rant and whore and in all this to have no more conâ—cience of sin then a very bruit thy perfection is a meer defection from the truth thy fulnesse of age to discern between good and evil is a faculty to discern that there 's neither good nor evil thy Godlinesse to be as Paul paints thee out 2 Tim. 3.1 2. c. a lover of thy self coveteous proud a boaster a blasphemer disobedient to Governours c. incontinent fierce a despiser of those that are good treacherous heady high-minded a lover of pleasures more then God and to have a form or pretence of godlynesse whereby with the more advantage to creep into houses and lead captive to thy lust silly women laden with lust but to resist the truth and deny the power thereof and instead of denying all ungodlinesse in such a sense as the grace of God teaches men to do i. e. to have nothing to do with it by a principle of grace turned into wantoness to deny that there 's any ungodlinesse at all Neverthelesse know this that the Lord commeth with 10000 of his Saints to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him Iude 14.15 and though thou being willingly ignorant of any such personall comming of Christ Oh Ranter and ungodly scoffer of these last times that walkest after thy own lusts in sensual lascivious and polluted wayes since thy forgetting the words of the Apostles of our Lord and thy unlawful separation from the true Churches Iude 17.18.19 since their lawful separation from the false 2 Cor. 2.14.15.16.17.18 saiest where is the promise of his coming and because all things continue as they were 2 Pet. 3.2.3 4 5. pleasest thy self in believing he will never so come yet he will so come in like manner i. e. visibly personally bodily but far more gloriously as he went away Act. 1.11 and be revealed from heaven in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God them specially that know no other God but themselves and their belly Phil. 3 19. and on them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ 2 Thess. 1.7.8.9 who shall be punisht with everlasting destruction yea while thou dreamest oh filthy dreamer despising government even ecclesiastical and civil defiling the flesh having eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin and yet cannot commiâ— sin because with thee there is now no sin promising men liberty whilst thou thy self art a servant of corruption and a slave in chains to Satan acting and ranting in every particular even to the life I should say rather to the death for t is to thy own according as thou art punctually painted out and prophesied of all along by Peter 2 Peter 2. c. 3. and Iude in both their Epistles who speak both the same things which either speaketh and no other then the self same which thou dost yet thy judgement now of along time lingreth not and thy damnation slumbreth not 2 Pet. 2.3 for thy Lord O evil servant that art not found so doing as some few will be as he left in charge when he went away but saiest in thy heart my Lord delayes his coming and thereupon beginnest to smite thy fellow servants that keep close to the masters will that they may be without spot as his appearing and to eat and drink with the drunken thy Lord I say will come to thy cost in a day when thou lookest not for him in an hour that thou art not aware of and cut thee a sunder and appoint thee a portion with the hypocrites there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth Mat. 24.46.47 48 49 50 51. yea O thou unprofitable servant thou shalt be cast into utter darknesse Mat. 25.30 yea thou fearless feaster and feeder of thy self against the day of slaughter Iam. 5.5 6 7. thou fruitlesse twice dead bruitish Creature the very mist and blackness of darknesse is against that time of Christs comming reserved for thee for ever 2 Pet 2.17 Iude 13. ANTI-SACERDOTISM Sacerdotale delirium dilineatum The dotage of the Priests discovered OR Editio nova auctior et emendatior A new Edition With no small Addition In way of Emendation Amplification and truer Application of the third part of that trebble Treatise which is extant about the Ashford Disputation ENTITLED A pathetical exhortation to the Pastors to oppose the growth of Anabaptism or a short discourse concerning the means of opposing hereticks in disputation and preaching In which new Edition as Christs true Clergy alias the Churches that are commonly but not properly called ANABAPTISTS are cleared not to be such So exceptis excipiendis the Pope and his CCClergy are cleared to be such themselves viz. self-loving and ambitious vain-gloryous and covetous illiterate and sottish impure and carnal cruel and bloody lying and blasphemous prophane and sacrilegious Heretical and Schismatical as Dr. Featly in his remarkeables and that fraternity by whom he though dead yet speaketh in their patheticals have proclaimed the said ANABAPTISTS to be MAL. 2.1 2.7 8 9. O ye priests this commandment is for you c. AND now O ye Disputers and Scribes of the Ashford Disputation I might say not a little and will say something how much I know not in discovery of your sacerdotall doings not to say dotings in the third piece of your pedorantical paper wherin the only truely baptism Church and Ministers of it are both declaimed against under the hatefull names of Heresie Schism Hereticks such as from no other principles then self conceit Ambition vain-glory and covetuousnesse design the propagation of errors by certain hypocritical pretences obstinate impudent and audacious deportments Seducers whose society is to be shuned c. for thus and much worse to the rendring of us odious among your Gentry and Vulgar and the hardning of their hearts against the truth are we whom you stile Anabaptists bespattered by you Anâ—â—baptists in that Triobulary Treatise intituled p. 20. A short discourse concerning the means of opposing Hereticks both in Disputation and preaching alias in your title page whereby it is evident both what and whom you mean by the words Heresie Heriticks viz. us and the way we walk in A pathetical Exhortation to the Pastors to oppose the growth of Anabaptism the drift of it whether it be more to decline or desire any more disputation with them one can hardly discover so doubtful is the sense of the Scribes that scraped it sometimes as it were decrying disputation as dangerous and that from which t is scarce possible to expect any good and superscribing it self thus viz. Why Hereticks are not to be disputed withall sometimes as it were disputing for disputation again as if it meant to move the Ministers â—hough worsted by no meanes to give out and to make it good that much good may be expected from it like Caesar at Rubicon with
Infants 1 Cor. 16.15 besides if housholds must needs be taken as comprising infants then that phrase salute the houshold of Onesiphorus 2 Tim. 4.19 must be taken so to and what absurdity were it to tell Cradle-bed-Infants that Paul the prisoner remembred his respects unto them as for that of Lydia as its likely enough she then had none so no man knowes whether ever she had any husband at all if she had she might have no children if she had children she might be an antient widow whose children were grown up to believe with her and besides that those of her houshold whether children or servants or both that were baptized with her were not infants but adult disciples is evident both by that compellation viz. the brethren a denomination never given to them and mostly because they were such as the Apostles did actually comfort as we never find they did any infants in their infancy Act. 16.14.40 By all which by that time you have laid it to heart so little ground will be left you from all these instances for the baptizing of infants that it may without crouding be well written within the inside of a cherry-stone And now whereas Mr. Marshal more downrightly then rightly denies that children did eat the passeover which most undoubtedly they did I demand of him why if housholds be a term so conclusive of infants when its said housholds were baptized the same word doth not as much conclude children when its said housholds did eat the passeover Babist Mr. Marshal himself gives you good reason for that p. 40. of his Sermon the Argument saith he from the term houshold is not so strong to prove that infants did eat the passeover as it is to prove they may be baptized because no other Scripture shews that the passeover doth belong to children but we have other plain Scripture proving that baptism belongs to infants as well as grown men Baptist. I remember indeed that Mr. Marshall speaks thus yea more and more absurdly then thus doth he speak p. 219. in his reply to Mr. Tombos viz. that we shall never find so good evidence out of the housholds eating the passeover Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eat the passeover as this proves that the infants of the house were baptized but I must tell him first that what influence other Sciptures give toward the proof of either one or the other makes these never the stronger simply and in themselves so but that their particular strength and weaknesse stands the same but Secondly how dares Mr. Marshall say there 's no other Scipture save that is not that one particular sentence wherein the word houshold is exprest as eating the paschal lamb enough specially when the next verse or the latter part of the same verse viz. Exod. 12.4 saies plainly that it was to be taken and eaten according to the number of souls in the house and by every one according to his eating and if the family were too little to eat iâ— they should join families together are not children exprest undeniably here are they not among the number of souls capable to eat every one pro suo modulo according to the measure of his eating and digestion and doth not this evince as much for women And whereas for the exemption of women not as holding these did not eat it but to secure himself the more from that deadly wound which he is aware will light upon him if he grant that children did eat the passeover viz. our arguing upon him from thence to their right to the supper acccording to his own arguing from infants circumcision to their baptism he brings this reason viz. because according to us they were not circumcised and no uncircumcised person might eat the passeover I have to or three things to say to it First that phrase no uncircumcised person shall eat it must either necessarily be understood concerning those uncircumcised ones onely who were both capable of circumcision and of whom circumcision was required or else Secondly â—t must be understood that the females were accounted as vertually circumcised in the males Thirdly that very phrase that excludes all and onely such uncircumcised ones from the passeover as were capable of circumcision and of whom it was required serves us against you thus far however as to include and enright all them to the passeover that were circumcised and so if women did not as none need doubt but that they did yet all circumcised males and consâ—quently male children as soon at least as they were capable to eat were under a right to eat the passeover and so as to prove you who deny them the supper to be ingaged in the guilt of diminishing Gods grace and robbing poor infants of their right as well as we if your own arguments be true viz. that to deny such dispensations to infants under the Gospel the answerable ones to which were dispensed to them under the law is to lessen the grace of God in the Gospel Covenant and make it straiter then it was under the Law and to bereave little children of what belongs to them Thus Mr. Marshal where by the word housholds he should understand children as well as others for his own ends he leaves them out but where by the word housholds such families are exprest as in which he knows not that there was one infant and may know if there were by the very places themselves that they were excluded yet there he winds things about to wind them in By all this you see how little consequence is in the Argument children were circumcised Ergo they must be baptized Yea say you Aâ—hford disputants in the tail of your argument or else the Covenant of the Gospel is worse to the spiritual seed of Abraham then it was to the carnall seed under the law Bus Sirs to conclude this matter I say no for if by spirituall seed you mean Christians natural infants I must as before cry shame on you still for stiling them the spiritual seed of Abraham for if Abrahams own semen carnis be not qua sic his semen fidei are the semen carnis of believing Gentiles Abrahams semen fidei but if by his spiritual seed you mean such as are so indeed i. e. true believers are this spiritual seed ere the worse because a meer fleshly seed may not without faith be signed as heirs together with them how will you ever be able to make that good yet again to take your words so punctually as may be by meeâ— denial of baptism to your carnal seed is the Gospel made worse to Abrahams spiritual seed then the same Gospel was to Abrahams carnal seed of old no such matter surely Sirs for the Gospel was preacht but darkly to the Jews of old which were Abrahams carnal seed viz. onely in types and figures and shadows and prophecies pointing out onely Christum exhibendum a saviour to come but now it s preacht not only to believers that is
his arguments which are all sufficiently secured and disabled from doing much mischief ro the true baptism onely for his high charges of the Anabaptists as he calls them as a bloudy illiterate lascivious lying sacrilegious fact whether they may not more easily be made good against the Clergy in general then against the generallity of them he calls so may possibly be examined hereafâ—er And as for Calvin and Vrsin t is true they are both against us in the maine but in some things so flatly against you in the mean that you have as little cause to brag of their assistance of you as the Kirk of Scotland had to blesse themselves in the help of their King and his party who though they were all against England yet were so eager against each other that they rather weakned each others forces for thus do you Ashford arguers for infant-baptism and those two Champions you seem to crack of as propugnators with you of the same who are such strenuous impugnators of their opinions asseverations and principles about the point as to debillitâ—te and raze them down as impious and impedimental imbecillities for they cry out as I have shewed more at large above Christus non adimit salutem its quibus adimitur baptismus quantum damni invexerit dogma illud c. Christ doth not deny salvation to them to whom baptism is denied what mischief that opinion brings that baptism is necessary to salvation few consider and the opinion that they are damned who are not baptized makes as if the grace of God were lesse to us then to the Iews c. and there seems no small injury to be done to the covenant of God not to rest in this principle that infants are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven who depart out of this life without baptism and more of this sort so that instead of being strengthned in your last arguments at least wherein you assert that denying baptism to little infants destroyes the very hope of their salvation which is as much as to say Baptismum esse de necessitate salutis and perditos esse omnes quibus aqua tingi non contingit c. that baptism of infants is so necessary to their salvation that parents can have no hope of their salvation if it be denied them and that injury is done to the Covenant of God and that the Gospel is worse then the law if infants be not bapâ—ized instead I say of being strengthned by these mâ—ns testimonies you turn us off to contrary wise you are rather spoiled and stark stripâ— of a moity of that argumenrative furniture whereby you strive to stiffen your selves and others against the truth even of no lesse then one or two of those three principal pillars wherewith you under pin your false practise and fortifie it from falling flat unto the ground As for the other men that together with your selves are up in armes in this age for infant-baptism so odiously are some of them at odds with you and among themselves as also some of you are with them and among your selves that it s well nigh enough to render a wise man mad at least a doubting man more distracted then resolved to hear read and see the wonderful jars that are among modern Divines as touching the various opinions ends grounds and principles upon which they plead and practise in this point of infant-baptism For not to speak here of the jarrs which the baptism of persons in infancy occasions necessarily between the preachers assertions of baptisms nature use offices ends and the peoples practicals and infants capacities not one of which in infancy appears to the preachers to have any of those things which they say baptism signs seals and is used for viz regeneration real union with Christ by faith and incorporation into him participation of his spirit and confirmation of their faith by it c. nor one of many when they grow up to years neither the most of them whom they so incorporate into Christ and signifie to the world by baptism that they are without doubt so accepted and eternally beloved of Christ proving wicked and rejected of him as much as those who remain unbaptized till they are at age of which jars Mr. Blackwood speaks plainly p. 17.18.19 of his storm to which as little or nothing to the purpose as Mr. Blake replies p. 41.42 yet he is answeâ—ed again in Mr. Blackwoodâ— rejoinder p. 30. Nor yet to speak of the jarrs that are between the grounds upon which our modern Dieines plead infant baptism and those of the antient fathers as Cyprian and such others viz. his 66. Bishops which are so silly and ridiculously superstitious that I am perswaded our Divines who live in these dayes wherein truth is comming from under those clouds which then it was comming under are ashamed of them and therefore invent what new ones they can and let them alone thus mangling the Fathers and quartering to their own use what they please out of them and even deifying some whilest they defy others of their sayings receiving their words and witnesse in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that infant-baptism ought to be as right and rare rejecting their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or reasons why it should be as unsound too rank stark nought refuse and rotten but not to meddle I say with these discords here my intent is rather have patience with me whilst I do it but do it I must whether you take it patiently or no to discover the deep discord that is between you modern Divines among your selves which till you are better agreed will make you uncapable of ever subecting others again unto your dictates in infants baptism Babist Is it not a marvel that so many eminent Divines industrious in the study of this Argument should so unanimously jar with their own principles and not be able to discern it but all those many must leave it to you to discover it Baptist. So saies Mr. Blake indeed p. 41. of his repulse in a lusory way to Mr. Blackwood to whom I seriously reply yea t is a mighty marvel indeed to see such an heap of witnesses concur so well together by the years as all your famous Oxthodoxists do in their doctrine about infant baptism some teaching one thing others clean contradictory to that and yet all remaining orthodox still for all this Really Sirs such a shamefull conjunglement is to be found in your positions about the grounds you profess to go upon in this point as will in time though now you will not see it make you all amazed one at another that ever such a marvellous work and wonder should fall out among you as in the just judgement of God for your teaching his fear after mens precepts there doth at this day viz such a hiding of understanding from the prudent that even the princes of Zoan should be befooled confounded contradicted by none more then themselves and yet not take notice of it
adversaries are put to their shifts to finde out a new way for the salvation of infants dying in their minority viz. The presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith otherwise they conclude they could not be saved which invention of theirs destroies the Gospel covenant which is the righteousnesse of faith and either damns innumerable innocents whose right to the kingdom of heaven our Saviour hath declared or grounds their salvation upon a figment of their own brains such as the Scriptures are wholly silent in and the Churches of God never dreamed of They alleadge two texts for their proof Rom. 5.18 As by the offence of one judgement came upon all to condemnation so by the righteousnesse of one the free-gift came upon all men unto justification of life Rom. 11.7 Election hath obtained it of which two texts the latter is nothing for them for it excludes not justification for the Apoctle saith plainly Rom. 8.30 Those whom he predestinated he justified and though the elect onely shall be saved yet justification goes between The former is directly against them for it expressely mentions justification of life so that the Anabaptists must either prove that justification is not to go before salvation and so pull in pieces the golden chain by taking out the link Rom. 8.38 or else that justification is not by faith and so destroy the Covenant of the Gospel till when they justly deserve the censure of damning all infants dying contrary to evident testimony of Scriptures and the sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdeme of heaven And whosoever shall consider the impertinences of their proofs in a cause of so great consequence shall have just cause to suspect all their other doctrines and take heed how to take any thing upon trust from these new masters Re-Review Here is an argument hath neither head nor tail in it able to hurt for both have bin bruised already we having had to do with them before the one in the front the other in the rear of the disputation therefore no need to fear it yet sith it turns about again and Reviews us hisses in ouâ— faces and makes such a flutter as if it would both bite and sting us to death I shall secure it a little further how ever The head of the argument is this syllogism viz. Such as have the holy spirit and faith are the subjects of baptism but children have so The first proposition whereof you say the Anabaptists will not deny but I tell you what the Anabaptists will do I know not because if there be such a people in the world yet I never was so privy to their principles and practises as Dr. Featley and his fellows pretend to be who paints them out and presents them to the world in his title page as dipping naked and daily But in the name of 100s of them you commonly and abusively call so I mean the truest baptists that are in England I le be so bold as to deny it to be true without more for t is not the inward unseen seeds of grace and faith nor that invisible having of these which is the uâ—most you dare or do affirm concerning infants but the visible having thereof so that we see they have them by the fruits effects acts opperations and professions that quoad nos makes a subject for baptism as for what is within it is nothing to us we are strangers to it neither can or may we intermeddle therewith till it shews it self without secret things belong to God onely and things revealed onely to us and therefore for your blind brazen faced minor wherein you positively affirm here again that children not specifying what children nor whose whether of believers or unbelievers nor both nor if of believers onely whether all or onely some of them have the spirit and faith I shall be as bold to deny it ever till they give some better specimen of it then the best infant that ever you or I saw did in that nonage wherein you sprinkle them specially so long as to the stark spoiling utter unsaying and clear contradicting of whatever your own selves would prove it by you are fain to confesse page 16. That all have them not and p. 18. Which have and which have nâ—â— the spirit being no more bound to believers infants then others and no more bar'd from working in unbelievers infants than believers cannot be certainly presumed and that whatever the spirit may work in children yet this is not known to us so that there can be no conclusion made And howbeit this Argument being by your own concession thus crushed in the head i. e. this Prosyllogism turns about with his tail and thrusts at us therewith I mean this ensuing Syllogism viz. No Iustification nor salvation to them that have not faith But justification and salvation is to infants Ergo infants have faith Yet I return thus to your Major viz. that though there is no justification nor salvation without faith of such as are capable to believe and of whom to believe it is required yet of such as neither are capable nor called on to believe in order thereunto there may be and is a justification and salvation without it and this is the case of all dying infants in the world the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ without faith and without obedience also in any thing else both which are in ordine ad vitam injoined to adult ones doth save dying infants or else innumerable of those infants are damned neither is this any new way for the salvation of infants dying in minority nor a grounding their salvation upon a sigment and invention of our own braines nor such as the Scripture is altogether silent in nor such as destroyes the Gospel Covenant which is the righteousness of faith for howbeit it is true that the Scripture runs on this wise saying The just shall live by faith he that believes shall be saved he that believes not shall be damned and to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly his faith shall be accounted unto him for righteousnesse and twenty more such like expressions of the Gospel Covenant Rom. 1. Rom. 3. Iohn 3. c. as that which gives righteousnesse and life by faith only without the works of the Law yet I beseech you set your wits on work and see whether these Scriptures were written of infants or to them either or whether only of and to mens at years only to shew unto them on what terms the Lord will accept and save them in the Covenant and promise of the Gospel Me thinks your own reason should dictate thus much that all those places speak no more of infants then they speak to them in minority and that you will assuredly yield that they do not yea you may as well say these places viz. T is a people that have no vnderstanding therefore he that made them will not save them and he
years not one of millions gives testimony of his faith without further instruction Nor should he of his reasonable soul not so much as in speaking if he be not taught Re-Review First the faculty of not onely believing in general but also in special of believing the Gospel of believing in Christ to justification is belike as naturally and necessarily in infants of believers as the faculty of reason it self so it seems by your talk why else is that frequent analogy made by you between these two and such frequent allusion in proof of one of them to the other as if whosoever denies one of them viz. the grace of saving faith to be in such infants must needs also deny the other and as if whatsoever concludes against such infants being believers concludes as much against their being reasonable creatures I am much amazed at your ignorance in this specially since your selves agree that all infants even those of Indians Turks and Pagans are reasonable creatures and yet that few not one of many infants are habitually believers as namely the infants of believers onely Secondly I blush at your rudenesse and folly in this also in that you assert that not one infant of millions should give any testimony of his reasonable soul i. e. ever evidence it that he is a reasonable creature when he comes to ripe years if he be not taught What Sâ—â—s will children never shew themselves to be risible and so consequently reasonable by laughing when tickt and toid with in such minority as they are not capable to learn in if they be not taught and instructed how to laugh will they not shew themselves intelligible if not so much as in speaking which with you it seems is the first and least expression of reason in them yet not so much as by understanding what is spoken to them yea how think you must they not be imagined and understood in some measure to be understanding and so consequently to have reasonable souls before they can be rationally instructed at all for verily he is a fool unreasonable and of no understanding himself that offers to teach children to act any act of reason that is to be produced by teaching or to know their letters or to read or write before they can discern them to be at least intelligible and teachable in these things they are to be taught in and consequently to have reasonable souls Yea verily the faculty of reason is habitus naturâ innatus and naturâ notus a habit that comes by generation and puts forth it self into several acts of it self even so many as clearly testifie it to be in us before we are at capacity to be taught and whether ever we be taught any thing or no for a specimen of reason in us must be before we begin to be endoctrinated or else as good endoctrinate a brute creature but justifying faith or belief of the Gospel is such a habit of which we may not onely say as you do truly in the next page p. 18. that instruction of the understanding in the object of it in some sort must â—o before any act of it can be discovered as whereby onely say you discovery of the habit can be made but also that instruction of the understanding in some sort must go before the habit of it can be in us at all for whether you will suppose it to come by infusion onely or by aquisition onely or both it comes not by nature and generation as reason doth but by teaching and instruction if we will believe the word which saith faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God Review 5. They lose it again when they come to more years else why are they taught the element of faith By the same reason they should lose the faculty of understanding also because after they are set to learning learning is for the bringing forth into act and perfecting of the degrees otherwise one that is at 24. years of age having received faith once might give over learning more for if this argument might hold either they lose it or why do they learn Re-Review Hoop Sirs what pretty cutted stuff is here as if you did not know well enough but that for advantage sake to your crooked cause you rather chuse here to seem ignorant of it that reaching and learning is not onely for the further bringing forth of habits that are in us into their acts and perfecting of them in their degrees but also for the begetting of some habits in us that never were before viz. not natural and innate habits as the faculty of reason and understanding for instruction is not for the engendring but improving of these in us but all such kind of habits as faith is viz. acquired habits teaching tends not onely to the perfecting of such a posteriori after they are once begun but a priori also to the very being and begetting of these whether they be habits about matters of this life or that to come t is true therefore learning is to be continued for the perfecting of habits begun and begotten in a man otherwise indeed as you say one of 24 years having once received the faith need be taught no more but it is to be also for the beginning and begetting of faith in him otherwise to one at 24 years of age having not yet received it the faith is preacht by you in vain that he may receive it There is a teaching to beget grace and faith where it is not and a teaching to increase it where it is Mat. 28.18.19 a teaching before and a teaching after faith and baptism and if you ask a reason of both these the one is to beget faith into both the habit and the act the other to build it up into higher degrees the second teaching indeed supposes a being of it in men the first teaching no being of it as yet when you begin first to preach to them for your preaching speaks to them as to unbelievers whereupon this argument holds good that if ever they had faith in their infancy they have lost it now for why else are they taught the element of it why taught in order to the receiving it for reason in this objection must be understood as speaking suppositively onely i. e. in case persons had faith in infancy it s now lost why else are they taught to this end that they might have it but not so positively as your expressions represent it as if reason did really assert that infants do lose any faith they had in infancy for howbeit reason acknowledges that such in whom faith is may lose it if they look not to it yet reason knows well enough that those can never be said to lose faith in whom faith never was at all Review 6. Habits encline more towards their proper actions but children of Christians are not more inclined to actions of faith then infidels An Argument from comparison is subject
present and I hope you will see the whole out in the end for all will not own so much some perceiving no doubt what a foundation it laies for us to build firmly upon all that in this point we contend for do rather choose to deny this truth that baptism signifies or at least that it resembles a death and resurrection then by owning it be forc't to own the true way of baptism indeed Your Dr. Featley little better then denies both at first p. 70. saying thus As for the representation of the death and resurrection that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptism but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration and clensing us from our sinnes but I can little lesse then admire that he above all men who quotes the Rubrick with little lesse authority then he doth the bible and hath no question little lesse then an 100 times in his daies taught little children the catachism contained therein should quite forget to learn it himself for there it s set down plainly that the inward and spritual grace signified by the outward sign of baptism is death unto sinne and a new birth unto Righteousnesse and besides he knew that in true regeneration there is a death and resurrection Rantist However in the manner of baptism as it is administred in the Church of England there is a resemblance of a death and resurrection for though the child be not alwayes dipt in water as the rubrick prescribeth save onely in case of necessitie which would be dangerous in cold weather especiall if the child be weak and sickly yet the minister dippeth his hand in the water and plucketh it out again when he baptizeth the infant and these are the very words of Dr. Featly next following the words you quoted and therefore whether he be right in those or no I am sure he is in these for there is a resemblance of death and resurrection in our baptism Baptist. Whether the Dâ—s mind misgave him or no after he had asserted that a death and resurrection is not the thing signified and that which is to be resembled in baptism I know not but me thinks he speaks as if he feared whether that would hold water or no and therefore least it should be found to leak in the very next words which you now speak in as one supposing it the safest way to grant thaâ— there ought to be a resemblance of a death and resurrection in right baptism he rather goes another way to work viz. to patch up a proof of it that there is a resemblace of a death and resurrection in that administration of it that is used in England but t is in such a way me thinks as may well make all the seers ashamed and Divines confounded specially you that so dote on that Doctor as to give up your selves to be so blindly discipled by him as you do and would have others to do so also that ever such a piece of doctrine should be delivered and yet behold you justifie and side with it by Englands Doctors in Divinity It seems then you dare nor quite gainsay but that a representation of a death and resurrection is fit to be made in the manner of baptizing and that the Church of England hath prescribed that it shall be done in such a manner as may be tanta mount thereto viz. by dipping unlesse of necessity through the infants sicknesse it be done otherwise yet notwithstanding that prescription of the Church which of you priests did ever do any other then sprinkle the healthiest infants but because the subject of your baptism in England being an infant is too tender at all times to be dipt or buried in water where not that your false subject of necessity ingages you to forgo the true way of baptizing which your selves prescribe unlesse necessity forbid it because I say the child cannot conveniently be buried with Christ in baptism into death in his own person therefore ecce signum this visible death burial and resurrection with Christ must be all transacted for him per alium i. e. by the ministers hand that is dipped into water and brought out again as it were instead of the child And this is even very suitable to all the rest for all the rest of your service in the point of baptism is done by representatives as little as it represents what is mainly to be represented by it and one part would mock the other if this should not be done so too t is true all is done in the childs name and in the childs stead but nothing done that of right ought to be done either by or to the child himself The infant indeed is askt dost thou believe in God dost thou forsake the divel wilt thou be baptized c but others must answer and promise and professe assent to and vow all these for him others mouthes must speak his mind and there 's the profession again he is spoken to by the minister saying to him I baptize thee i e. dip or bury thee with Christ in baptism into death for so t is in a little plainer English and true sense and intent of the service but alas it s nothing but the ministers hand that is dipt buried raised again with the drips that hang upon which the infant is onely rantized and there is the resemblance of the death burial and resurrection but I trust Sirs you will understand at last that when Paul saies to the Romans and Colossians that they were buried and raised in baptism he doth not mean that the dispensers hands but that their bodies were put under water and brought out again in respect of which they were said to be buried into death and are raised again i. e. not spiritually onely and really in respect of the soules dying to sinne and living to righteousnesse but outwardly visibly bodily in water also and this significatively and representatively of the other and this is my third argument for total dipping Rantist Significatively I grant if you will but not representatively I know no necessity that in every sign there is to be a resemblance of the thing signified thereby Baptist. If that be granted you will not easily withstand the other yet that is granted by the most and must be granted by all whether they will or no as for Mr. Cook and Mr. Blake themselves they neither of them seem to me to deny but that such a thing as a death and resurrection are signified in baptism yea Mr. Cook affirms it yea who questions saith he p. 19. but our justification and sanctification or remission of sins together with mortification and vivification are signified by baptism and he saies right for none can and I think none doth deny it but Dr. Featley of all Divines that I know of yea Calvin and Zanchee both assert it in their several expositions upon these very places Rom. 6.4 Coloss. 2.12 This participation in death saith Calvin is principally to be
among flatternes that are minded to leave things as foul well nigh as they find them and I am sure there 's no rubbing succedaneous to your sprinkling which is any ingredient to your dispensation for what the priest drops on the midwife rubs indeed not on but off and so as that is no washing so if it were I hope you do not allow the midwife to give equal influence with the priest unto the dispensation of baptism Besides both sprinkling and powring are vertualy implied in plunging and burying in water but these are not at all supposed in the other every lesser wetting being contained and included in the greater not so the greater in the lesse Fiftly which quirk of his concerning a necessity of abiding 3. daies under water answerable to Christs 3 daies buriall if we will needs urge an necessity of resembling him in his death burial and resurrection is so fond that a fool may find enough wherewith to refel it for Mr. Cook knows that nullum simile currit quatuor no similitude answers in all things besides t is the truth and substance of the thing not the circumstance or quantity of time of abode which is to be respected here for a burial is as true a burial when a person abides but 3. minutes wholly under the element wherein he is buried as if he abode 3. daies and a burial is as truly represented by being once under water as if one continued under altogether and the resurrection a little better by being brought up again alive then if one lay till he were altogether dead Sixthly and lastly which assertion of his uttered in favour of his assertion viz. that the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body is so much the more savouring of either ignorance or forgetfulnesse in him or both by how much one of the very Scriptures that are quoted by himself as speaking in reference to baptism doth require it for its said Heb. 10.22 let us draw neer with a true heart c. and having our bodies washed with pure water which clause if meant of baptism as undoubtedly it is requires not a sprinkling but a washing and that 's more then your sprinkling is and this too not of the face only which is the only part you sprinkle but of our bodies which word whether we shall take properly to signifie the whole body indeed or run to figurative acceptations when we need not and take the body by a Synechdoche of the whole for a part to signifie so small a part as the face only I need not wish a wise man to determine for every unprejudiced man that hath but common sense will see cause enough to take it plainly as it lies Rantist But all this while me thinks you make it appear so plainly as you not must before I believe or receive it that it is so needful as you would make it that there should be a resemblance of the thing signified in that sign of baptism at all that 's the thing I wait to see proved for let Mr. Cook make what 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 â—or 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 wiâ—l 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 immature 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
he whereupon to prevent Dr. Featleys followers from charging the above syllogism with that fallacy I have exprest in what sense I mean it viz. in precepto in which sense the premisses are granted to be true by the Dr. himself and therefore I know not why they should be denied by Mr. Ba. or any else and then the conâ—luâ—ion must be true but saith Dr. Feat there is a fallacy called ignoratio elenchi in the conclusion i. e. it concludes not the thing in question but that which is not denied by us for they that are for baptizing of infants do not separate faith and baptism for they baptize children into their fathers faith saith he Secondly they believe that infants of believers receive some hidden grace of faith in time of their baptizing his followers say before baptism p. 3. of their pamphlet oh how contrary are they each to other therefore are to be baptized but Mr. Ba. will say none of all this I hope for he is against Baptismal regeneration nor will he charge the syllogism with sophistry I hope but deny either the Major or the Minor either of which if he do he answers his own grand argument against the seekers p. 341 where word for word saving a term or two put in here for explication this very syllogism is his own or else he will grant both these and consequently the conclusion to be true and then why will he dispense baptism to persons i. e. infants before they so much as seem to believe But it may be that which is a good syllogism when used by himself will be meer sophism with him too when urged by us Secondly the reason why we may not argue that all infants are damned from Mark 16.16 though they believe not is this viz. because that place speaks of persons at years onely to whom the Gospel is preached and not of infants that are not capable to believe But then saies Mr. Ba. the same may be answered to the argument from Mat. 28. against infants being disciples and to be baptized To whom I reply thus First if he saies as we of Mark 16.16 of Mat. 28.20 viz. that go teach all nations baptizing them is meant of men at years onely and not of infants then he grants as much as we desire and confesses that Christ in his commission to teach and baptize the nations does not mean discipling and baptizing infants but men and if the commission to baptize extend not to infants as the subject then what warrant to baptize them Secondly if that place be meant of men onely and not of infants then Mr. Ba. was well busied the while when he brings that very place in the very front of his plain Scripture proofs for his infant membership and baptism its ill stumbling at the very threshold But I shall not multiply nor improve as Mr. Ba. hath done to the utmost but give one argument more against infant membership and so come to the other member viz. If all that can be said in proof of the visible Church-membership of infants may be disproved as weak and inconsequent utterly to that purpose then sure there is enough if one would stand upon it to be brought against it But all that is said by Mr. Ba. in his two dozen of arguments who improves himself to the utmost to say as much as can be said in proof of the visible Church membership of infants is well nigh already and will be altogether by and by disproved as weak and inconsequent Ergo there must needs be enough against it for contradictoriorum uno negato statuitur probatur alterum If all that can be said on one side to the proof of this that infants ought to be members of the visible Church will not avail to evince that to be the truth then that infants ought not to be members of the visible Church of Christ is a thing will prove it self well enough And so I have done with one member of my proposition that I may say a little also to the other which is this viz. Though no infants have right in infancy to be baptized and joined to the visible Church as I have already proved yet all infants in their infancy are in a visible state of salvation Mr. Ba. finds out or rather fancies to himself certain grounds whereupon to hope that some dying infants are saved viz. some of the dying infants of the faithful as in opposition to all the dying infants of the wicked I say some of them for he dares not say p. 78. that his own grounds yield a certainty though a probability of the salvation of all such neither so doth he narrow up the grace of God to that innocent age of infancy for all he would seem so merciful as to plead its cause against those cruel conceits which he conceives are conceived of it amongst us yet he finds no good ground whereupon to hope the salvation of the dying infant of any godly man but the same on which he conceives them of nececessity to that salvation to have also a right to membership in the visible Church but such a necessary dependance of them each on other that suppose one to be no member at least in no visible right to membership in the visible Church of that person so dying there can be harboured no hope at all of his salvation but what if I can make it good from one of those very grounds of Mr. Baxters own bringing that there 's a ground to hope the salvation of one such dying infant as of whom it is most palpably evident that it was neither actually a member of the visible Church before it died nor so much as in any visible right to membership in the visible Church if it had lived Mr. Ba. will then I hope let go his wretched conceit of a necessity of dying infants membership in order to our having hopes of their salvation And in order to the making good of this I instance in the very same child which himself brings in as his fifth ground page 77. and alludes to as his example of the contrary viz. the child that David had by Bathsheba while she was yet the wife Vriah of whom I testifie the very same that Mr. Bax. does viz. that Davids comforting himself concerning his dead child because he should go to the child but the child not return to him was an evident argument that David was confident that that child of his should not be damned and yet he could not hope so upon any such account as his childs dying a member of the visible Church for the child never lived so much as to the 8th day nor to be circumcised and thereby entred into the visible Church for its plain 2 Sam. 12.18 that it died on the 7th and if Mr. Ba. say it was a member de jure though not de facto i. e. in a right to have been a member had it lived I deny that with as much confidence
it to â—hem from Christ to be his holy command mind and will concerning them and to be a certain outward administration of his own chusing which thoâ—gh as despicable a dispensation and as weak low foolish earthen and empty a thing to see to as wash in Iordan yet was to be done sith the Lord had bidden it to be done as well yea rather then if it had been some greater matter if to no other end then meerly to testify their love to him and themselves meerly to be his disciples servants and friends by observing whatever he commanded Iohn 14.15.21.23.15.14 1 Iohn 5.3 how much more when it was a way and order of his own appointment to be observed and to wait upon him in together with prayer and supplication in order to such a glorious and profitable end and purpose to themward as this viz. that they waiting on him in that his own way might as not onely they did but all others shall that wait on him in the same in sincerity according to their faith or else its possible that we may fail of it as they also might and did in his measure manner and time receive his holy spirit Now I say as these were the ends grounds and reasons why among baptized believers this of laying on of hands was observed then so there are the same ends grounds and reasons why the same service should be observed now For first we have it manifested as sufficiently to our Reason and understanding unlesse we will darken the councell of God to our selves by a number of needless queries superfluous scruples and words without knowledge either expressely or by infallible inferences and undeceivable deductions in the word to be an urepealed undisannulled dispensation and patt and principle of Christs doctrine will and Testament as they had and as baptism it self which the Enquirers walk still in the practice of is manifested so to be Secondly we are also as much required and have as much reason as they to manifest our selves to be lovers of Christ to be his disciples servants and friends by our readinesse to do whatsoever he hath commanded Thirdly we are in as much liablenesse as they to be the least in the kingdome of heaven if we break one of the least of Christ commandements and teach men so i e. that they may do so too and as much capablenesse of being greatest in the kingdom of heaven if we do the least of Christs commandements and teach men so i. e. that they must do so too Fourthly we have as much need of the holy spirit now as they had to perform the same good offices for us as he did for them viz. to comfort and support under sufferings to lust against our flesh to lead us into all truth to bring to our remembrance the things that were spoken by Christ which many men would fain have to be forgotten to help to mortifie the deeds of our bodies to seal us up to the day of redemption to reveal unto us that we may rejoice therein the things which are freely given us of God which are the same he gives to them and to gift us likewise with such gifts as he not as we shall please for beggers must not be chusers for fellowship in the body that we may be an habitation of God through the spirit and to gift some also even such as he pleases for the work of the ministry and the edifying of the body in the several offices he hath given to it for the ervice of it and the truth viz. messengers elders deacons c. for all this he did for them Fifthly we are as much under the promise of the same holy spirit of promise being baptized believers as they were for the promise of it was to them that were far off as well as to them that were nigh whether in respect of time or place and therefore to us yea and to all men on the same terms on which it was tendred to them all that repent and are baptized all that turn at Christs reproof all that believe all that ask the father for it all that obey him to the worlds end have on these terms a promise of the holy spirit as well as all the baptized believers of the primitive times and why the baptized believers of these times should have all these ends grounds and reasons why and in order to which laying on of hands with prayer was dispenst on all baptized believers then continuing till now and yet that dispensation cease and not continue in its use and that they should have the promise of the same spirit and yet not be bound to wait on God and seek it in the same way is a very riddle to me I confesse there may be through the unbelief of baptized believers who will not take Gods word in his word but say shew us a sign that we may see and believe shew us such visible gifts shew us miracles the gift of healing and in particular that gift of tongues which thou gavest to baptized believers in the primitive times in this way of prayer and laying on of hands and we will submit to it and believe it to be thy will and command to us now else not I say for their unbeliefs sake that obey not and their too too great defect in faith that do draw neer to God in prayer and laying on of hands there may be and that justly and I think is a cessation of Gods giving out such measures and full manifestations of his spirit as else he would yet some gifts he gives now and that there is warrant to expect by any promise thereof some particular gifts that God for signs of confirmation of the Gospel doctrine to be from heaven in the first giving of it out and removing the old testament gave in the primitive times as miracles tongues this I deny but that he gives not the gift of the spirit and the graces of it which was the thing mainly promised and not so much in plurali the gifts of it as men count gifts distinct from the fruits of it Gal. 5. temperance love joy peace c. as if these were not the spirits gifts much more that the promise of the self same spirit it self though it appear not in every individual gift that we out of curiosity desire to see doth not cease to us and that there is no cestation of that outward administration of laying on of hands with prayer on baptized believers which Christ then was sought to in for the fulfilling of his promise this I dare and do still affirm and testifie neither do I judge any man is capable by the word to give any sound reason why it should cease it being a principle of the doctrine of Christ till all the principles of the whole foundation spoken of Eph. 2.20 Heb. 6.1.2 on which the visible Church is to be built and all ordinances do cease also together with it at
Christs next appearing Thus having sufficiently proved the Minor of the forenamed argument in each particular of it in which as neerly as I could well croud them together are coucht as many if not all such particulars are needful to be proved to the evincing of the continuance of this doctrine and dispensation of laying on of hands to the end I shall hasten to an end both of this subject and of this system also but because I find some things put in by way of positive exception and objection against this truth from the mouthes of some as well as something by way of query from the pens of others who also in that way have appeared against it so newly at the the presse viz. the late Enquirers above-named a remnant of whose Questions â—emain yet unanswered here though not so unanswerable as some do deem them I shall adde a word or two more toward the removeal of these two sorts of blinding bushes whereby I fear many may be infatuated so as to turn andâ— from the way of truth in this particular and so leave both it and them unto the Lord. First then whereas by word of mouth some tell me That Laying on of hands was a way peculiar to that juncture designed of god to the time then being only wherein the Apostles say some and othersome the Lord gave the holy spirit in some visible eminent and extraordinary gifts thereof as tongues prophecy miracles healing c. simply to this end that these might be a sign to confirm it visibly to the eyes of people that the doctrine they taught and practised in the principles and other parts of it was from above and no other then the oracles of God First I grant that in the primitive times there were and that in the way of prayer and laying on of hands given not by the Apostles though for as is shewed above they were not baptizers with the spirit but by the Lord onely whose onely prerogative that is to baptize with the holy spirit sundry gifts as healing c. which may be called extraordinary and rare respectively to these times wherein they have bin seldome or never seen or heard of as I know not that that of tongues now adaies ever was though as to that of healing and that of discerning of spirits and some other manifestations of the spirit given to profit withall as a word of wisdome and a word of knowledge it is within a little of past doubt to some that such as these as the Lord pleases are some lesse some more frequently given now among them that walk in truth though what gifts some have seen and been sensible of in others or themselves t is not so fit to boast of as to be silent Secondly I grant that many of this sort and hapily many more then either are or need to be or shall be given now were given then to confirm the New Testament doctrine in the first delivery of it to the world in the room of the old one to be of God of some of which there maybe a cessation the end they had such special respect to then being sufficiently accomplished and the word being now committed unto writing Mark 16.17 18 c. Heb. 2.3 4. But thirdly that either such gifts of the spirit as these were either the onely or the chief kind of gifts of the spirit that were to be and were expected lookt after or given in that way of prayer and laying on of hands as a service destinated pro tempore only in order to the receiving of such or that these gifts were so extraordinary in respect of the eminency or excellency of them because more visible and ad extra beyond such as may be warrantably by promise expected and are in that way assuredly and ordinarily given at this day these two I see no warrant to subscribe to for as t is most sure that the promise was so far as I find in terminis nor onely nor so oft of these things though I deny not but these were at that time for ends that concern not these times promised too but of the spirit to several other purposes as above the holy spirit the spirit in the fruits and graces and comforts of it the gift of the holy spirit we find it all along almost in no lesse then scores of Scriptures whereof some few are more plain so assuredly the holy spirit in that way of prayer and laying on of hands was given to baptized believers in other gifts then these viz. the graces comforts and fruits of it love joy peace assurance c. In respect of which in case those outward gifts of the spirit should all have failed or shall fail now yet that dispensation is not therefore rendred empty useless and out of date but remaines rather more gloriously useful then as to external gifts of tongues and such like continually even unto the end yea also if we speak of gifts meerly externall and visible as some call them though for my part I judge the spirit is as visible to us and manifested to be in men by the fruits and graces as by those things that are more commonly but not more properly then those called gifts I suppose his senses as well as his reason doth not a little fail him that descerns not not only those most excellent waies of grace as love joy c. 1 Cor. 12.31 but even the best and most excellent and profitable outward gift of the spirit even that of prophecy or speaking to exhortation edification and comfort for that is the gift of prophecy and the best outward gift that we can covet or compasse given unto baptized believers whom we pray for and lay hands on at this day to whom nature and University Nursery never gave it And if any say we see such a kind of gift as you call prophecy given also to others aswel as such as submit to it That 's nothing to us what God does whose word binds us to such or such a way but not himself we are quaerying what we are required to do by him upon the account of which we may by promise expect the holy spirit not what God does God often anticipates his own promise and is better then his word as Act. 10. 47. he gave the spirit before baptism which is promised onely to baptized believers Act. 2.39 yet that does neither give us disingagement from Gods outward way nor warrant us to expect the spirit out of it but ingage us so much the more unto it ver 48. If God will give any other men his holy spirit out of that way I am glad sith it pleases himself he is so good to them but as that assures me not that I specially if inlightned about his way yea then assuredly I shall not shall have it so too so sure I am that in his way I shall obtain it and if any have been so highly favoured of god as that he