of 〈◊〉 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 Govâ—…rnours 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 â—…he 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 comâ—…eth 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 lasâ—…vious and polluted wayes since thy forgetting the words of the Aposties 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 mâ—…re 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 exhortâ—…on 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 C C Clergy 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 Auabaptists bespattered by you Antibaptists 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 Apathetical 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 though worsted by no meanes to give out and to make it good that much good may be expected from
relation to this case yet I do believe that whole housholds might sometimes be baptized then as well as now they are from whence yet it will not follow that infants were baptized yea whole thousands were baâ—…d sometimes in one day and yet no infants among them and that all thâ—…â—…sholds you so often instance in either had no infants in them or if they had yet none baptized however is evident enough to those that are not blind if â—…ll â—…e particular instances be examined As for the Iaylor the Apostles who never used to preach to infants spake to him the word of God and to all that were in his house the effect of whose preaching was not onely his rejoicing and belief but the belief of all his house also as well as the baptism of all his house together with him Act. 16. 32. 33. 34. And as for Crispus whose houshold is not reported to be baptized though no doubt they were so it s said that all his houshold believed in the Lord as well as he Acts 18. 8. and as for such as were baptized with Cornelius which were more then they of his own houshold that none of them were infants t is evident forasmuch as they were all both ready and capable to hear and the holy spirit fell on them all in hearing the word so that it was evident to Peter and as many as came with him that they imbraced the glad tidings of the Gospel upon the account of whose gladly receiving the word onely and that apparently Peter saies who can forbid water why these may not be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Act. 10. 44 to 48. And as for Stephanus's houshold as they are said 1 Cor. 1. 16. to have been baptized so are they all said to have addicted themselves to minister to the Saints which are actions exclusive of 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 wâ—…at 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 wiâ—…h 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 infanâ—…s 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 â—…nfants 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 it 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 it 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 straiâ—… then
lands they had sinned and p. 182. out of Pontan Catolog Through Germany Alsatia and Swedland many 1000s of this sect who defiled their first baptism i. e. their no baptism by a second a true one were baptized the third time with their owâ—… blood i. e. miserably tortured as some have bin in England also both old and new yea massacred and murdered by fire and fagot for this and other resistance of the Romish stream by racking headings hangings pinching with hot pincers stabbings and such like wayes whereby the self-preserving common-wealth of Clergy men that they might testifie their cause by the Neronean cruelty of it to be of Christ who in the 9th chapter of just no where charges all his ministers to impower all Christian magistrates to imprison spoil torment hang banish burn drown whip fine flea and destroy all such as in foro hominum Synodicantium non Dei deny his name have restored those that have to their offence been overtaken with the fault of unfeigned faith and true obedience in the spirit of meekness in all ages of their reign So that if either fear or fire or blood or water were sufficient there hath hitherto wanted none of all these to suffocate the disputers to lay the itch and quench the heat of disputes against infant baptism but as the hast of these times wherein God begins to find the magistrates othor work viz. to curb the Christian cruelty of that whore that hath thus rid them into rigor against the Saints doth forbid the the ministers to be so throughly provided with them as heretofore so modesty doth to use those knocking arguments now in these times of Orthodozism where in both the Clergy and their bloody tenet of persecution for cause of conscience are discovered dayly in their colours How little then the Authorities of fathers and Churches in case we grant them to come in thereunto can contribute to your assistance is apparent and now that those modern authors you promise your Reader such through furniture from viz. Calvin Ursin and Featley upon this subject and also such others as though you name them not here yet have improved themselves more singularly on that single subject then any of these have done as little help you if they be well heeded I come now in the fourth place to discover And first as for your worthy Dr. Featley he is so worthily defeated and disarmed of all his Artillery by Mr. Denn that it were but to attempt the stripping of a naked and encountring of a wounded man to meddle much more with his arguments which are all sufficiently secured and disabled from doing much mischief to the true baptism onely for his high charges of the Anabaptists as he calls them as a bloudy illiterate lascivious lying sacrilegious sâ—…ct 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 hereafter And as for Calvin and Ursin t is true they are both against us in the maine but in some things so slatly 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 infanr-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 adâ—…mit salutem â—…is quibus adimitur baptismus quantum damni invexerit dogma illud c. Christ doth not deny salvation to them to whom baptism is denied what mischiâ—…f 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 â—…sse 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 thâ—…m and that inâ—…ury is done to the Covenant of God and that the Goâ—…pel 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 〈◊〉 of a moity of that argumentative 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 â—…igh 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 spâ—…ak 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 〈◊〉 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 accepâ—…ed 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
consequently that believers children do now you prove the Antecedent viz. that the Iews children did believe because God did witnesse it by setting to his seal circumcision which if it were Gods seal to them of their eternall salvation by faith and witnesse to the world that they had faith also that seal must be firm and that testimony true concerning them all being set to all as well as some so that unlesse they depart from the faith which you say God who cannot ly witnessed they once had and that your principle of not falling from faith will in no wise give way too they could not possibly void it by unbelief and so must necessarily and universally obtain the inheritance but sith t is most clear you selves also yielding it that they do not therefore assuredly one of these must be true viz. either that circumcision was not to infants in their cradels Gods seal of their eternal salvation as you say it was or else that that seal of God is not firm as you attest it is or else that God did not witnesse by it that those to whom it was set had faith as you say he did or else that Gods witnesse and testimony was not true which were blasphemy to think or else that they fell from that faith which at first they had in infancy and at the time of their circumcision and that self confutes you in another case among all which grant which you will to be true you must contradict and convict your selves of falshood And lastly if the end of Gods setting baptism to persons be no other then the very same with that of making his promises and sending his son meerly to let them know how he would have received them how sure his mercies should have been unto them but they would not not to speak of your telling truth here unawares viz. that mans own will rejecting God first and not Gods own will first rejecting them without respect to their fore-seen rejection of him in time is the true cause of their condemnation then as God makes his promises to all and sends his son in his love a Saviour to all so baptism should be dispensed to all without exception belonging as well as Christ himself tell they appear finally to reject him to every one as well as any one in the world but that being denied by both you and us doth shew that the end of baptizing a person is somewhat more viz. not to beget him to the faith before he doth but to improve him in it when he doth believe To conclude this whole train of stuff or long tail of that short shower of shot that went before it is not of so much force as a scottish mist nor scarce enough to wet a naked man to the skin therefore bear with my folly in sheelding my self so much against it i. e. in saying so much in answer to it for a wise man would have said no more to it but mumm Review The third argument is this Those that have the holy spirit that have faith the Anabaptists will not deny but are the subjects of baptism but children have so as their justification declares without which there is no salvation Hence it is that the adversaries are put to their shift s 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 our 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
yea of no depth at all as a cock or conduit have served for the use of sprinkling 1000s for sprinkling sake even of multitudes they need have sought for neither deep waters nor for many waters neither or if they must needs have had as many waters as they had dispensers they might quickly have made many waters out of one by filling out of one well one cock one bucket many basons Mr. Blake rejoices in Mr. Blackwoods rendring the word plurally viz. many waters which the translators render in the singular viz. much water supposing he hath such a prize in our yielding to read it so as takes off the whole force of our reason but I hope he understands himself better then to believe that by many waters is meant several waters waters in several sourses or channels divisim Sigillatim seorsim sumptae divided and a part one from another for by many waters is meant a confluence of much water together many waters meeting in one flowing running contiguously and contained jointly in one sourse river channel otherwise in one River Enon it could not be said there were many waters for t was but one floud as Iordan was so that by Enon or many waters he must needs understand much water a sufficiency a competency of water for the occasion in hand enough to baptize i. e. to dip and overwhelm in and not several waters for several persons at once to sprinkle in for this might be done easily without much water and if not without several waters yet at least in several basons of water onely but the other could not many shallowes were sufficient for many to Rantize and be Rantized in but they sought some one deep one Iordan one Enon of depth sufficient those being onely the most fit to baptize i.e. to dip in Fiftly it appears plain that the Saints in the primitive time were totally dipped or overwhelmed in water by that denomination that is given to them after baptism Rom. 6. 3. 4. where the Romans are said to be baptized into the death of Christ and buried with him in baptism into death also Col. 2. 12. when the Collossians are said to be buried with Christ in baptism and therein also raised with him through the faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead Now we all know that he that is buried is totally put under that element wherein he is buried whatever it be whether water or earth and all over covered with it not sprinkled with a little onely Non quaelibet aquae guttula nec quaelibet terrae globula t is not a little parcel of water sprinkled on a man can denominate him baptized as t is not a little clod of earth crumbled on a man can denominate him to be buried for baptism is a burial an ordinance and visible sign wherein every believer is to be visibly buried and every one that 's truly buried is totally covered subjected to that element that buries him and for a time at least translated by it out of sight Rantist Buried yea but mistically and spiritually invisibly and inwardly onely in respect of the thing signified in baptism and effected in them viz. death to sinne by vertue of Christs death in which respect also they are said to be raised i. e. to newness of life by the power of Christs resurrection but this is not meant nor spoken with reference to the visible sign it self as if there were to be a burying of the body under water and bringing that up again It s the inward grace and not the outward sign it self in respect of which baptism is called a burial and a resurrection the things signified being our dying to sin and rising to righteousnesse even as Christ did die and rose again Baptist. I am glad to hear you grant so much truth as you do at the 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 Drs 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 vâ—…ry next words which you now speak in as one supposing it the safest way to grant thaâ—… there ought to be a resâ—…mblance 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
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
we can make disciples of Christ persons being properly called disciples of disco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to learn and I blush at that bald stuff wherewith he strives and streines his wits till he becomes ridiculous to make the denomination of disciple appear to be due to infants p. 23. as namely Because they are taken into Christs school and Kingdome i. e. his visible Church whereas t is before persons are taken into this School that they are disciples therefore not by it also because they are not lesse docible then some bruits as if some brutes are so docible as to deserve the name of disciples of Christ therfore much more infants because Mothers Nurses teach them by gesture action and voice partly and dishearten and take them off from vices and if not at first to know Christ yet if any of the duty of a rationall creature it is somewhat somewhat indeed but nothing to purpose for as if mothers could take them off from vices in such meer nonage wherein you baptize them as or if they could learn them any of a natural creatures duty so young as at eight or nine daies old as if to learn the duty of a rational creature which many a man learns but no infants could denominate disciples of Christ because Christ can teach them immediately by his spirit if they can learn nothing of their parents by action and voice from which Christ can teach them to denominate believers infants disciples of Christ before we have any evidence that he does teach them any more then other infants that must be no disciples when Christ can teach these as well as those I cannot conceive the foppery of it it is so great because when a Philosopher was hired to teach a man and his children those were children disciples of that Philosopher as if ever any wise man did hire another wise man to teach him and his nine daies old infants because infants can so quickly learn to know father and mother and what they mean in their speeches and actions as if so quickly as you baptize them and lastly as if this will be an accurate account for baptizing of infants and accepted as an answer of Christs commission who there bids us teach or make persons disciples to plead thâ—…s viz. Lord we could not teach infants nor make them thy disciples by teaching yet seeing they could quickly learn to know father and mother we supposed upon this and several such like reasons that the name disciple of Christ was their due and so that t was our duty to baptize them Moreover Adhominem as he saies of the word holy p. 82. So I of the term disciple whose constant meaning is one that hath learnt as Mat. 11. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Iohn 6. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one that hath learned we shall have better defence before the Iudgement seat of Christ for taking the term disciple in that sense as the Scripture uses it in scores of times viz. for persons learnt or taught then they that take it for indocible infants a sense the Scripture never uses it in at all but a hundred times otherwise to say nothing of Iohn 8. 31. Luke 14. 26. 33. where Christ saies if we do what I am sure infants do not we are and if we do not what infants cannot do we cannot be his disciples Secondly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is teach them i. e. the Gospel so none are here bid to be baptized but the very same individual persons that are bid also to be taught first baptizing them and after teaching them again whom those persons in the Nations whom they have taught onely and not their infants for we may as well say the men that they never taught as them since Christ hath in precepto conjoined teaching or our discipling and baptizing together and infants cannot by our teaching of them be discipled visibly The argument in its true form is this viz. What Christ hath conjoined i. e. in his commission for baptizing that man must not separate i. e. in his practise But Christ hath conjoined our discipling persons and baptizing them in his commission for baptizing as a standing course to the end of the world as Mat. 28. 19. 200. shews Erg no man must separate these two in his practise If Dr. Featley were alive to answer this he would happily say t is no Topical but a Sophistical Syllogism for when A. R. makes much what the like from Mar. 16. 16. viz. What God hath joined together no man ought to separate But faith and baptism God hath joined together Acts 8. 37. Ergo faith and baptism none ought to separate He saies there 's a double falacy in it viz. homonimiae or ambiguity in the premises i e. in the termes joined together for it may be meant saith he either in precepto and that no man denyeth or insubejcto the subject i. e. so as to say that all that are baptized have faith and none have faith but the baptized and in this sense it is apparently false saith 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 noâ—… why they should be denied by Mr. Ba. or any else and then the coâ—…lusion must be true but saith Dr. Feat there is a fallacy called ignoratio elenchâ—… 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
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 part and principle of Christs doctrine will and Testament as they had and as baptism it self which the Enquirers walk still in the practise 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 service 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 a being baptized believers as they were b 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 c 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 cessation 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 neithâ—…r 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 as 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 remain 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 infatua ted so as to turn aside 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 peculier 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 â—…o 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 may be 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 mercifully meets them out of his way that does not exempt them from comming into it but much more oblige them if they had no further need of it as Christ had none of baptism save to fulfill all righteousness even meerly upon that account to meet him the more cheerfully in it for thus it becometh us me thinks as well as it did Christ himself to fulfil all the righteousnes of his law If any say I deny not the dispensation of laying on of hands in its due seasoâ—… even in this age on baptized believers for the spirit but as they were bid to tarry at Ierusalem till they were indued with power from on high Luke 24 50. Act. 1. 4. that they might have some men