place though he doth not drop out o th' clouds or slide down thither from the moon that worthy friend and beloved Brother under which name I the rather own him here because I had a letter from a prime one of your Party that speaks somewhat scoffingly of that compellaton and besides though with Dr. Featly and his faction he is one of the Clergy of Laicks and an Apron Levite yet as his name is Temple-man so I take him to be a better Church-man then many a one who for not troubling his people with too much truth goes under the Denomination of a good one this man I dare say as far as he said he came by accident so farre he came by accident as he said and this proves your hearsay for its like so you had what you here say to be Heresie if an erring from the truth may as I know not why not be so stiled in civill matters as well as spirituall And this conducts me to another figment wherein you father as false a thing upon my self as any of those you feâ—…ned of me before which is at the bottom of that discourse which you record as passing between your selves and him concerning justification of Dying infants whether it be by faith or without it in which discourse though the folly of your opinion in that point and truth of his which is also mine namely that dying Infants are justified without faith I shall shew in due time and place yet I cannot but take notice by the war before I speak of that which more concerns my self of some Legerdemain and illogicall dealings of yours with him Report Reporting him asserting thus viz that there may be justification which is not by faith you report your selves replying thus page 9 that it is the grossest piece of Popery to hold â—…ustification by works and not by faith onely and the greatest controversie between them and Protestants Reply What shameful Sophistryâ—…ave â—…ave you shewn here in foisting in a foolâ—…sh phrase and term that was neither used nor touched on by him in any of his fore-going speeches nor yet in that which your reply most immediately relates to viz. Iustification by works whereas you know well enough even as well as he and I and the rest that were there for your wits could not be so far gone a wool-gathering as to need Hellebor here that he neither spake nor meant of Iustification by works whether without faith or with it but of the Iustification of Infants without either faith or works neither of which as your selves confess they are in infancy capable to act although you say but if a man will not believe you he may chuse for there 's neither Scripture sense nor reason for it they have the habit this I say again you know to be the sence of such as you call Anabaptists witness your selves in two places viz. p. 8. where you give account of our opinion thus viz That way of the presentment of the righteousness of Christ without faith is a figment of the Anabaptists also p. 15. thus the adversaries are put to theirshifts to find out a new way for the salvation of infants dying in their minority viz. the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith in both which places you give the world to understand that you know our opinion to be that infants are justified by neither works nor faith which is a work but if at all by that which your selves hold is the material cause of the justification of men that act faith and of whom they being capable to act faith it is required as instrumentall viz. the righteousness of Christ secondly you know that this opinion is farther off and more flatly contradictory to that Popery that holds Iustification by works then yours can possibly be found to be for the very Iesuits may have some colour for saying that you say the same with them whilst their Tenet is justification by works yours by faith which say they and truely too is a work theirs by faith and works concurrent yours by faith that hath works concomitant and necessarily consequent thereunto between which two doctrines neither of which need be so much condemned each by other for ought I find as they are provided that all merit on our part be cashiered for there Rome errs besides us all for you will find them both true in the end viz. that both are instrumentally subservient and not either of them alone to the justification of not Infants but men and women of whom both as well as one are required in order unto life beâ—…ween which two I say there 's not so vast a difference as you deem there is much less so great as is between these viz. Iustification by works and faith both which is that of the Papists and Iustification without either faith or works which is that of ours when we speak of justification with reference to infants only for between these there 's not the least colour of coincidence yet this was that justification that Inquirer spake of viz. of Infants by Christ without faith or any other work either which you know is no part of Popery yet first you reply besides the business which he spake to and define it gross Popery to hold justification by works as if he had held it yea secondly which is worse and down-rightly injurious you are not ashamed to tell-tale him to the world in the words below that he fell into this popery and that for asserting of a Iustification of Infants so farr as they need any neither by faith nor works but Christ without either so much as instrumentall on their part then which you see nothing more fully contradicts it if ye were blind indeed you had not fin'd so much in this but sure you cannot but see how you shuffle therefore without repentance your sin remaineth Another thing I take notice of by the way as I travel toward that fiction I mention above as referring to my self is this Report That when the quere was put to you by the inquirer as you call him what need infants have of being justifyed at all since they have no original sin which whether it were put for satisfaction in the thing or meerly to hear how readily you would resolve it I cannot say you bring in one of the Ministers in the name of the rest crying out as before of Popery so now of Pelagianism and that he had not heard so much Heresie in so few words that the inquirer should take heed how he vented himself in publique hereafter for it became him to suspect himself least God had given him over to the Spirit of error and to another that out of the body of the Congregation replyed That that way which you the Ministers called Heresie so wershipt they God you go on still in the old tone thus that you were sorry to hear him profess himself a Papist and a Pelagian in saying he worshipt God that way and
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. 23 〈◊〉 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 effect us 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 Co venant 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—…hsheba 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 Mâ—… 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 neither 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 ens-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 every 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 spirituaâ—…ly 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 〈◊〉 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 all 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 deâ—…ilements 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 and his sons must thus swagger in their service and
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 slow from them but to reason upon a cause as good or ill true or false right or wrong according to the might or meaness 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 whisled 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 let fall 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 fâ—…enda 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 peopâ—… that know not the law are cursed Ioh. 7. 47 48 49. So brags Dâ—… 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 Mechanicks 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 to spare sentencing your cause as wrong by your personall defects and want of abilities but also in charity to couer the weakness of your Arguments which is such an unreasonable request as was scarce ever put forth before by any Disputants who if they find their Arguments to be weak ought rather to recant them specially after such publique acknowledgement of the weakness of them and to desire people that they would not suffer themselves to be swayed by them then otherwise But Sirs
alone in the house or visible Church of God being now come in the standing by any fleshly generation what soever is done away yea Abrahams own children the naturall branches that grow out of his loynes are 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 Saviouâ—… 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
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 you 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 it ill 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 of But First with spending so much time and searching so much into their testimonies as you have compelled me to do that me thinks I am out of my element where I desire to be i. e. the Scriptures whetâ—…er I le return by and by God willing especially this last testimony of Tertullian which yet I could not help unless I would for want of help betray the truth when I saw how Mr. Marshal Dr. Holmes and others had almost stolen away corrupted and by fair words enticed our old friend Tertullian to serve on their side for we would not willingly be cousiâ—…ed of what is our due yet least any man should think of me above that he seeth me to be and take me to be a man of much reading because I talk so much of the Fathers I testify that I am of little further acquaintance with these Fathers for my converse is mostly with Matthew Mark Luke Peter Paul Iude Ianies and Iohn then this controversie hath brought me to which now is so much that though I honor them as honest and good men in their times as finding many things of much worth and excellency in them yet for all that I am sick Secondly with seeing what abundance of absurdities silly reasons senselesse anti-scriptural sentences odd conceits vanities varieties of error as well as verities uncertainties whether some of their books be their own or no mistranslations foisting of what of their own other men please into their works as Ruffinus into Origen falsities flat contradictions amongst themselves and such like are to be found among them sufficient enough to cause all men to trust no more to their testimonies then with their own eyes they see the same testifyed in the Scriptures Thirdly I am sick more yet to find the whole Clergy after whom the whole world wonders and walks in error wondring so much after these Fathers and walking after them where they walk in error and yet neglecting to give heed to them where they speak the truth and which is worst of all sleighting the short pure and plain waies of God the Father of all of Christ our Father and the first Fathers next and immediately under God and Christ Supreme Governors of the Church and givers out of the Gospel to the world I mean the Apostles who in my mind write the way of the Gospel if men were not willing to go astray from it because it is narrow self denying and thorny though more briefly yet more clearly to any common capacity then the most voluminous of all the other fathers do for we use all plainess of speech saies Paul 2 Cor. 3. Wherefore Fourthly and Lastly I am sick most of all to consider what a stirr ministers make in their quotations of the Fathers marching on and giving such a broad side as they think with two or three sentences on of the fathers as if they would bear all men down before them that come near them no higher read then in the Scriptures no better armed then with the sword of the spirit the word of God For this only is dispised as much as Davids sling and stone before Goliah and this too though in coole bloud the Scripture is confessed by themselves to be so instar omnium that nothing is of any force but what slowes from it for though some Clergy men dote so far that they believe the Fathers no otherwise then they would have the world to believe themselves i. e. because ipse dixit yet some are so wise as to confesse that how far forth soever the Fathers may serve to prove to us things de facto to be done in their several ages yet their testimonyes de facto cannot prove any thing to us to be de jure at all whereas if it be so and ye so it is I am me thinks become a fool at this time in falling before I was aware so up to the ears in contest about a few testimonies of the fathers as well as I and others heretofore in counting so extraordinarily on them wherefore I do henceforth humbly conceive and confess my self to the people together with all my fellow father-fool'd friends viz. the Clergy of all Christendome to have been no better then childish and semi-simple so far as such high and holy heed and such heedlesse submission hath been given by us to these fathers Schoolmen and other authors as hath occasioned extreme seduction from the Scriptures hear
gift to them in any other the spirit works it but not without the use of means not per saltum and in 〈◊〉 ocul 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 stricter and stronger in some then in other foure 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 causa 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 reveâ—…ler of the things freely given us of God a supporter under sufferings c. all which it performes towards the Saints and in respect 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 infuse i. e. to work faith other infusion of faith into men much lesse into infants 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 parent nor barred from working it in any of the children of infidels this indeed you must necessarily hold as you say for t is undeniable truth but in holding it you must wholly let go â—…ll you held before concerning believers 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 omni 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 quâ—… siâ—… must needs be sure as the Scripture saith Romans 4. 16. and made good or else God that cannot lie breaketh his word to 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 ingenuously 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 infancy you confesse you cannot to presume what children have the habit of faith and what have not Fourthly whereas you say wheresoever the habit of faith is it inclines to holy actions when there â—…s 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
either of them to have been dipt or plunged in the River or that any one may now lawfully be served so I marvell much what they did in the river before they came out of it oâ—… quoth he they were washt in the river and yet not so as by dipping neither good Sirs let us examine this a little for I cannot for my life ken what washing the Dr. means besides this of dipping or how any other washing was performed First to be sure it was not by sprinkling which yet is all in all among you and that for these reasons First because it s most certain that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath no such signification as to sprinkle neither is it rendred any where Aspergo in any Lexicon or any translator of the testament whatsoever Secondly because sprinkling is no kind of washing at all neither is there any thing in the world save as I said before by sluts and slovens so much as undertaken to be washt onely by that act of sprinkling much lesse by such a sparing sprinkling as yours is who sprinkle not the 20th part pro toto indeed a thing may in time be so totally wetted by a continued sprinkling as it may be put therby into some kind of capacity to be clensed by rubbing it while the water is on it and that is farre from your practise too but not half so well as when it is swilled in water and in a long while a garment may be all covered colored and as it were died by sprinkling as Christ is said in the continued war he wages at the last partly by the sprinkling of peoples blood upon him and partly by his riding up and down in the wine press where there are as there are usually in wars garmenâ—…s rould in blood and blood up to the horse bridles to have his raiment all stained and his vesture as it were died and dipt in blood but all this is hyperbolicall locution and not to be wrested to such purpose as Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake do who because there is not enough neer hand fetch a proof for sprinkling fourty miles off which yet proves nothing when it comes for they know Allegories do rather illustrate then evince but this is not such a deep dying as is by dipping Thirdly it had been a most vain thing for them to have gone down into the River meerly to be sprinkled if that were the onely businesse they might well have been dispenst with from descending into the water but sith they were not it shews that such a thing as sprinkling might excuse them and if not them I know not why it should excuse the best of us though men do much in the service of God in vain when they do things that man doth but God never did require at their hands yet we cannot think Christ did any thing in vain yet so we must think if we think he went into a river to receive no more then sprinkling and so we must think of the Eunuch also of whom we have little reason so to think for great folks and nobles such as he was love to do as little as may be in contradiction to the flesh and no more then needs must be in this point of baptism if at all they stoop to it for he need not have hindred himself so long in his journey nor diseased himself so much in his body as to have descended out of his chariot and after into the water but might much rather have sent Philip or his servant to have fetcht so much water in the hollow of his hand as would have served very well to have sprinkled him if no more then so had been 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 inâ—… 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 myself 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 myself 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
you quibble upon it here if you say it doth I much marvel why youthink 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 of 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 imperâ—…enency with you still though never so solid that is brought in disproof of your idâ—… 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 bangs 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 decestation 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 which I dare say your memory is more tenacious of then of any other and I shall examine them as exactly as you shall desire me Rantist First then let it be well considered what they say to the first thing This dousing over head and ears and under water saith Mr. Cook that you plead for as essential to baptism seems directly against the sixth Commandment and exposeth the person baptized to the danger of death For first suppose the party be fit for baptism as you account in the sharp winter as now believing professing c. he must immediately be taken to the River as your tenet seemes to hold and there plunged in over head and ears though he come forth covered with yoe But if he scape perishing with cold how can he scape being choaked and stiffled with the water if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin Secondly be kept under water to signifie his burial And Thirdly be taken up again as A. R. and you seem to reason But whatever be the danger of freezing or suffocation 〈◊〉 seems this you hold the only baptism and therefore must not be swerved from p. 21. Thus he but more largely and plainly Mr. Baxer p. 134. That which is a plain breach of the sixth Commandement Thou shalt not kill is no Ordinance of God but a most haynous sin but the ordinary practise of baptizing by dipping over head in cold wâ—…er as necessary is a plain breach of the sixt Commandment thereforè And Mr. Craddock in his book of Gospel liberty shewes the Magistrate ought to restrain it to save the lives of his Subjects c. that it is flat Murder and no better being ordinarily and generally practised is undenyable to any understanding man for that which directly tendeth to overthrow mens lives being willfully done is plain Murder but the ordinary or general dipping of people over head in cold water doth tend directly to the overthrow of their health and lives and therefore it is murder here several answers are made saith Mr Baxter some vain some vile First Mr. T. saith that many are appointed the use of bathing as a remedy against diseases To which I reply saith he 1. though he be no Physitian yet his own reason should tell him t is no universalremedy 2. Few diseases have cold baths appointed them I have cause saith he to know a little more then every one in this and I dare say that in Cities like London and amongst Gentlewomen that have been tenderly brought up