where it comes nor hath God blest their ministry to conversion of soules as he hath other mens but rather they have been instruments of the Churches scandal and misery Secondly that hath been the inlet to most other vile opinions few stop at it but go much further God hath usually given up their societies to notorious scandalous wicked lives and conversations more then others that professe godlinesse and never prospered them so far as to have any established Churches which should credit the Gospel I grant that some of these are sad emblems of a people none of Gods onely Mr. Ba. hath here saddled the wrong asse for this way of baptism hinders onely the work of mans Tradition which would make void the commandement of God but being it self the work and way of God is hindred where ere it comes by Priestly malice preaching Gods fear after precepts of men nor hath God blessed the Nationall ministry to the true conversion of soules as he hath done theirs but to the conversion of them to a Gospel of their own making for repent and be baptized was the Gospel that Peter preached and that is it that is now practised by us and how many are converted and baptized accordingly is so evident that it needs no proof at this hour but repent and be not baptized is the Gospel the Priesthood preaches and if you call that conversion which indeed is confusion we confesse their converts are more more then ours such instruments of scandal and misery to the true Churches are the Priests in all places by their reproaches nor is baptism the inlet of any vile opinions any more then the same was in the primitive times wherein many that were baptized did turne hereticks when they had done as they do now but what wise man then imputed it to their baptism and yet some of those opinions Mr. Ba. calls vile will be proved to his conscience in due time to be the truth yet many that are baptized do run out to very vile opinions and practises no better then their principles and stop not there indeed as he saies but go much further and degenerate into wayes oâ— wickednesse more abominable then ever in former time and of these Ranters Mr. Copp is none of the least attainers whom Mr. Ba. p. 148. hath very well set forth in his colours for I believe God in Iustice hath given him up and many other besides him to more notoriousnesse of error and enormity then ever any that profest godlinesse But what then shall we impute that fault to his being baptized I trow not for howbeit Mr. Ba. so imagines yet it was because he honoured not the truth when he had owned it nor walked in Christ after he had received him in which case how often God gives over to strong delusions is evident not only by the word which declares that when men like not to retain God in their knowledge he oft gives them over unto vile affection But also by sad experience in the world in these last times wherein 2 Pet. 2.1 1 Tim. 4.1 and the 2.3.1 doctrines of divels are rife among them that once owned the faith yet the faith not a whit in fault for all that but departure from the faith before expressed And that the fall of these men is into worse then ever before it is no argument against but rather for the way they newly fall from the sensuality of such as separate themselves from the true Churches in the later times i. e. congregational after these are once separated from the false ones i. e. the nationall being prophesied of 2 Pet. 2. Iude 19. of old that it should be greater then that of all beastly men that were before them besides corruptio optimi pessima the higher the rise into reformation the more desperate the fall into deformation of those that reform and prove deformed again that greater depth of hell therefore men fall into that fall from us proves the hight of our Churches to be neerer heaven then that of yours for if after they have escaped c. 2 Pet. 2.20.21.22 when Cop was in his standing in the Church of England I remember very well for I knew him better then then ever since he had some bounds from conscience to his corruption but having been once inlightned higher then Mr. Baxter ever was yet in the will and way of God and tasted of the heavenly gift and made a partaker of the holy spirit and obeyed the truth as it is in Jesus and yet fallen away his conscience is seard with a hot iron and I have small hope of his renewing against by repentance who thus denies the Lord that bought him and crucifies the Lord afresh and is twice dead pluckt up by the Roots a raging wave of the sea foaming out his own shame But what is all this to those that yet walk in truth of baptism more then to warn them that they depart not from it as he hath done lest they come into the same condemnation with him doth it prove baptism to be the cause of that grosness that often followes when a person is baptized in no wise for his non abiding in the love of the truth and that doctrine of Christ gives God occasion to give over to the height of wickednesse I appeal therefore to the conscience of Mr. Baxter 1. Whether the Pope may not by as good consequence charge all these errors that are upon Protestanism saying Thus the Ptotestants stop not there but run out further from Episcopacy to Presbytery and to Independency and so to Anabaptism and so to all it is true Protestanism is occasio or causa sine qua non for such as sit still in the smoak of the Popes Traditions are not acquainted with the new found fancies of the Ranter But Protestanism is not the true cause 2 Whether Mr. Ba be so well aware as he should be what time of day it is when Peter and Iude point out these things so plainly and yet he wonders at them as a Mystery 3. Whether the few owning and the few abiding in the true way of baptism doth not prove it to be the streit and narrow way that leads to life which few find 4. Whether he think we lay not to heart their misery and madnesse that run off from us as well as he and strive not to warn and watch over them as much as he and if so why he blames us more then himself that do what we can so
a tradition though more antient and reverent then some others as Mr. Rogers said of it and of which the church hath been posâ—est for 1500 years as Mr. Marshall a little more then he could undoubtedly prove too said of it is confest not onely by the Italian Clergy as Bellarmine who said it could not be proved by Scripture but as simply as our Clergy wrests the Scripture into the proof on t by the Remonstrants also who held it but as a very antient Rite that could scarcely be left off without great offence yea and Dr. Gouge also that would not be intreated to say ay or no to it at Dr. Chamberlains request now he sees people begin to pry into it did once acknowledge that it was a tradition of the church see Dr. Chamb. to Mr Bakewel p. 3. where he saies he hath under Mr. Barbers hand that he said so and used it as an argument to perswade him to take the oath ex officio And I desire all men to understand by these presents before whom we may happen to dispute this point hereafter that we declare against infant-sprinkling as a novelty in the faith and when we plead the dipping of believers as we are not in jest intending otiosam disputationem such idle dribling demi disputes and dainty dispatches as the Priesthood put us off with wherein he flams us i th mouth for an hour or two with the flap of a fox tail and lends us two or three licks of Latine and Logick and away again but a more serious earnest and constant course of conferring till the truth be tryed to the utmost so what we are so careful to contend for it is no new one but that old faith and baptism which was once delivered to the Saints this course of continued discourse though it suits not with such as seeing see not whose waies and courses are so much the more suspitious to be naught by how much the lesse they abide the light And a Modern Author whose Learning and Judgement lives in the Memories of many of our Kentish Clergy passed this sentence on it Pruritus disputandi scabies Ecclesiae yet I say is that the very life of the truth is so far concerned in that there 's very little of it comes to light in the CCClimate of the CCClergy by reason of their subtle sneaping things as much as may be out of sight that make against them I know the perverse disputings against the truth of men of corrupt minds destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godlinesse that t is reformation enough to mend the means of Presbyters out of the Bishops superfluities is the scabb of the Church of England indeed but I speak not of the pravity but purity of the disputation when plain minded men destitute of all self ends are minded to be serious and self denying and single-hearted in this work in order to more then either money or meer dispute it self nor is it Pruritus disputandi an itching simply after dispute for who are we simple Coblers Cartars Smiths Fishermen Farmers c. to stand before the wise and the Scribe and the disputer of this world in that work if God had not rejected them and made his wisdome foolishnesse but it is pruritus disprobandi a deep desiring of disproving your practises as Popish dispelling your smoak of errors and endeavouring to the utmost of our power according to what you have sworn us to in that kind to root out not by the civil sword but the plainnesse of the word your superstition heresie Schism and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine that disposes us to desire it Indeed The Heathen said it was a wicked custome to dispute about the Gods for thereby things certain are oft called into question nor have they said thus without reason considering what little strength of Reason they had wherwith to assertain it that their Gods were Gods at all but me thinks it should not be counted therefore a wicked custome among true Christians that own the true God unless to put forth such curious questions about God as the Schoolmen do viz. An deus potius non fuisse whether God could have chosen whether he would have been God or no and such like fooleries to dispute about their God and about his worship for fear it should grow more doubtful by discussing and howbeit considering the strong causes that commonly stiffen and harden the CCClergy in their Heresies or the utmost of their ends in disputing and some of those sorry effects that ensue there is but little encouragement to that work of disputing with them yet sith truth can likely be no looser by comming to the light nor is diminisht but displayed the more by how much it is discussed I see no reason why it should be declined and why Heteticks are not to be disputed withall and here it cannot be amisse If we consider 1 the Causes 2 the deâ—ign of Hereticks 3 the Common effects of disputation with them Among the causes of the CCClergies Heresies may be reckoned Amor sui a conceit of themselves a fancied perfection and purity in them more then others Amor sui primum aedificavit civitatem diaboli saith St. Austin self love first set up the divels Kingdome Even that great City BBBabylon that in three PPParts reigns over the Kings and nations of the earth for though there were many superstitions grown in uppon the Christians before in the first three hundred years yet the pompous Kingdome of Priests had no foundation whereupon to rise so long as the Roman Empire remained Heathen for then the very Bishops of the Church of Rome whom the Devil hath since made his Vice-gerents in the world were persecuted to the death by the devil himself acting in the heathen Emperors in bloody butchery against Christians yea the Ministers went under miserable martyrdome as well as others and kept indifferent close to the truth but when once the Dragon who fought against Michael and his Angels with open rage before and acted against them under the very name of Christians by his Angells the heathen Emperors and massacred Millions of Christians when he saw the Emperor himself Constantine the Great turned Christian and resolved to vindicate Christs cause and rescue the Christians from their bloody sufferings and finding that Michael and his Angels did now prevail against him and his cruel Cutthroats so that place must be no more found for them in heaven i. e. the high places of power in the Empire and that he could execute his wrath now no longer by them against the saints as Christians a Christian being now come to the Crown he had no other remedy now then to play his cards about another way and turn Christian also himself that he might have the fairer advantage to crush the true Christians that kept the commands of God and the faith of Jesus under the new nicknames of Hereticks Schismaticks c. that
illuminated Tradesmen Christ the Carpenter Peter the Fisherman Paul the Tentmaker Aquilla and his wife Priscilla from which kind of poor folks and babes to whom it seems good in gods fight to preach the plain Gospel and reveal by his word and spirit what he hides from wise men when they will not see this prudent PPPriesthood if he were not proud might learn more truth and Gospel purity then ever was taught him by his Grand-father the Pope or any of those Clerical Councells or Ghostly fathers which he consults more with then with Christ and Scriptures The Reason of all his obstinacy against tradesmens teachings is this he knows that his trade of teaching for hire and divining for money Must fall if tradesmen begin once to turn divines and to teach truth for nothing ye know that by this craft quoth he Act. 19.25 c. we have our wealth moreover ye see and hear c. he is well aware and so are we that if he lose the lives of persecution for conscience and sprinkling of infants Iachin Boaz the two main pillars grand Supporters of his kingdom his Temple will quickly rend in to more pieces then 3 PPPs from the top to the very bottom and all his matchlesse magnitude and numberlesse priestly Prerogatives drop directly to the ground viz. his Lieutenantship to the prince of this World his Lordship over the heritage his headship over the Church his dominion over the faith his title to the tenth of every mans estate his merchandize of slaves bodies and souls of men his leave to trample the holy city and slay at pleasure the truth tellers that torment him his rich revenues dignity glory power seat and great Authority together with all the priviledges profits liberties immunities thereunto belonging All this his royalty must fail if he give ground but a little and would have failed ere this time If he had a face could blush at his own abominable blindnesse or ingenuity to confesse himself hurt or own the plain truth while his lungs will serve him in reply or Amor sui constrain him to cry heresie against the truth therefore this Diotrêphes that loves to have the preheminence over all for ever because he hath had it for a while receiveth not truth but prates against it in the pulpit and elsewhere with malicious words and though he contradict himself ever and anon in his own Sermons and discourses yet if he say any thing at all he thinks it much when wisemen weighing it find it little to the purpose Tertullian thus describes Hermogenes Loquacitatem facundiam existimaret Impudentiam constantiam deputaret c. so he when he bumbasts the pulpit and slashes the Saint Schismaticks in their absence before his people supposes he hath spoken with no small grace when t is for want of grace that he did it and that when he is most audacious against all reformation as at Rome and even that he hath sometimes sworn himself and others to as here in England when he finds it more crosse to his credit then he thought of when he undertook for t he counts them fickle unconstant that change their minds and mend their manners and himself only stable and constant to the CCChristian Religion Hence it is that the effects of Disputation with him have been not onely fâ—ustrate but dangerous dangerous I say to him no otherwise then as it overturned his Kingdome that the truth of Christ might take place but to them that disputed with him in this respect as it hath been no lesse then their pretious lives were worth once to oppose or open their mouths against him witnes Wickliff Hus Ierome of Prague and all the executions done in Queen Maries daies upon such as durst dispute against the Pope or meddle against the mass and those done in Queen Elizabeths upon Barrow Greenwood and Penry who were hang'd by Episcopal malice for professing against them and the Common-prayer which now well nigh all England hath renounc't as a corruption and what should have been done upon such as disputed against or depraved the Presbyterian directory is well known for that Clergy hath shew'd themselves so much in their Fathers colours that ere long all England will renounce both it and them and in this respect it hath been also frustrate as to peoples conviction for truths witnesses to dispute never so clearly against him for as much as he hath still stopt their mouths with the stake prison or gallows and kept his own wide open against them in the pulpit when he hath secured them from all capacity of storming him there for The common sort are apt to think those have the victory that live to speast last and that their CClergies cause is never wrackt by the cause of Christ as long as one is left alive that can speak a word in that against the other And by how much error takes with our corrupt nature more then truth by so much there is more danger of its spreading where the Roots i. e. the self love vain glory ambition covetousnesse pride Lordlines universality and cruelty of the CCClergy who are plants that our heavenly father never planted Stocks from whom stemes out a stench from whom abomination branches it self out to the corrupting therof in al quarters of the Earth Rev. 11.18.17 5.19.2 are not plucked up and rooted out for from the Priest and the Prophet profanness heresie hath gone out into all the world and spread it self like a leprosie or some raging canker and for the most part such is the resolvednesse of the CCClergy to bind the people still to a blind obedience to their blind guidance of them beside the word that Disputations with them if not carefully I mean clearly and also coolly proceeded in with love to their persons and almost without zeal against their evils which yet we must not abate them an ace of for all their anger pacem cum hominibus cum vitiis bellum they Raise more evil spirits of wrath and divellishnesse in them then we can lay because they see them raise more good spirits of doubts and earnest enquiries after truth in the people who before were wont to take their ware on trust without trial then then they can lay again while they live by all the shifts and subtleties they can devise for when once people are resolved to believe things to be heresie by hearsay no more but to fancy them according as they find them in the word and to see into the plainness of speech that is in the Scripture with their own eyes they see so much disproportion between the national Church wayes and those of the primitive Churches of the Gospel that they commonly resolve not to see at all adventures through the unclear eyes of CCClergy men any more This makes them fret and fume and fain and fiddle hither and thither which way to fasten their Heretical opinions further if it be possible on them in whom they they