Priesthoods divine kind of Doctrine does damn them I mean any of them so dying any more then one of them First as for sin which onely damnes I know none they have of their own and to say that any infant dyes eternally for theiniquity of his father only makes the word of God which is truth it self no better then a flat falsehood to me who read in Ieremy 31. 29. 30. Ezek. 18. 3. 4. 19. 20. Deut. 24. 16. 2 Kings 14. 16. that the waies of God who requires it strictly of man not to put the children to death for the sins of the father but every man only for his own sin are so equal for all the false accusation of him by the wicked Jewes that seeing he both saies and also swears it that men shall never have occasion to say the childs teeth are edged by the grapes the father only hath eaten and in way of complaint for injustice doth not the son bear the iniquity of the Father but that every soul that dies shall dy for his own iniquity onely and that individual soul onely that sinneth shall dy i. e. eternally for temporally t is true we all dy in Adam as far as a to temporal death God may and often doth visit the sins of the Father on the children to the third and fourth generation of such as hate him not onely when children inherit so as to imitate their fathers hatred of God in which case only t is a punishment to those children but also on infants so as to take them out of the world with the fathers as in the case of ' Dathan and Abiram Amaleck Hittites Amorites c. yea Sodom and Gomorrah and the old world on which for ensamples sake to them that in after times should live ungodly the flood and the fire fell not onely temporal but eternal to the adult ones that gave themselves over to fornication and followed strange flesh though but temporal only to infants who neither lived ungodly nor gave themselves over to fornication as the other did and therefore though passing hence with the rest to a temporal death by that fire yet are not set forth as an ensample with the rest to all that should live ungodly by suffering the vengeance of eternal fire 2 Pet. 2. 6. Iude 7. But the same temporal death that may be in fury to one as t is a passage to worse may be a mercy to another and so to those infants a passage from worse to better as good Iosiah was slain in battell as well as wicked Ahab and that for going on his own head to war as well he yet was it in respect of that eternall state that followed as well for him as ill for Ahab Sith therefore it s said so plainly the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father and yet temporally they may be taken away with the father it must needs be meant that eternally none die nor lye for ever under wrath for no more then meerly the fathers fault whereupon all dying infants having no trangression of their own cannot be damned for their own nor yet for their father Adams transgression and so are all as well as those of believers in a visible state of salvation and while they live infants unlesse hereafter they reject it as Esau did the land of Canaan in visible right to so dying to the heavenly Canaan Yea many thanks to my Ashford opposites for that clause of their pamphlet which is assistant to me almost at all assaies Christian charity it self which doth presumere unumquemque bonum nisi constet de malo constrains us to hope all things believe all things concerning the salvation of dying infants and of all infants as well as some specially since these more then those i. e. the infants of unbelievers more then of believers have not committed any actual sin wherby to deserve to be exempted from the general state of little infants declared in Scripture viz. that of such is the Kingdome of heaven Secondly as for righteousnesse there 's enough in Christ to take away it being imputed what ever unrighteousnesse is imputed for Adams sin and why that righteousnesse should not be imputed if the Scripture had not said it so plainly as it does Rom. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 19. 21. 1 Cor. 15. 22. to all poor dying innocent infants as well as some I cannot imagine unlesse you say not God the fathers love to all but man the fathers faith is that thing that must save some of those infants of believers that are savd by interessing that fruit of his body in the righteousnesse of Christ as well as himself for the taking away the sin of his soul which faith a father wanting the child shall perish for ever in default out and yet be in no fault in the world about it Alas poor infants indeed that descend from such parents as believe not if it be so that that the fathers faith onely does interest the infant in Christ their forefather the first Adam by his sin unawares to them damned them say they and say I if it did there 's righteousnesse enough in the heavenly father and the second Adam to save them but because not they themselves for they have no more ability so to do then a new born infant hath to dresse its naked body but their fathers put it not on by faith for themselves and theirs which if the dying infants might live to years as Christ said of Sodom they happily would do therefore millions of these poor innocents must perish so then belike it is thus and this is the covenant of the Gospel the fathers faith saves him and all his dying infants and the fathers sin of unbelief damnes for ever not himself onely but all his dying infants also All infants that are damned then are damned through the fault of two unhappy fathers a remote father for sinning and and immediate father for not believing between which two the love of the heavenly father cannot come at them a wise man may spend all he hath with looking but never find such as this in all the Scripture earthly inheritances are oft stated and removed to and from posterity for fathers faith and faults as all Abrahams posterity by Isaac and Iacob did enjoy Canaan and Esaus lost it but the eternal inheritance is neither won nor lost by the children through the faith or unbelief of the parents and besides if Adams sin though a remote parent doth so damnifie all infants that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot save them without the fathers faith me thinks he being their great grand father Adams faith should recover him and all his at least from that guilt his sin brought upon them by interessing them in Christs righteousnesse as well as his single unbelief at first destroyed them if any fathers saith shall entitle his infants to salvation or else God seems not to be so prone to mercy as severity yea indeed he that
men at years but infanâ—…s being uncapable to act faith and it being not required of them therfore they may be baptized without it which conclusion you make without book to for the word warrants you not to make it why may not we when you call so universally for faith to every ones salvation or else saying assuredly they are damned return the like viz true no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it and of whom it s required but infants being uncapable to act it and it being not required of them therefore they may be saved without it Babist This conclusion is spoken without book and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours is sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith as of baptism upon faith and as little of salvation without faith as it doth of baptism without it therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptized without faith as you have to assert they may be saved without it Baptist. No I shall leave you behind here for sith the Scripure speaks of the impossibility of infants believing and yet with all of their saluation as your selves confesse in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdome of heaven but no where at all of their baptism it shews that they may be saved without believing but shews not that they may be baptized without it besides to hold any of them to be damned before they have by actual sin debard themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty and breach of Christian charity with you who yet confesse that all of them have not faith p. 19. but to hold they need not to be baptized cannot bear the like construction sith t is acknowledged by them that deny their bapâ—…ism and by them also who absurdly assert to the contradiction of themselves that the denyal of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless though they die unbaptized so that whether we who hold that to them all belongs the kingdome of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptized before they die or you that hold no salvation to them without faith and yet hold that all of them have not nay that very few of them for how few are believers infants to others have faith whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all or at least innumerable infants dying contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture and sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdome of heaven and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by your selves which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate till he appear to be in a bad and by actual sin to bar himself and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is this that they have right to the kingdome let the most simple but honest Reader judge between us As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5. 18. Rom. 11. 7. who urges the last of them I know not for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or ours therefore I shall not trouble my self with it but the first of them which you say is so directly against us t is because you are blind if you do not perceive it to be an express downright declaration of a general justification of all from Adams sin as to life i. e. a resurrection from that bodily death which that sin brought upon all mankind and from which as there is now a universal return of every individual by Christ so there had never bin any returning for any one man in the world but by Christ to all eternity world without end 1 Cor. 15. 21. 22. Yea as universally as that judgement or condemnation to that first death came by Adam upon all men so that it spreads its black wings upon them all and brings them all down to the dust from whence they came so universally is justification unto life i. e the benefit and resurrection from that death from which else no one man should ever have risen come by Christ upon all men really and truly and not onely so but a capacity also and possibility of eternal happinesse and well being after that resurrection and all this whether persons believe it yea or no yea and a promise and certainty of it in case of belief in this Christ otherwise indeed a losse of the Resurrections becoming a mercy and benefit to them and a lyablenesse even after that escape of the first death that came by the first Adam to a sorer even that second death that lake of fire which by the second Adam by whom comes eternal blessednesse on believers comes upon all unbelievers and that for ever So that if there be no salvation to infants without justification yet ther 's justification of infants without faith or baptism either And whereas you argue from the cart to the horse from the justification and salvation of infants to their faith I argue from their non capacity to believe to their justification and salvation without it no salvation or justification without faith say you but infants are justified and saved therefore they believe if no justification and salvation without faith say I infants who cannot believe can neither be justified nor saved but infants so farre as they need justification for they have no sins of their own are justified and saved also for the kingdome of heaven belongs to them therefore there is justification and salvation for infants without faith To conclude therefore this opinion of you adversaries to the truth which allows no salvation to infants without faith puts you miserably to your shifts viz. either to find out a new way of coming by faith which Paul saies comes onely by nearing or else to damn innumerable dying infants who whilest they lived were uncapable to hear the word preached and so to believe or else as you do p. 18. to dream out a new kind of hearing whereby infants come by their faith viz. an inward wonderful miraculous hearing of some voice of the spirit within such a sigment of your own brains as the Scripture is wholly silent in and no true Church of God nor rational man but your selves who dream dreams and divine false divinations and things of nought deceits of your own heart and tell them to the deceiving of others did ever dream of and whosoever shall consider the impertinencies of your proofs in a cause of so great consequence shall have just cause to suspect all your other doctrines and to take heed how they take any thing any more upon trust as the whole world hath done now of old from these new masters the Clergy who instead of being ministers in truth or servi servorum dei have bin domini dominorum Lords
liberty to out-stand or anticipate the eighth day at your pleasure hence the birth day is as warrantable with you as the eight yea in case of imminent danger of death in which case circumcision might not alter ti 's a learned question among some Infant-sprinklers whether the mid-wife may not sprinkle it before it s born i. e. while is hangs yet between the womb and the world but too soon is too soon in all conscience and again when it fits better with your plum-cake occasions the tenth twelfth or eight and twentyth day must be as acceptable to God as the eighth yea when it seems good to the wisdom of the Church i. e. the Clergy it may be deferred for no less than two or three hundred daies together witness the old Rubrik which saith that in old time baptism was not ministered but at two times in the year viz. at Easter and Whitsontide but that custome being grown out of use for many considerations I know not any but the Clergies good will and pleasure cannot now well be restored Thus you ride people to and fro as you list and run manie miles from your own rules as well as Christs for if Circumcision be your Rule for the time of Baptisms administration keep punctually to the particular time of the eighth day as well as to the generall time of Infancy or else you may tell me the eighth day is a circumstance not to be regarded whilst I tell you'tis such a substance that Moses was like to be slain for overslipping it yet by your favour Sirs and by the same reason that you take an inch I 'le take an ell yea if you can acceptably go a fingers bredth besides the rule of Circumcision I may go an hundred furlongs and by the same Authoritie that you delay the Dispensation beyond the eighth to the tenth twelft or the hundreth day I may delay it unless belief withall the heart do ingage to it before to the ten thousandth day or more nor can you question me why do you thus Secondly whereas for my undertaking to rectifie you in your gross misapprehension and reduce you from the misconstruction I saw you make of my speech which leaves you without excuse in this rude recording you record me as recalling what I said I protest against that as another of your sigments which you had need both to recant and repent of there was but one thing recalled all that day that I know of viz. that Iohn Baptist spake so soon as he came out of the womb that being rashly uttered by one in a Black coat was indeed as readily recalled as for my self what I said then I was so far from recalling that I 'le give you the advantage of saying the same over again hear therefore you deaf that you may understand bring me the children of three or four years old not instructed only for so the wickedst heathen may be but instructed to conversion and profession of faith not verbal onely for a Parret may be taught to prate but real as may seem at least and to desire baptism In Christs name yea more bring me the Infants of three or four daies old thus truly discipled and blame me for ever if I be not as forward to baptize them as your selves are to rantize them undiscipled This is the sense I then spake in the Lord knows my heart to whom I appeal ultimately to judge between us I have spoken it thus over again you have now my mind more fully among you mistake it not but take it dexterously and make your best on 't Report Next you relate and that most fictitiously that I having asserted circumcision to be a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only and not to his posterity and being urged to shew any Scripture that did import a change in the signification and told that such a change must needs intimate that the same covenant was not made with Abrahams seed that was made with himself I was so foundered that though you ingaged to become Anabaptists if I did it yet I answered nothing that carried any sense or reason to the purpose Reply This I say is another of your your sigments for first to let pass the Sophisticall terms you used whilst you askt how or wher Circumcision ceased to be a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abrahams posterity as if I had granted that Circumcision was once a seal of the righteousness of faith even to Abrahams posterity as well as himself and then was changed ceased left off to be so wheras I told you then that though 't was so to Abraham himself yet it never was so to them at all do also tel you now that when a man saies of a thing that it never was so it is but an illiterate kind of quere to ask him again when it ceased to be so Secondly confessing that I then affirmed and also still affirming the same viz. that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only and not to his posteritie I profess thirdly before the world appealing to your own consciences to witness that as it is most plain in the Scripture so I then made a most plain discoverie of it from the Scripture that there were other ends uses and significations of Circumcision to Abrahams own person though in some respects there were also the same then those for which it was dispensed to his seed and that notwithstanding many things which were promised to Abraham were promised to all his seed together with him yet there were somethings also promised to Abraham in the Covenant of Circumcision which his seed had no promise of at all as namely First That he should be the Father of all Believers This I am most certain I then instanc'd in and according to your then demand cleared by Scripture even that very Scripture which was then quoted by your selves Rom. 4. 11. and repeating the whole verse whereof you for your own ends mentioned but a part I told you t was evident even thence that Abraham had one preheminence and priviledge that none of his posteritie had ever after him which he obtained of God by his preheminence in believing viz. the Fatherhood of the faithful of which eminent faith of his which was imputed to him for righteousness as well as of that eminent prerogative the Fatherhood of the faithful which God gave him upon that great faith Circumcision was given him as a seal in such a sence as t was never given to his seed a Seal I said for it was a sign only but no seal to his posteritie to honor the greatness not to strengthen the weakness of his faith i. e. to confirm him that was so great a believer even beyond hope in that honorable title which God put upon him therfore I told you it runs thus viz. he received the sign circumcision i. e. circumcision which in its ordinary use was a sign a
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
head and all under for a time answerable to Christs three daies burial which cannot be without danger yea certainty of drowning 2. If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse yet I demand why this may not as well be by infusion of water as dipping can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried by infusion of water I am sure a whole world of men and other creatures those few that were in the Ark only excepted were buried in the universal deluge at once by infusion not by dipping so that infusion or sprinkling may as well clearly signifie death and burial as dipping and to the preservation of Noâ—…h and those that were with him in the Ark on which waters were poured from drowning the Apostle compares baptism as its Antitype Thus far Mr. Cook p. 16 17. And then again p. 19 20. 21. he undertakes further viz. to argue back again upon us at large and to prove that if there must needs be a resemblance and representation in baptism of the things that are signified therby then it may be as well nay must be rather by washing pouring sprinkling then by dipping and putting under the water sprinkling and infusion being as if not more agreeable to the nature and institution of baptism then dipping or immersion for as the word used i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing so the thing represented sigâ—…yed and sealed saith he in the wonted implicit phrase in baptism is a washing 〈◊〉 Cor. 6. 11. ye are wasted c. the washing of Regeneration 2 Tit. 5. having your bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10. 22. t is a cleansing and purging 1 John 1. 7. blood of Christ clenseth us from all our sinnes Heb. 9. 14. blood of Christ shall purge your conscience which things viz. washing clonsing purging are done as well by infusion of water saith he as dipping and though it were granted saith he that in those hot countreys they commonly washt by going down into the water and being dipt therein that will no more inforce a necessity on us of observing the same in baptism now then the examples of Christ and the Apostles gesture in the supper ties us to the same which was leaning and partly lying but it may be objected saith he that sprinkling a little water doth not so fitly represent the washing of sins away as dipping or plunging sith here the whole body is washed there the face or head onely I answer first saith he the Scripture no where requires washing of the whole body in baptism Secondly with as good reason one may plead thus that t is most convenient that at the supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine and take as long as his stomack and head will hold to signifie the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ but who would endure saith he such reasoning These outward elements of water bread and wine are for spiritual use and to signifie spiritual things so that if there be the truth of things the quantity is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end namely to represent the spiritual grace and that it be neither so little as not clearly to represent it nor so much as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing yea the spirituall grace and visible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism viz. The application of Christs blood and donation of the spirit is exprest in Scripture by the name of powring sprâ—…kling and that probably if not certainly with allusion to the administration of baptism Isa. 44. 3. Joel 2. 28. I will powre out my spirit upon all flesh Ezech. 36. 26. He spâ—…inkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean this clean water questionlesse is the blood and spirit of Christ represented in the water of baptism so in the new testamet Act. 2. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 2. Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together and Heb. 12. 24. Now saith he let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures whether at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken of and withall let him consider whether the thing exhibited in this sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping and then I leave him to iudge whether sprinkling be not as if not more agreeable to the nature of this sacrament as dipping or immersion In this manner Mr. Cook delivers his conceptions in his to A. R. we will onely see what his parallel saith who argues as Mr. Cook doth epitomizing as it were the labors of Mr. Cook unto his own turn against C. B. wee l first fully receive his charge also and then fully return what in right reason remaines to be returned to both If by baptism saith he we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death and also made partakes of his resurrection will it follow therefore that there must be some ceremony in the application of the water to resemble it if you may take this liberty of argument give me leave saith he to attempt the like and with as good reason to conclude that baptism must be no other then sprinkling that there may be proportion between it and that sprinkling of blood and water that did foreshadow it or baptism must be onely by powring of water there being a lively representation between that and pouring out of the holy spirit or that baptism must be by washing with water only there being a lively proportion between that and washing away of sins by Christs blood you see saith he what you will gain from these disputes from Analogy and proportion To this purpose Mr. Blake p. 6. as if he had stopt all our mouthes by this at once for ever yet I hope he shall see that he hath left us room enough yet to breath in and by which to breath out some reply Now to give the more plain quick cleer and condign check to these two palpable controulers not to say contramâ—…lers of the present piecious and apparent Truth reducing Mr. Blakes sharp and snap-short Syllogisticalls unto that long circumferaneous collation of Mr. Cook out of which for ouhgt I find he fetch it and in the answering of which Mr. Blake is answered as well as he I most earnestly intreat both those two and all other opposites to that one and onely true way of baptizing we plead for viz. of total dipping seriously to advise what is granted and denyed what is asserted and argued and by what weak Mediums and on what crazy grounds those things are that are
in contradiction to us denyed asserted or argued by them or either of them They are indeed Coparâ—…ners so that both seem to side with what either saith which yet I marvel at the more because Mr. Blake who quotes but contradicts not Mr. Cook in it at all so far as I find occasion to guesse by some passages in the first and fourth pages of his Reply to Mr. Blackwood is against sprinkling so far at least as to judge the way of dipping Mr. Blackwood pleads for which himself professes he hath been an eye witnesse of and known to be the constant practise of many Ministers for many yeares together when yet he never saw nor heard of any sprinkled to be more suitable to the word then sprinkling but Mr. Cook is so earnest for the way of sprinkling as the most excellent and pertinent way that if we may judge his meaning by his words he thinks dipping doth set forth the things signified but by the halves in comparison of it why else doth he say sprinkling is as if not more agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament as dipping Mr. Blake grants not a necessity but an expediency at least in dipping more then sprinkling yet is silent towards them sides exceedingly against us with them that are both againt us and himself too for sprinkling as more evpedient then dipping what reason he hath so to do is worth his earnest examination he grants that in baptism we are planted into the likenesse of Christs death and made partakers of his resurrection he grants and Mr. Cook cannot deny it that de facto there is a proportion and similitude of Christs death buâ—…al and resurrection by which we are dead to sin and rise to righteousnesse held in the way of dipping and in that respect I am perswaded judges dipping in his conscience more expedient then that of sprinkling yet will no more then Mr. Cook himself allow but denyes us the liberty to argue that by duty necessity or institution there ought to be de jure any ceremony to resemble it what little reason he hath so to do will appear easily and without further proof to himself who grants so far if he consider that t is duty and necessary for us necessitate praecepti by command commission and institution from Christ to do that ever that is most commodious and expedient and whether it be not most expedient and more then expedient too to resemble the death and resurrection of Christ and ours with him in baptism and whether dipping be not more expedient then sprinkling or any other way and more pertinent to represent all those things which are signifyed and are to be resembled in the ordinance of baptism will fall under our examination by and by when we come to consider what the things are that are specially signified in baptism and how requisite it is that they be also represented in it In the mean time let it be considered what is granted and denyed by Mr. Cook of whom I may truly say so little do I ken what the man means by it that he both grants us full as much as we desire and yet denies us too no lesse then every thing we would have denying indeed to the contradiction of himself the very self same things that yet he grants the truth is I know not what to call it but confusion nor find I a way how to reconcile some parts of it to the rest so full of vatiance it is within it self one while he grants asserts and argues the same in general that we do viz. that the spiritual grace or thing signified in baptism is and ought to be represented or resembled in that outward sign and that respect is to be had that the outward element of water which is to signifie the spiritual thing be used as to the quantity of it though not further yet so far as may be sufficient to us end which end saith he mark his phrase in this passage p. 20 is to represent which is as much as to say to resemble or lively to set out to our eyes that spiritual grace or thing signifyed and that it be not so little as not clearly to represent it yea and which is more and as much as we say our selves he grants and asserts it for undoubted truth that the spiritual grace or thing signified by baptism is among other things a death and resurrection for 〈◊〉 questions saith he p. 19. but our justification and sanâ—…ication or remission of sins together with mortification and vivification which is as much as to say those two parts of our sanctisication viz. our spiritual death and resurrection are sealed and signifyed by baptism i. e. are the spiritual grace of it Also p. 17. these Scripiures viz. Rom. 6. Coll. 2. shew indeed saith he that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with Christ in his death and resurrection by which vve are dead to sin and raised again to holinesse And in all this he sides so sourdly with us and jumps so just into our opinioo that if we did hire him to speak our mind for us to the world we could scarce desire him to propound it more plainly than he doth bating only his stiling baptism by the name of a seal instead of which I wish he would call it only a sign yea he gives us all that in this case we contend for from those scriptures viz. that the spiritual grace or thing signified in baptism is to be therein also represented and that our death and resurrection by vertue of Christs is that thing that is signified there or that spiritual grace the signifying of which other things not excluded is the chief end of our baptism Otherwhiles again he gain saies this grant speaking of it suppositively onely as page 17. If saith he it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection is set before us in baptism and so of our death to sin and rising again to holinesse As if he were never the man that had granted as you see he doth or ever would grant or give way to such a thing and not only so but as if he were loath and half angry that any man should speak the truth but himself or the same truth with himself he charms A. R. and little lesse then charges him as a lyar and in him consequently us all for saying no other then what if you put his sayings together he saies himself which is this viz. That our mortification and vivisiâ—…ation by vertue of Christs death and resurrection is the spiritual grace or thing signifyed and that respect or care must be had in the administration of it that the quantity of water be sufficient clearly to represent the spiritual grace but how that can be without enough to be buried in water and raised again what ere he thinks I know no but if you vvill saith he presse hence a necessity of Resemblance of
Christs death buriall and resurrectiby our descending into abiding in and comming up out of the water take heed least you be of those that adde to Gods word least he reprove you as a lyar and adde unto you the plagues written in his book for I know not any Word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implyed much lesse expressed Thus whereas he saies elsewhere as I have shewed above that the end of baptism was to represent the spiriual grace as well as signify it and that the spiritual grace or thing signified and to be cleerly represented is mortification and vivification or communion with Christs death and resurrection which things t is strange he should say against the word of God for he protests it to be against the word when we say it and if there be any word expressing or implying a representation which himself so much talks on I am sure there is none like those two which we produce viz. Rom. 6. Cot. 2. which most lively shew it as I shall shew anon and undeniably declare yet here in the passage last cited he that talks of this representation and resemblance of Christs death and resurrection and ours with him as needful to be made in baptism is a lyar with him and an adder to the word which warrants no where to presse a resemblance of the thing signified in the dispensation of the outward sign no not so much as in those Scriprures Rom 6. Col. 2. So this representation in baptism is with him it seems a matter that must be and yet must not be and yet must be And yet for all this which is the wonder of me and will be of many more but specially of every wise man that hath his wits about him and would have bin of Mr Woodcock too who without taking notice of any weaknesse in it extoll'd the Book in the beginning of it and put it forth to Sir Iohn Burgoines patronage had he well weighed these passages of it Mr. Cook wheeles about once again and will needes have a representation and resemblance of the thing signified by baptism in the manner of administration of it and argues stiffely for it to but the representation must be of what he pleases among the things signified and not of the main thing signifyed in baptism it must be of sanctification as t is called a washing a cleansing a purging a pouring of the spirit on us a sprinkling of the blood of Christ on us and so be done by sprinkling water but not as it stands divided into its two parts mortification and vivification a death and resurrection or else if there must be a resemblance of this death and resurrection in baptism then by an As for example fetcht from the old world that was drowned dead buried by an infusion of water not an immersion and from the Ark which was rained upon only and not overwhelmed this death and resurrection must needs and may better be resembled by an infusion and sprinkling then by total immersion or dipping in water for if we urge to have the death and resurrection resembled by dipping i. e. a descension into the water and ascention out of the water which we all know was the way of Christs and the Eunuchs baptism we must urge also burial which is principally expressed Rom. 6. Col. 2. to be resembled too by biding of the whole man under the water for some time answerable to Christs three daies biding in the bowels of the Earth which cannot be without danger quoth he yea certainty of drowning and if sprinkling should not so fitly resemble as dipping and plunging yet the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body to all which I answer Resp. 1. which thing of his called sprinkling of water on the face for all he saies it may as well or better sith so many were of old killed and buried by sprinkling or raining on them in the daies of Noah serve to resemble our death and burial then dipping does yet in truth resembles a death burial and resurrection little more then a knock o' th' pate Secondly which drowning of the old world as it would make not a jot for such a purpose as he pleads for had it been by such a way as he dreames it was by viz. sprinkling raining on them by infusion and not immersion yet in very deed and so hee l see when he is awake and his eyes are open was by immersion immediately and not infusion for it might have rained long enough upon the earth before the men that had houses to shelter themselves in from that would have bin killed and buried under water if the waters had not prevailed by a flood so high over the earth as to overwhelm the men under it and plunge them ore head and ears and if he call that sprinkling and infusion let him sprinkle or infuse water in such abundance till the water sprinkled or infused become of such depth about the parties he is about to sprinkle as to swell ore their heads and to swill them wholly under it and I shall own such infusion for right baptism yet none of Christs ordinance neither unlesse dispenst to a right subject i. e. babes or beginners in the faith Thirdly which elegant allusion of his to the ark as that on which water was onely powred or sprinkled whence he seemes to argue thus viz. that it rained onely on the Ark or water was onely powred or sprinkled upon the Ark which Ark was a type of baptism Ergo baptism must be dispenst by sprinkling is as simple a delusion as ever was devised for if he intend that for an argument to prove that baptism is to be done by sprinkling and if not what does it there it does rather conclude that baptism must be sprinkled as the Ark was for reduce his matter into the form of a syllogism and see how sillily it concludes viz. thus The Ark was a Type of baptism But the Ark was only sprinkled with the rain not dipt Ergo baptism its antitype is to be dispenst by sprinkling He concludes more then he can possibly squeeze out from those premises and another thing then what is asserted of the Ark in his minor whereas in right form it should run thus The Ark typified baptism But the Ark was rained on baptized or wetted by infusion onely Ergo baptism must be rained on baptized or wetted by infusion onely But then what simple stuff were this what a logical lump of artificial non-sense Besides if it would follow that because the Ark which was a type of baptism was sprinkled therefore the way of baptism is sprinkling it would more truly follow that because the Ark was half dipt and half sprinkled one part of it being under the water another sprinkled with rain aboue the water therefore the way of baptism is to dip one half of the person and to sprinkle the other half but alas the Ark was a type of baptism as t
suppositions and grants he will of a resemblance yet I see no reason at all to urge a necessity of such a thing nor will I speak so much as ex hypothesi if there must be for none need be for ought I know What I hope there are an hundred signes of things which have not any analogy at all with those things they signifie Baptist. Having thus blown away the strange mist whereby Mr. Cook endeavoured to thicken the air so that men might not discern clearly the true intent of those Scriptures Rom. 6. Col. 2. nor the truth at all in this point of total dipping I come now in answer to his and your and Mr. Blakes flat denial of any word or warrant for any representation and also to his demand p. 27. to shew how we gather from reason and your own authors and those very Sciptures you oppose the diping of the whole man over the head and under the water and that a similitude of Christs death burial and rising again to be represented by dipping into the water is signified there But first I must tell you I observe you know not greatly what to say among you against our urgings of a resemblance of Christs death and burial and resurrection from these Scriptures for some of you stand it out as much as you well can that there is not to be any representation of a death and resurrection as Dr. Featley and Mr. Cook both do the Dr. keeping at such a distance from it that to fence it farr enough from him he denies any such thing to be so much as signified Mr. Cook yielding that that very thing among others is signified and that the spiritual grace or thing signified is to be represented too only you must excuse him as to that piece of the spiritual grace all the rest but that he will give way to have resembled but fearing least it can hardly be so cleerly evaded but that t wil needs be proved against them that a death burial and resurrection must be represented they fall a proving it that there may be and is a death burial and resurrection reselmbled in their way of sprinkling and infusion as much if not more then in our way of dipping but either of them shift for themselves in severall wayes the Drs way wherein he proves there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in the manner of baptism as it is administred in the Church of England is this though the child be not dipped in water himself saith he yet the minister dippeth his hand in water und plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant where note that the Doctor doth conceive that though sprinkling may serve to represent a death and resurrection as well as our dipping yet it is upon this absurd account viz. in that there is a certain dipping accompanies their sprinkling whereby that resemblance is made viz. the divping the hand of the Administrator but Mr. Cook though he be not so gross as to imagine with the Dr. that the burying of the ministers hand will serve instead of burying the persons body which is if any burial be at all to be buried in baptism yet he is as grosse in his conception another way while he goes about to prove sprinkling or infusion it self to resemble a death burial and resurrection as sufficiently as dipping and this too by such a coined Chymaera such a crude and im mature imagination as is ridiculous viz. of the old worlds being drowned and buried by no more then sprinkling and the fall of rain for verily neither was the rain a resemblance of a death burial and resurrection or any thing like thereto nor yet was it the rain but the overflowing of waters by reason of the rain that drowned them and though that orewhelming was a lively emblem of death and burial as baptism is to be yet there was nothing that resembled a resurrection as in baptisme there must be sith they never rose from under it any more This crooked come off therefore of Mr. Cooks is farre more ridiculous then rational and yet I know more men of his mind in this particular I mean so far as to agree to it with lesse ado then he doth that a death burial and resurrection is to be resembled in baptism and yet to think that the sprinkling or casting water upon the party doth sufficiently make that resemblance but I testify to him that this his way is his foily and theirs also that apptove his sayings and I advise both him and them that adhere to him to be heartily ashamed of two opinions of his so equally odd and absurd that I can scarce tell well which of thetwo are more absurd then the other The one is his supposition that the spiritual grace to be represented and resembled in the manner of administration of that ordinance of baptism is sprinkling besprinkling with the blood of Christ whence in order thereto he as unworthily argues that baptism must be dispensed by sprinkling which indeed nullifies it from being baptism if he consider the inconsistency that is proved to be between them The other is the thing in hand viz. his supposition that sprinkling may well not only signify but resemble a death burial and resurrection as well as dipping and is as well required for so he hints p. 19. to be used in this Sacrament as the other If those who own these things and whose own they are will not be ashamed of them for my part I am for to think that the wisdome of the spirit that in condescension to our dull capacities did leave visible signs to be not only true remembrances but also lively resemblances of spiritual things should order things so unsuitably to sense as to require and appoint maters utterly unlike one another and between which there is no Analogy at all to answer one the other by way of resemblance viz. such a thing as ranâ—…sm to resemble a death burial and resurrection which are to be and are truly resembled all in true baptism i. e. in dipping or appoint such an ordinance as baptism which in plain English is dipping to resemble rantism only or sprinkling with Christs blood is no lesse the absurdity in the abstract But as for you your self you are it seems of Mr. Blakes mind i. e. resolved to own no necessity at all of any resemblance of any thing not of any ceremony to be in the sign of baptism representing the things signifyed in it I shall therefore shew that as in true baptism i. e. dipping there is deâ—…to and that Mr Blâ—…ke confesses so there ought to be deâ—…re a proportion and resemblance of the death and resurrection of Christ and of ours with him in that ordinance whereas therefore you say that all signes do not represent the thing signified thereby t is true who questions that but t will not therefore follow but that there are some signs that both do and may and by institution must not
Iohn 14. 26. yea so he was come to his disciples and the Churches even unto Paul himself and that very Church of Corinth whom he praises for keeping some ordinances he delivered to them and charges to keep that of breaking of bread till Christ come long before he gave this charge and that in such a high degree that they had even all the gifts and manifestations of the spirit among them that might be 1 Cor. c. 12. c. 13. c. 14. so that they had abundance of Prophets and spiritual men among them 1 Cor. 14. 37. that were higher in the spirit or if they were not Paul that was once in the third heaven was then the spiritual men of this age yea they were a people in every thing inriched with all utterance and all knowledge and the testimony of Christ was so confirmed in them by the coming of the spirit that they came behind in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. yet were they to wait in the dispensation and use of ordinances wherein they were for another coming of the Lord Jesus in which way Pauls hope was that Christ would confirm them to the end that they might be blamelesse as else it seemes they could not be in the day i. e. the great and notable day of the second personal coming of the Lord Jesus Thou talkest to us alluding to Heb. 9. 10. where the ordinances of the divine service of the law or old testament are so stiled of the ordinances of the Gospel under the name of carnall ordinances meer fleshly formes but know oh vain man that the outward rites or ceremonies of the Law are there called carnall on such an account as the ordinances of the Gospel cannot be so stiled viz. not at all because they were services performed by the outward man but because the performance of them served and sanctified no further then to the purifying of the flesh v. 13. viz. to the purging of the practisers thereof i. e. the Jews from such outward fleshly impurities as were contracted in the time of the Law by such things and actions as did denominate persons unclean for the time then being but neither do nor can so denominate them now that law with all the ordinances of it being abolished Thou callest Christs ordinances being not a little deluded by some expressions of Mr. Saltmarsh who speaks of them in his books as matters pertaining only to Iohns ministry whom together with his baptism and all that was done ad extra in the primitive time he puts upon the account of the law as pertaining to it rather then purely upon the account of the Gospel but know fond man that as Iohn was a minister of the Gospel of Christ and not of the law and his ministration of preaching and water baptism the very beginning of the Gospel of Christ as I have shewed above Mark 1. 1. 4. so if he and his ministration of bap tism had related simply to the law as they did not yet that of laying on of hands and Church-fellowship in breaking bread were all given in charge by the new law-giver Christ Jesus and that of water baptism too for as if he had foreseen that some should delude themselves and others so as to say it ended at his death even that also was given a new after his death as his expresse commmand concerning all people to the worlds end Thou speakest of living higher then on such low weak empty elements and beggerly rudiments but to say nothing of thy abominable impudency and the desperate despite herein done by thee to the son of God whom thou treadest under foot whilst thou despisest his day of small things and settest light by the least of his commands and hurlst at thy heels the least jota of his law and testament or art ashamed of his words to let passe that I say we give thee to understand that we live not on these ordinances we use but only on our Lord Christ in them whose foolish weak things and earthen vessels they are by which he hands heavenly treasure to believing souls Thou tellest us that the use of outward ordinances was milk for babes in that infancy or nonage of â—…ue Church which is no more then what we say our selves of some ordinances at least viz. baptism and imposition of hands which with the rest of the word of the beginning of Christs doctrine are so stiled Heb. 5. 12. 13. 6. 1. 2. But what of this is it not very fit therefore that they should still be used the Church being yet under age unlesse thou wilt run necessarily upon the utterance of one of theâ—…e two absurdities viz. that babes are not to be fed with milk now as heretofore but are more fitly fed with stronger meat or else which is as gross that there are no new born babes now in the Church as before at all but that every beginner in Christ is now a strong man a perfect man in Christ so soon as ever spiritually born Thou tellest us that to use ordinances is to know Christ after the flesh who from thenceforth was to be known so no more but herein oh spiritual man thou bewrayest thy own fleshly carnall and most crude conception of that place whereby the words of Paul though we have known Christ after the flesh he means not a knowing of him in the use of ordinances for then when he saies henceforth know we no man after the flesh it must have the same sense too and would suppose that till that time the Saints had known men in the use of ordinances besides that the Church at Corinth knew Christ in the use of ordinances long after this is eminently evident in the Epistle of Clement the Pastor and the Churchat Rome written to the Corinthians upon occasion of their disorder in church affairs some 30 years after Paul wrote this but he means that they from thenceforth that Christ died did take cognizance of no man as ere the better upon the account of a meer fleshly descent or birth of any mens bodies no not of Abrahams as they had before nor count men in Christ and Christians at such a rate as they were counted to God as his under the Law but onely as new born spiritually born from above as new creatures as believing according to Iohn 1. 12. 13. and Gal. 3. 26. 29. if Christs by faith then Abrahams seed and heirs c. Thou tellest us that ordinances are as it were a dark glasse through which we are to behold Christ till we come to see him face to face a certain shadowy dispensation till the substance it self comes childish things that must be put away when once we become men things imperfect and in part onely which when that which is perfect is come must vanish and be done away and such like and all this as t is nor more nor lesse then we say our selves so t is even as much as we need desire thee to
point had not happened to them they should see of themselves that men cannot seek secular honour to themselves by siding with such a sect as ever was and ever will be whilest the world stands such is its hatred to the truth every spoken against yea verily the name of these churches that own and keep close to all the principles of Christs doctrine and own the whole truth for Christs sake whose they are both are and yet will be cast out as evil by all other churches yet grant these Churches should grow into more request and favour among men as they do at sometimes more then some Act. 9. 31. yee their Messengers to the world must expect to be continually under clouds and to be counted deceivers disturbers trouble townes turners of the world upside down where ere they come and to be in tumults and dishoâ—…ors and evill reports among most men 2 Cor. 6. 4. 10. yea wo unâ—…o those Ministers that desire all men should speak well of them t is a shrewd sign they are none of Christs I think God hath set forth us Messengers last of all saith Paul of the Messen gers to the Church of Corinth when it was at rest 1 Cor. 4. 9. 13. as men appointed to death for we are made a spectacle to the world and Angels and men we are fools for Christs sake we are weak the Church themselves may be honoured but we must be dispised we hunger and thirst and are naked and are bussetted and have no certain dwelling place and labour working with our hands being reviled we blesse being persecuted we suffer it being defamed we intreat we are made the filth of the world and are the offscouring of all 's things unto this day So that I marvel men should think we seek to be cryed up among men yet thus are we censured by the Clergy and all that ever were forward for the truth and sought to vindicate it in any part thereof since it began to return from under those clouds wherewith the Clergy hath overcast it were so censured by the Common Councel of Clergy men in their several climates as drawing disciples after us that they might be called after our name and not Christs and so wee and not he be glotified The papists calumuiated Luther with it that he affected his disciples should be called Lutherans but he denyed it non sâ—…o fatue non sâ—… oro ut meum nomen taceatur avsâ—…t of mihi faetidoâ—…ermium succo accederet ut filii Christi meo vilissimo nomine dâ—… cerentur in like manner say we to them who are insatuated into the same faith concerning us Non sic O sacerdâ—…s non sic Oramus non ut nostrum sed ut Christi nomen nominetur et ut quisquis nominat nomen Christi ab iniquitate ista abscedat 2 Tim. 2. 19. Imo absit a nobis gloriari nisi in cruce Iesu Christi per quem mundus nobis cruâ—…isixus est nos mundo Gal. 6. 14. novit dominus qui sui junt as for your selves O Priests non videâ—…is idmanticae quod in tergo est T is the praise of men that most of you seek much more then the praise of God this makes you so erre from the way of truth this makes it more tedious to you then t is ordinarily to other men to be of that sect that is every where spoken against and to see the Gospel whose constant companions disgraces are when it shines upon you you are impatient of hearing so much ill as poor Christ in his disciples must and so are for the most part capable but of little good 4. Covetousness St paul cals it the root of all evil al in the church al in the commonwealth growes out of the root of Papal Prelatical Presbyterian I had almost said and might say it if they turn Tith-mongers too whether per se or per alios Independent covetousnesse Achans larâ—…iledge Naboths Murder Naamans Idolatry Iudas's treason Demetrius's persecution Demas's apostacy even all the mischief of all these kinds which haue been acted by the CCClergy throughout all christendome who as is shewed above are in truth the most sacrilegious cruel false worshipping Christ selling truth treading and Apostatical generation that age from Apostolical purity doth proceed from this rotten root of covetousnesse which hath so corrupted the whole Masse of men called Ministers for this 1260. years and upward that vel duo vel nemo few or none of them have ever preacht the Gospel nor freely and fully held forth the truth in all points as it is in Jesus from thenceforth to this very day And indeed how can any other be expected then corrupt doctrines from men of corrupt minds which hold gold to be godlinesse 1 Tim. 6. 5. and pose liberal and bountiful maintenance and rich Revenues to be the chief corner stone in their church work yet thus the Clergy by their wonted clamors for it not onely at Rome but at Westminster also seem to me to suppose yea the higest pitch that many of them seem to point at in reformation of religion is the restoring of impropriations and crushing the pride of the swelling Poppies or Episcopal clergy and conferring that large allowance on the Presbyterial you cry out that a base Ministry can never do good upon the people and that the poverty of the Ministry is enough to bring them into contempt and that the church is robbed of a painful Ministry because there is not hony enough in the hives to feed a drone But I say you have made your selves more base by far and brought your selves into more contempt by your covetousnesse and greedy gaping after riches then ever yet you came into by poverty and that one Drone will devoute more maintenance if men put into his mouth as long as he will open it as many honest self-denying ministers will make a good shift not only to live but to live to Christ on they are not seducers that preach on cheaper terms but the basest Ministers if you count that basenesse to be destitute of liberal maintenance were ever yet the best Ministers of the Gospel and the most inriching Ministers to the people Christ foresaw clearly enough that a rich ministry would make but poor work in his Vineyard therefore in his wisdome chose not many rich nor mighty nor noble but the foolish weak base abject dispised ones in the eyes of the world and earthen vessels to send his treasure by into the world 1 Cor. 1. 26 27. 28. 2 Cor. 4. 7. yea those Ministers of Christ that were in afflictions necessities distresses hunger and thirst cold and nakednesse poor and having nothing that neither had nor provided silver nor gold nor brasse in their purses as Peter and Paul and the rest of the primitive preachers had not were the most pretious plain painful profitable preachers of the Gospell that ever the earth bore Matth. 10. 9. Act. 3 6. 1 Cor. 4. 11. 2 Cor. 6.
after a space and not hold them alwaies under it for if they had how they could have come up out of it I know not Had Mr. Blake therefore more believed the Scripture then he did Mr. Cook from whom he borrowed this Argument and lent it again to Mr. Simpson of Bethersden or else Mr. Simpson stole it for without any cotation of Mr. Blake he hath it word for word in that forenamed Letter of his which he desired should be communicated he would not have transpenn'd Mr. Cooks matter who saies p. 16. of his there is not the lest hint that John doused cast or plunged Christ into the water and took him out of the water into another phrase viz. we read of no such thing any where in Scripture that John and Philip put Christ and the Eunuch into the water and took them up again but it is your fashion to follow by implicit faith and to take up things at a venture by tradition one from another as the people do from you Rantist Now you talk of dipping under water and taking up thence again I pray tell me how it is possible for the baptizer to dip the whole baptized under water and to lift him up again above the water sith for this the strength of more men then one is necessary perhaps you will say the person to be baptized may be an assistant and an agent in the businesse so far himself as to go into the water and stand there up to the middle and then to yield the rest of his body to be put under â—…y the administrator but this is for a man for the most part to dip himself and divinity doth not admit of se-baptism and permits not the baptized to be agents but in this act will have them to be patients and baptized by others is there any command for them to go into the water Baptist. I think Mr. Simpson of Bethersden and you have laid your heads together you jump so right in one mind in this matter for in this manner and almost in the very same words doth he speak in that letter of his I spake of above divinity admits not say you of se-baptism c. what your sinodical divinity admits of as good baptism I weigh not and what you call se-baptism I know not but if you call that self-baptizing for the baptized to go with the baptizer into the water and there submit himself to be overwhelmed in the water by the hands of the administrator putting him under the Scripture admits of such a se-baptism as this and if we had no command for acting so far in order to our own baptism yet we have president so plain as is equivalent witnesse the Eunuch that went down with Philip into the water and yet saving your ignorance which permits not the baptized to be agents Paul had command to be so farre an agent in order to his baptism as to do more then barely sit still viz. to arise and put himself in a posture suitable to that purpose neither can you totally deny him to be truly baptized and overwhelmed in water according to the will of Christ and that is sufficient that betakes himself not onely to the water but also so farre into it that the dispenser may conveniently put him under it unlesse you suppose that the dispenser of old did carry the disciple in upon his back and then dash him in against his will and that were in the disciple the part of a proper patient indeed besides doth the condemned mans being agent and assistant so far toward the cutting off of his head as toly down and fit his neck to the block make him a se-slayer or accessary so far to his own death that you can properly call him a murtherer of himself what dribling Divinity is this Rantist Mr. Blake saies surther that if the Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dip or drown them the baptizer and baptized must both put off their garments and lay them aside for that businesse but we find no such thing mentioned we find saith he one in the new testament stoned and the laying aside of the garments of the witnesses is more then once mentioned but among all the multitudes that were baptized there is not one word of un lothing for that end nor yet of the putting on of garments after baptism when yet sometimes there had been all reason for the mention of it as in the case of Paul of whom after he was baptized it is said he received meat and was strengthned but not that apparell was put on him nor dry and warm clothes applied to him which we should sure have heard of if he had bin dipt over head in water Baptist. If by putting off of clothes Mr. Blake mean as it appears he doth by his talk of naked dipping in the same place such a putting them off as is in order to putting on others fit for such a purpose in their stead I know not onely no necessity but no modesty also in such a divestment nor yet does Mr. Tombes I dare say though in his expressions viz. that informer dayes it was thought no immodesty and that there is no necessity that persons be dipt naked Mr. Baxter is so abominably uningenuous as to wrest his words into such base and sinister senses and to abuse him to the world as if he had meant it was no immodesty in old time to be dipt naked and as if he held it lawfull to be dipt naked though not necessary when ingenuity of judgement and such love as he pretends to Mr. Tombes would have construed his meaning to be this viz. that it was counted no immodesty in former times though it be now by Mr. Baxter to be dipt in that way wherein we are dipt which is not naked as Mr. Baxter bruits it and that it is not necessary to be dipt naked as Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter and Mr. Cook think it is if persons be baptized by a totall dipping and as for the Scriptures mentioning of the putting off and on of their clothes in their addresses to and dresses after baptism there was not onely no necessity but at all no expediency in the mention of such a matter yea both reason and nature it self suggesting how needful that was to be done it would have been very vain and superfluous to have talked on it as for the double mention that is made viz. by Luke Acts 7. 58. of the witnesses that stoned Stephen laying aside their garments at the feet of a young man whose name was Saul who is said Acts 8. 1. to be consenting to his death and also by Paul himself Act. the 22. 20. confessing to God his persecutions and how when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed he was standing by and consenting to his death and kept the raiment of them that shew him Mr. Blake cannot be so silly as to think that that clause concerning those mens clothes was put in as a
piece remarkable or worth recording of it self or in any other respect in the world save for this end onely as it was an expression of the malice that Saul who was afterward converted and called Paul did at that time bear against the truth for surely had there not been that good reason wherefore the laying aside of their clothes had not been worth our notice nor should it ever have been mentioned simply for it self sake but now there was no such weighty end as this nor any end or purpose at all in order to which it was needfull to mention the circumstance of their clothing and unclothing about the administration of baptism it is enough that we have recorded of the thing in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that and how and why it was done but it would have been frustraneous and even every way endlesse to have minded us of such impertinent appertenances to baptism as the dressing and undressing of the disciples if any one tell me a story that such and such infants were sprinkled at such places is not that relation sufficient and compleat unlesse he tell me how the infants were drest in their blankets and what a fidling was made by the midwife and the minister about the unpinning and turning up of their face clothes is not the story of Naamans washing himself seven times in Iordan full enough to our use because there is no mention of his putting off and on Christ washt his disciples feet and wiped them it may well be supposed they put off their shoes first and put them on again yet there is no mention of that Mr. Blake thinks that among all the multitudes that were baptized there must have been some words about their unclothings and clothings and specially that there was reason that we should have heard that Paul had dry and warm clothes put on him after his baptism as well as mention of meat given him if he had been baptized by immersion because he had been weak but what crude conceits are all these it was related that he was weak through fasting three daies and that was but proper and answering to the other to tell how after he eat his meat and gathered strength but the other must have come in for ought I see without either sense or reason and sith he stranges that among so many baptized no mention should be made of their preparations viz. the seponing and resuming their garments I wonder what mention he finds of the accommodations that those multitudes had that were circumcised in Ahrahams family in one day and in the City of the Shechemits and those thousands in the wildernesse after the long cessation both before and after circumcision and yet that was such a tedious bloody sore and painfull piece of service as required no question ten times more attendance with clothes and other accomplishments till it was whole then this of baptism even in that so troublesome way to you wherein we dispense it Rantist But pray give me leave a little Now we talk of their Cloaths I remember that no sooner was Christ come out of the water but immediately the spirit drove him into the wilderness the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip and the Eunuch went on his way rejoicing Act. 8. whence I argue thus viz. if they put off their Cloathes they did not stay to put them on but went away naked 〈◊〉 they had them on then being as you say dipped over head and ears they must have worn them wet but the first had been unseemly the later prejudiciall to their health Baptist. Well argued Mr. Simpson again as sure as can be you have got his Arguments by root of heart for these also are Mr. Simpsons very words in that letter of his above mentioned Rantist Whose Argument this is it matters not I suppose it is past your answer and here is reason enough in it to disprove Christ and the Eunuchs total dipping as a meer groundlesse and reasonlesse conjecture and crotchâ—…t of your own coining or if you have any thing to say to it I pray let us have it out of hand Baptist. Reason say you it were well if there were so much as common sense in it for my part I suppose it a senselesse fancy but I am sure there is so little truth in the ground of it that its stark rotten at the very rooâ—… it is a dispute Ex falso suâ—…posit is t is taken by you for granted as necessary when it shall never be yielded to by us for so much as probable that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized either naked or else in the cloathes they ware immediately both before or after either for both Christ comming purposely to be baptized and the Eunuch though not thinking of baptism till Philip met him yet returning homeward from Jerusalem where he had been for some time were undoubtedly accomodated otherwise and with change sutable enough to such a businesse Secondly it supposes that both Christ Philip and the Eunuch posted all so immediately several waies from the water that they staied not so much as to cover themselves with other Cloathes then those they went with into and came up with out of the water whereas as nature it self â—…orbids us to believe they went in much more that they went away naked for common sense forbids us to take the word immediately in so strict a sense as to think they departed in such extremity of hast as was no way consistent with the shifting and so fitting of themselves for departure Immediately doth seldome sound forth such a suddennesse as admits of no intertime nor invening action at all yea sometimes it signifies no sooner then some howers some daies some years after according to the nature of the matter asserted in the sentence wherein it hath its use as Matth. 24. 29. nor doth it expresse any other in Mark 1. 13. where it is said Immediately the spirit drave Christ into the Wildernesse then within a while after his baptism as appears not only by Matth. 4. 1. where it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which woâ—…d is there per act is praedict is ordinative of another story but specially by Luke 4. 1. where iâ—…s said plainly that he was returned from Iordan before it is said he was led into the wildernesse and had you or Mr. Simpson compared Scripture with Scripture or heeded the harmony of the Evangelists you had saved your selves the labour of all those lines and lost nothing by it but what is worth nothing viz. the Argument it self for as if I should say immediately after the child was sprinkled the Gossips and friends went along with it home it were absurd to understand me so as if I meant that they did not stay so long after as to wipe the childs face and put the face cloathes over it and lap it up again in the loose blanket to keep it warm