Adam to save them but because not they themselves for they have no more ability so to do then a new born infant hath to dresse its naked body but their fathers put it not on by faith for themselves and theirs which if the dying infants might live to years as Christ said of Sodom they happily would do therefore millions of these poor innocents must perish so then belike it is thus and this is the covenant of the Gospel the fathers faith saves him and all his dying infants and the fathers sin of unbelief damnes for ever not himself onely but all his dying infants also All infants that are damned then are damned through the fault of two unhappy fathers a remote father for sinning and and immediate father for not believing between which two the love of the heavenly father cannot come at them a wise man may spend all he hath with looking but never find such as this in all the Scripture earthly inheritances are oft stated and removed to and from posterity for fathers faith and faults as all Abrahams posterity by Isaac and Iacob did enjoy Canaan and Esaus lost it but the eternal inheritance is neither won nor lost by the children through the faith or unbelief of the parents and besides if Adams sin though a remote parent doth so damnifie all infants that the righteousnesse of Christ cannot save them without the fathers faith me thinks he being their great grand father Adams faith should recover him and all his at least from that guilt his sin brought upon them by interessing them in Christs righteousnesse as well as his single unbelief at first destroyed them if any fathers faith shall entitle his infants to salvation or else God seems not to be so prone to mercy as severity yea indeed he that saies God is not more prone to severity then to mercy and shewes it no other way as to his dealing with innocent infants then by saying he saves no more dying of infants then those few i. e. some of the dying infants of believers and from the Mothers womb damns eternally all the rest may say over that his creed in my hearing 500 times and ten before I shall learn to believe it after him once Thirdly as to threatnings of damnation I find none at all to infants in their ininfancy from one end of the book of God to the other but all that ever is spoken as concerning eternal wrath the second death everlasting damnation the Lake of fire is declared as the portion of those onely that do and do not that which was never at all much lesse in order to salvation and on pain of eternal fire enjoined by infants either to be done or forborn yea this is the condemnation and nothing else that I know of that light more or lesse comes to persons and they love darknesse more then light because their deeds are evil those that Christ speaks nothing at all to as he does to heathens themselves Rom. 1. Rom. 2. but not to infants that yet know not the right hand from the left much lesse either good or evil they have not sin for sin is the transgression of that law that is lent us to live by whether a law within onely or without also Rom. 2. but when he hath spoken and they obey not when they know God and glorify him not as God then they are without excuse and have no cloak at all for their sin and the word he hath spoken to every one being rejected that same word shall judge him at the last day I find it said no whoremonger fornicatoâ— c. no actual impenitent sinner shall â—ver enter or hath any inheritance at all but not no unbelievers dying infants in the kingdome of God or of Christ and that the Lord shall come in flaming fire taking vengeance on all them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of Christ c. and yet on no dying infants though they neither know him nor obey him for if he should then believers infants should therefore to the pot as well as others as who in infancy obey no more then their fellows that the fearful and unbelieving and dogs and socerers and murderers and all liars c. but not hars dying infants shall have their portion in the lake of fire burning with brimstone which is the second death and that the unprofitable servant that traded not with his talent and not infants that in infancy have no talent to trade with shall be cast into utter darknesse that those on whom Christ called and they would not hear and to whom he stretched out his hands and they regarded him not and would none of Christs councel nor reproof shall call on him at that day and not be heard and not infants on whom he never called that the Lord added to the Church dayly such men and women Act. 2. not at all such infants as should be saved that he that believeth not the gospel shall be damned but not infants to whom he never preached that it shall be said to the wicked go ye cursed into into everlasting fire for I was hungry and you fed me not c. among which if there were any that died infants they might justly reply indeed as no wicked men at years can do Lord when saw we thee in distresse and neglected thee and did not come and minister unto thee In a word the whole body of the new Testament or covenant in the promissory praeceptory and minatory parts of it saving some two or three such gentle touches about infants as those above named whereby we may have hopes that none of them dying such are for ever lost was written and given to and concerning men and women and not infants to declare unto them the way of everlasting salvation and in what wayes God would and would not accept of them and he that with an unprejudiced spirit observes all this will trouble himself no more about his infants to in church and baptize them for remission of sins which is the prime use of baptism to sinners and utterly lost when diâ—penst to infants that have not sins nor indeed to do more then instruct them as they grow up and pray for them while they live infants and hope well of them if they dy in their minority but it pitties my heart for them to see what moyl and toil the Priests create to themselves and the people and what much ado they make about their poor infants even much more then about themselves As for Iacobs being Lovd before he was born he means in contradistinction to Esau wch is Mr. Bs. tenth ground of hope that believers infants are from the womb in a hopeful way I suppose he takes it to be so declared but is miserably mistaken if he think the ninth of the Romans saies so for t is true the elder shall serve the younger which relates to the posterity of those two and not their persons for Esau was mostly
conference and a confused croud of disputation it had had much more to boast of then it hath Pre. The Scandals that have since been cast upon it were expected c. Post. And well they might unless you reckoned without your Host if you scand the Scantines of the provision you made both for your credit and the proof of your practise but what Scandalls I trow were cast upon your Disputation here 's a great talk of Disgraces Scandals Injuries that its under as from us but unless summum jus be summa injuria we righted it rather a little too much in reckoning on it as more then it is worth or at least not setting so slightly by it as well we might But t is as usual a fashion among you Clergy men to count your selves scandaliz'd disparaged disgrac'd vilified undervalued c when you are but either found out in your falsehoods or slandered of a matter of truth as t is for you under one vile name or other to scandalize the Saints most falsly and slander the truth it self yet if your repute be at reparations more then justly through our occasion when we know it we shall make you satisfaction by submission and amends by amendment mean while have patience with us and in due time and Christs strength I trust we shall pay you all Pre. The men which were our Adversaries and their driving was known before c. Post. Were it in respect only to your Infant sprinkling that you did so frequently stile us thus we are no less then many hundreds of its old acquaintance who thinking once as you do that we did God service to be friends to it could now freely answer to the name of Adversaries but we are the best friends in the world to the Truth and your Persons could you once see wood for trees and no further Adversaries to your cause then as we are well assured you can never make it good while the world stands by all the shifts you can devise from the law of Christ whose cause you call it As for our Driving were it like that of Iesu the son of Nimshi it would excuse it self the better sith t is only against the house of the Woman Iezebell that hath sate as Queen over the Nations and stirred up Ahab the Kings and Powers of the Earth to commit fornication with her and to do abominably and to shed the blood of Saints if you be not she then our driving is not towards you but if you be as I dare not be sworn that you the CCClergy throughout all Christendome are not then wo to your house indeed not as from us but from the Lord who yet a little while wherein space is given you to repent and if he cast not you and your lovers into a bed together and into great tribulation except ye repent so that all the Churches of Christ shall know that t is even he that searcheth the heart and tryeth the reins and giveth to every one of you according to your works then the Lord hath not yet spoken at all by me Pre. It is no new thing with them to bespatter those Arguments with their tongue which they cannot unty with their teeth c. Post. It is an old new thing with your selves for it hath been of old the custome of the new Clergie though never of the true by common councel to cry down as Heresie what truth soever was too hard for them as for us it is no new thing with us indeed for it is one of those old things which were in use among us while we were all one with you but since we sincerely sought the truth are past away so that I cannot but clear those men that say it is no new thing with us as speaking no other then the truth and must needs condemn those who condemn us of it now as men condemning us of a meer new nothing Pre. Thou hast here a true though short Relation of the most materiall things that passed c. Post. I was musing a while what of the Ashford-Disputation this True Account could be truly counted a True Account of for I found that it mentioned neither the number nor the names of the Scribes that scrap't it nor the Disputers that disputed it nor the Arguments of more then one of those disputers nor all his Arguments nor half the Respondents Answers nor many more things that should be in it by right nor many of those things rightly that are in it by wrong at last I had resolution here that 't was A True though short Relation of the most materiall things that passed Yea Sirs I assure you a good whipping is fitter for that disputation then a printed Account of it to the world unless on purpose to be laugh't at that lasted no less then six hours whereof five and an half past away mostly in Immaterials and the odd half too in such Immaterials as these you have here accounted for and if these are the most material things that passed how Immaterial may the world well think were the most Immaterial that passed in the Disputation they surely were not worth one quarter of the while they past in Moreover that your Relation is Short yea far short of the Disputation Related I dare not deny but dare you say it ore and oâ—e again that 't is a true one how true it is is so apparent by the preceding Ezamen of your Account that I need not here so much as assert it to be false I shall therefore say no more but thus viz. Had you said false where you say true both here and in your title page where your c. is stiled A True Account A True Relation you had then said true without all question but your saying true in these two places where you should have said false hath made you speak falsly in both indeed Pre. The adversaries answers being rendred to his best advantage c. Post. As for example sometimes his answers are altered and translated into a clear contrary form sense meaning then he ever spake in somtimes added to somtimes defrauded of such clauses as would have given every body to understand his intent to be directly opposite to what its here represented sometimes invented as it were de novo somtimes rendred not at all but only related to be nothing in the least measure satisfactory nothing that carried the least shew of sense or reason to the purpose c. and all this if men would believe you and if they do not I dare say 't is because they have neither sense nor reason whereupon to believe it to your Respondents best advantage but t is utterly against your wills surely Sirs besides your intentions and in some such way as you never meant it if it be for 't were a wonder if you should mind my advantage so much as to render my answers the best way in order thereunto and 't is a chance had you intended my best advantage
Mr. Blake pleads there is p. 8. how can we be said to be as largely and in as full and ample manner invested with and installed into the glorious fleshly birth-rights which the Jews of old were dignified withal if we have not a plenary conveyance of the outward benefits and blessings of the land of Canaan and the possession of that inheritance which God then gave to those Iews by nature to us and our fleshly seed as well as of the outward oracles and ordinances besides what a poor pitteous piece of birth priviledge is it to be adopted instead of the Jews into the meer name of holy sons and heirs and yet to have not a foot of that land which was the Iews inheritance in respect to their fruition of which by right of a promise to Abraham and them they were then honoured with that name of heirs but if it be said that we are now by a birth of believing parents heirs as they were then of the heavenly inheritance and the true eternal Canaan and kingdom whereof that was but a type though we have not to do with that typical land it self as they once had I still strongly deny it that either any Iews by nature then were or any of the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles now are by the faith of their fathers onely heirs by any promise at all of the kingdome of heaven or any further at all then as dying in infancy they never deserved exemption by actuall trangression or living to age they believe themselves and so viz. dying in infancy before they have bard themselves by actual sin or believing themselves when grown to age I say still the fleshly seed even of such fathers as never had any faith are by that faith of their own heirs of the kingdom which God hath prepared for all persons that love him of what parents soever and shall so dying assuredly inherit it once and that by promise as well as they And so I leave Mr. Blake unlesse he like rather to return to the truth to loose himself least I also loose my self with him from the work in hand in that maeandrouâ— laborinth of self contradictions Romish confusions Iewish conceits and ceremonies pithles priviledges absurd asseverations of a present continuance of that old legal typical and by God himself long since in Christ crucified profaned and cashiered holiness which his Baby-book entitled The birth priviledge abounds with which if they have so much truth in them as he confidence in averring then his eyes are not so dim as I now deem they are but my own rather with which I seriously and sincerely â—eâ—k after truth are Christs promise in that case to the contrary notwithstanding Prov. 2.3.4 Iohn 7.17 totally and terribly darkned Much more might easily be said in discovery of the foppicalnesse of that book but I spare to spend any more time or paper upon it then its worth besides having by the last argument above urg'd stockt him up by the stumps and by the following considerations and returns to sundry of his self confuting sentences blasted some of his broadest shews and chopt off not a few of his most flourishing branches I shall not weary my self further in fighting with any more of his figleaves for they consequently will die of themselves and so till the Lord have mercy upon him which is the best good I can and the worst hurt I do desire should befall him and take him up into nearer acquaintance with the truth of his Gospel he must lie where he is for me onely because there seems to be one scruple more behind which though it be but a gâ—at I see many strain at I shall onely blow it out of the way and so hasten from further handling of this head of infant holinesse to the rest of those mediums whereby you the Ashford Disputants undertake to prove believers infants to have the holy spirit Babist The holinesse of that fleshly seed which was circumcised under the law was not ceremoniall and typicall onely nor onely appertaining to Moses Tabernacle Testament and law as the holinesse of the Priests Altar sacrifices and other legall services was for that indeed as it began with Moses so ended in Christ crucified but this holiness in the seed and the matter of infant Church-membership and circumcision upon this birth priviledge and Covenant holinesse was before the law of Moses for that people were a holy seed and children of the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. and thereupon circumcised 400 years before Moses and the law end therefore as it began not with it so neither is it to be abâ—ogated together with Moses law Baptist. Though the Covenant of circumcision i. e the promise of the land of Canaan to Abrahams fleshly seed who by birth were a holy seed that were to inherit that holy land and circumcision it self also the token of it were long before Moses yet did they belong to Moses law that is now abolisht and thereto are they by Christ himself accounted to appertain and plainly call'd the law of Moses Ioh. 7.22 23. And as circumcision and the birth priviledge of Abrahams fleshly seed so many mo things were many years before Moses was born as offerings and sacrifices and distinctions of cleanness and uncleanness of beasts and yet all were but pieces of the ceremoniall law of Moses and were to cease utterly under Christ neither is it any good consequence at all to argue thus concerning any thing viz. It was before Moses was born and before Moses gave the law and therefore no part of the ceremonial law for many parts of that law of Moses were in being before Moses himself had any being and yet are reputed to no other then Moses Testament as well as many things that were done no less then 1000 years before Christ came in person are reputed as apperatining to his Testament and to tell you the truth both the Gospel and the Law both the old Testament and the new though neither of them perfectly yet in part and secundum quid as you use to say i. e. in some respects and remote beginnings were both in being as high as Adam and Abell even thousands of years before either Moses or Christ were born after whose names the two Testaments are called for as what was of the Gospel was called after Christ though a thousand years before Christ came or the Gospel began in its last and most clear and perfect promulgation for in Heb. 11.24 Moses is said to esteem the reproach of Christ as great riches c. So that we see the crosse of Christ was before Christ was born even so what was a part of the typical law or old Covenant was stiled Mosaical though some parcels of it were given out and in use before Moses was born yea circumcision it self which was four hundered year elder then Moses is said to be given by Moses and called the Law of Moses Moses gave you circumcision c.
covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator is a covenant that promises better things better injoyments or a better inheritance then that of the Law did whereupon it there bears the name of a better Covenant then that of which Moses was the Mediator Secondly Mark whether our denial of infant baptism do at all contradict that for what if infants be not baptized doth that make that the promises of the gospel are worse than the promises of the Law nay verily who ever is or is not baptized the promises of the Gospel are both in our opinion and our constant manifestation of it too in this particular better and as far beyond the promises of the Law as the substance is beyond the shadow the City ir self beyond the map of it that is on the wall for the promises of the Gospel are of the whole world Rom. 4.13 of a heavenly inheritance incorruptible Canaan Crown Kingdome 1 Pet. 1.5 Iam. 2.5 Rev. 2.10 of eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 and this not to the Jewes only upon obedience to Moses voice but to all men in case of obedience to the voice of Christ the Mediator of it in point of faith baptism and other things which he requites in order thereunto of those onely which are capable to perform them but the promises of the Law were but of a spot of the world of an earthly Canaan inheritance kingdome c. to the posterity of one man only viz. Abraham and not to all his fleshly posterity neither for his posterity by Hagar and Keturah were excluded and that covenant established with Isaac and his seed only and that in case of obedience to the voice of Moses the Mediator of that Testament when God should give out his mind to them by him in that covenant more perfectly then he did in the daies of Abraham and in case of observance of the Law whereof circumcision was a part though given before and an Ingagement to them to keep the whole when it should be given and all this but as a Map and type for a time of the Gospel Covenant which was made and established on better promises with a better seed i. e. not a carnal but spiritual seed not such as are of Abrahams own much less of any inferiour mens flesh but such as are of Abrahams faith and do his works i. e. believers themselves this is our opinion which if it do not rather confirm then contradict that meliority of the Gospel-covenant and its promises above that of the Law which meliority is spoken of Heb. 8.6 your very selves being Judges of it then surely Satan hath shut up your eyes from seeing that you see But now as for your selves who stand so much in vindication of the Gospel covenant as a better Covenant then that under the Law and that in that very respect in which it is said to be a better Covenant Heb. 8.6 viz. established upon better promises I le shew you plainly how you are so far from making it better then the Law as that you make that of the Law at least equal to it for whereas that Scripture which you quote saies plainly that the Gospel is a better Covenant than that of the law forasmuch as it stands on better promises yet that is never the better for you in your cause whose tenet utterly denies flatly contradicts that for you say that the things promised in the word of the Law which were signed and as your phrase is not ours sealed by circumcision were the very same things that are promised in the word of the Gospel and signed and as you say sealed in baptism viz. the kingdome of heaven and howbeit this is most manifestly false for in reality though you jumble them together into one when it seems to seâ—ve your turn so to do in such a confused way as preaches to the world your present ignorance in both the Law and the Gospel the Law and Gospel are two distinct Covenants established on two distinct kinds of promises whereof the one was typical of and so inferiour to the other the one an old one and a first that vanished before the second and new one Gal. 4. Heb. 8.6 13-9 1 12.18 and though all that was then promised in the Law and signed in circumcision as well as circumcision it self were types of things under the Gospel yet the things then promised upon keeping the Law and immediately signed to Abraham and all his fleshly seed by Isaac save Esau and his seed that sleighted it in that covenant of circumcision which God gave him were no other then that literal Canaan that earthly land of promise flowing with milk and honey and not the heavenly inheritance Gen. 17.8 c. for they that were heirs of the other according to the Law are not thereupon heirs of this also according to the Gospel Rom. 4.13 Now howbeit I say that be very false yet you asserting it that the promise under the Law and under the Gospel is the very same do therein deny the one to be a covenant of better promises then the other for to say the promise of the law is the very same that the promise of the Gospel is is to say that the one is as good as the other and so to contradict that of Heb. 8.6 which saies the Gospell Testament and the promises thereof are better then the promises under the Law And secondly if you say the Meliority that you hold to be in the Gospel covenant consists not in the Meliority of the promises of it above the other but in the Meliority of the administration of it the Gospel ordinances belonging not to the same only but to more subjects then the ordinances of the Law in which respect we denying Gospel ordinances to infants which were admitted to the ordinances under the Law and so cutting of a Moity of the Christian world from the Church which stood members of it before do streiten the Gospel and make it worse and of less extent the Law I answer first That the Meliority of the Gospel covenant spoken of in Heb. 8.6 lies in the Meliority of the promises of it above the others which Meliority we affirm but you deny in saying the promises of both Covenants are one and the same therefore it is your selves however and not we that by your tenets make the Gospel Covenant at least no better than the Law contrarily to that of the Apostle Heb. 8.6 and so your opinions and not ours are false and wicked by your own Argument Bvt secondly if it be in very deed to make the Gospell covenant worse than the Laws as you say it is to hold infants no capable subjects of Gospel ordinances some of which were capable subjects of the ordinances of the law I shall first disprove your charge of us togeâ—her with your proof of it in that particular Secondly prove that if notwithstanding all that I shall say toward the clearing of our selves we must needs be held guilty
is a command for a thing never remanded or contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of Grace Gen. 17.7.9 never yet remanded or contramanded Ergo signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of Grace namely baptism now is still in force The Minor of which argument hath no lesse then three false assertions in it For First circumcision was not a sign of the Covenant of Grace as baptism now is nor did any further relate to the Covenant of Grace then all other things under the law did viz. as types and shadows of the things to come but that Covenant of which circumcision was given to be immediately a sign and token was of that earthly Canaan made with Abrahams fleshly seed onely nor Secondly were they believers infants only who were there commanded to be circumcised but all the male infants and male servants also of every houshold of Abrahams posterity by Isaac onely through their several generations though the parents and masters were unbelievers as the Iews were for the most part of them in all ages and both they and theirs neverthelesse to be circumcised while that Covenant of circumcision lasted Thirdly whereas he saies that circumcision of infants for that 's it he falsely signs there with that name viz. the sign of the Covenant of Grace was never yet remanded or contramanded it is as false as all the rest for we see plainly that it was remanded by that text I am yet in hand with viz. Act. 21.22 Babist But baptism which is the sign now was never remanded Baptist. I grant it is not yet I le prove it to the faces of you all that t is as much remanded and contramanded as ever it was commanded in Gen. 17. Sith then Mr. Marshall and Dr Holmes both say and so indeed you say all in effect that the command for circumcision of infants was a command to us to baptize them and therefore unless we can shew that command to be remanded again it is still in force to bind us to baptize them I dare be bold to tell them that if infant circumcision and infant baptism were both commanded together in that one and the same precept Gen. 17.10 where God bidds Abraham and his seed to circumcise their children then they are both uncommanded again in that one and the same prohibition wherein God by the mouth of Paul forbad the Iews to circumcise their children any longer I say if infants baptism were commanded in that very command for the circumcision of infants then by Analogy for contrariorâ—m contraria est ratio infants baptism must needs be remanded in the remanding of infants circumcision the remanding of which by Paul among all the Iewes that dwelt among the Gentiles where he mainly exercised his Ministrie is related plainly Acts 21.21 To conclude then though I utterly deny as being well assured that nor Dr. Holmes nor Mr. Marshal neither have yet nor ever will make it good that the precept for circumcision is so much as a virtual or consequential command to baptize infants yet if it be I hope they will receive the same Law they give and rest satisfyed in it that this Countermand to circumcise infants is a consequential and virtual countermand also to baptize them By all which it appears still that there is not only no precept but also plain prohibition enough of infant baptism And as there is no precept so neither is there any president of baptizing infants as there was of circumcising them of old from which practise of circumcision therefore there is no consequence to infant-baptism there is not one example to be found any where upon the file of such a thing as infant baptism unless it be in your Parish Registers and there indeed you may shew us not only three or four hundred as vpon occasion of our calling for example Mr Kentish in a discourse we had with him and Mr Glenden at Swevenock said he could but as many as we can shew you of baptized believers in the Scripture-Register viz. no less then three or four thousand but this though it satisfy them that live by the example of the world yet will in no wise serve their turns that live by the example of the Word and therefore Ms Kents negative precept of non express prohibition and Mr Kentish his popish president of parish church admission may go both together as things that can never pass for currant among the true Christians of Kent though they pass for good proof of infant-baptism among most Kentish Christians and Priest-ridden people As for the Scriptures there 's not so much as the least shew of any example of baptizing infants in them for howbeit you draw in the several housholds that were baptized as that which you would fain seem to make somewhat of to this purpose yet how well they serve your turn that way judge ye when as whether there were at all any one infant in any one of them is confessed to be uncertain by your selves so Mr. Blake Birth-priv p. 22. and also a matter so immaterial that the cause doth not depend upon it at all so Mr. Marshall to Mr Tombes p. 218. yet both he and Mr. Blake and Dr. Featley p. 42.43 and I think well-nigh every one that writes presses all these housholds as a president and forces from them all they have in them and more too in proof of infant baptism Babist We have examples not to be contemned of the baptism of whole housholds saies Mr. Blake and whether infants were there or no as it is not certain though probable so it not material The president is an houshold he that follows the president must baptize housholds it appears not that there were wives there yet be that followes the president of baptizing housholds must baptize Wives and so I may say quoth he Servants if they be of the houshold Baptist. Pray stay Sirs not to fast at first least you run your selves out of breath at last Is this a competent account upon which to baptize wives and servants too as well as infants viz. if they be of the houshold then tell me whether unbelieving wives and unbelieving servants may not be of the houshold where the husband and Master believeth and if so must these also be baptized for shame call in that again this is a pigge of the old sow believers children are of the Nations and I wonder what man woman or child is not therefore they must be baptized For shame also forbear to name those housholds any more as presidents of infant-baptism wherein your selves confesse that it is not certain that there were any infants nor materiall whether there were any or no. Babist You shall find saies Mr. Marshall the Gospell took place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together usually if the Master of the house turned Christian his whole
things let that or any judicious Gentleman spel and put together and see if it be not tantamount to such a testimony as this viz that those that believe and aâ—e not baptized shall be damned for to be damned and not saved are all one and as for children of Tuâ—ks and Pagans dying in infancy you record it it as a monstrous thing that I should say that for ought I knew they might be saved yea by the reply that was made to that speech of mine by one who said perhaps I thought the devills might be saved it appears that your party thinks it as possible that the devils may be saved as soon as the dying infants of Turks and Pagans and yet of the children of believing parents who in your opinion do also believe themselves you say the opinion of the Anabaptists which denyeth baptism to little children puts the parents out of hopes of their salvation und makes them to be in no better condition then Turks and Pagans yea you say believing parents may say of their children that dy without baptism what hopes of our child who is in no better condition then the children of infidels and really they say true if the state of infidels dying infants be so damnable as you saie it is is it you or we Sirs whose doctrine damnes believers if they be not baptized I le conclude this matter with you much what in your own words and form of speech Christ shuts out only unbelievers from heaven whosoever believeth not shall and be damned this doctrine of yours that little infants are believers and yet out of all hopes of being saved if not baptized shuts out believers if they be not baptized i e. if they be not rantiz'd for that is the best baptism you use and by consequence if your doctrine which you delivered in this Account as judicious Gentlemen that read it will affirm be true that even believers not baptized shall be damned you had need baptize your believing infants indeed i. e. to do more then cris crosse two or three drops of water on their faces or else for all your plea for their baptizing on pain of their damnation they l be damnâ—d if they be no more then sprinkled for want of true baptism when all is done for that is not so much as the Ceremony it self in truth which you are so hot for without the substance yet would I not have you be an abhorring for all this but pittyed and prayed for rather that you may in time for this and all other your follies and false accusations of others of things whereof you are more guilty your selves abhor your selves in dust and ashes that you may not be an abhorring as he is more then half blind that doth not see who will be once amongst both God and men Rev. 17.16 Rev. 19.2 And thus I have done with your first Argument Review The second is this little Children under the law received the Seal of the Gospel covenant for circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith which is the Gospel-Covenant The Law saith Do this and live the Gospel only believe in the Lord Iesus Christ and therefore God calls it an everlasting covenant and the Apostle saith the Law that came 430 years could not disannull it Gal. 3.17 and he saith expresly the Gospel was preached to Abraham ibid. ver 8. nay more the carnall seed of Abraham Ishmael and Esau men branded for Reprobates in Scripture yet because they were born in Abrahams house received that seal by Gods appointment Why then should not children under the Gospel receive baptism which the Adversaries confess to be the Seal of the Gospel-Covenant Re-Review This poor forlorn wretched Argument hath been handled and laid sprawling once or twice before where both its consequence is denyed and good reason gien of the senselessness of such syllogizing as is here from the Law to the Gospel therefore it is but needless to defend our selves any further against it it being a demi-dead man that is disabled from being dreadful to us already nevertheless sith he hath strengthens himself again what he can and comes up recruâ—ed and attended with a company of scambling and for the most part very unsound sentences at his heels t wil not be amisse to enter the lists a little with him and these his Auxiliaries First then Sirs whereas you come in again with that crooked consequence viz. infâ—nts must be baptized under the Gospel because circumcisied under the law we might more pertinently let up a shout at your shameful folly in this particular then set upon the shewing of it any more it is so palpable for verily as is proved sufficiently above these two viz. the Covenant of the law and the Gospel from the Identity of which you infer an Identity in the subject of the ordinances and administrations of both and by way of analogy would evince them both to belong to the same persons I must tell you these are two Testaments or wills of God concerning men in those two different times viz. before Christ and since and these two so specifically distinct that they not onely run upon different strains and require different terms as your selves here confesse the law saying do this and live the Gospell onely believe but also stand upon different promises whereof the Gospels being of the heavenly Canaan are better then the laws which were but of an earthly one and these also pertaining to two different seeds viz. the legal to the natural children of Abraham i. e. Isaac and his posterity by generation the Evangelical to the spiritual seed of Abraham i. e. such as are of Christ by faith and regeneration and they had also different dispensations the one circumcision the other another thing viz. dipping a thing no way like it and different subjects also for those different dispensations so that if men and their ministers were not all turned Momes they could not but must manifestly perceive it the old Testament admitting to circumcision onely males and these onely on the eighth day in case they were in the house so young and all the males in the house whether sons or servants whether born in the house or bought with money of any stranger and all this without respect to either faith or repentance in the persons to whom dispenst or any prae-preaching to them by the person dispensing the new Testament taking in to baptism as no servants upon the masters faith so all persons in the world both males and females upon their own and that upon any day and not the eighth onely wherein after they have been preacht to they professe to repent and believe Mat. 3. Act 2. Act. 8. Act. 18. The proof of which real specifical diversity of these two Covenant◠〈◊〉 yet farre more evident First because the spirit denominates them so to be in Scripture calling them expressely the two Covenants Gal. 4.24 and also very often in plurali the Covenants the covenants
bare circumstance in the ceremony we differ in but we differ in the substance i. e. in the ceremony or rite it self which you have changed having no parts at all of the rite in your wrong practise which your own party divide the rite of baptism into Ritus in baptismo est triplex saies Tilenus the rite or ceremony in baptism is threefold immersion or plunging into the water continuance for a time under the water resurrection out of the water in resemblance of Christs death burial and resurrection and ours in him Which of all these three are to be found in your aspersion unlesse you will all own Featleys fetch for good resemblance viz. the dipping burial and resurrection of the ministers hand when he sprinkles the infants face sith therefore you have broken the law of Christ the Son that Law-giver and Prophet whose voice we are to hear in all that he saith and changed the ordinances so far as to turn his baptism into rantism you will as they that despised the Law of Moses the servant be cut off from his people Acts 3. Heb. 2. Heb. 10. sith you make void his plain word under pittiful pretences viz. the coldnesse the tediousnesse the danger of dipping in these climates as if the reason for dipping were proper onely to Hot Countries no marvel if such as see from under the vail of priestly pretence that hath darkned the whole earth are hot to have a recovery to the truth specially since it is a truth not unknown to us nor yet so trivial truâ—h as these that inck is made of gum and paper made of rags nor yet such a Scripture truth as is not material to be known as that about Pauls cloak and parchments and that Abiam was the Son of Sacar as Mr. Baxter bables p. 218.219 a sign that paper is made of rags by his wasting it in such toies for these we are not so strictly held to reveal but a truth of such worth that it is to be preferred before that truthles peace he pleads for the disturbance of which he calls hell p. 2â—0 saying We are little beholding to those men that would have turned the Church into hell i. e. privation of peace rather then silence their supposed truthes To whom I say If that be hell which priests so call Then truths true friends are hell-hounds all But a word to Mr. Baxter out of Mr. Baxter p. 218. in vindication of our loathnesse to betray this truth by our silence viz. The Law commandeth us to do our duty to preserve truth from being lost so that if truth be lost while I do my duty t is no sinne of mine if it be not lost while I neglect my duty it is yet my sin God disposeth of events not we therfore what consequences may be occasioned sith they are not caused by preaching the Gospel I may not for fear of them nor shall shun to declare the whole counsel of God I know necessity and charity do dispense with circumstances in ceremonies and with ceremonies or ordinances themselves of Gods own institution sometimes But first it is with the omission onely but not with the alteration of them into other if a man converted on his death bed or on the ladder when ready to be executed as the thief was upon the crosse be willing to be baptized if it may be but cannot in charity he may and of necessity he must be dispenst with dying unbaptized in such a case but no man may dispense another thing to him i. e. Rantism in its room and stead no more then he may give other things then bread and wine in the supper to a stomach too weak to bear either of those for that is to take upon him to make another institution and Gods leave man never had so to do Secondly it must be by leave from the Lord implicit or expresse upon which onely we can ground the lawfulnesse of omission and necessity and charity but not charity mistaken are leave enough no doubt to let a lone though in no wise to alter what ever he ordaines as when it neither can be at all nor can be done conveniently nor possibly without killing men indeed whereupon we find no fault found with Israel in the wildernesse for forbearing to circumcise 40 years together it is like least it should hinder them in their warfare but sure I am they should have heard of it from the Lord if to forgo the sorenesse of that circumcision they had circumcised i. e. cut off onely the hair of their heads Let the Ranter therefore shew us Gods word for his omission and the Rantizer for his mutation of Baptism and we will fall in with either as we see it evidenced therein Rantist If you do but mind the Testimonies I cited out of Mr. Cook and Mr. Baxter and what you hinted your self as written to you in private you cannot chuse but see word enough for our use of sprinkling though dipping were used never so in the primitive times for they tell you but me thinks you do not much mind it that the Scripture requires not totall washing that Christ appoints not the measure of water nor manner of washing more then the measure of bread and wine in the Supper he hath left it ad libitum and as they say very well the whole vertue of the Sacrament lying in signification per ablutionem it matters no more Quantum quisque abluatur then quantum quisque comedat and as it is folly to think that men must eat in the Supper as long as head and stomach will hold because it signifyes the souls refreshment so that in baâ—tism we must be washed all over because it best signifies our burial with Christ a little signifies as well as much a clod of earth a pepper corn a little skin cut off in circumcision so by a little bread and wine eat and drank and by a little water sprinkled may the refreshment of the soul be represented Baptist. That which best signifyes is best to be done and forasmuch as tâ—at best signifies that both signifies and resembles the quantity of the Element that manner of action which best resembles is best and fittest to be used undoubtedly in baptism in which Christ hath undoubtedly appointed what is best whereupon if Mr. Baxter grant or if he do not he cannot deny that overwhelming best resembles and consequently best signifyes our burial with Christ he never will give good reason whilest he breathes upon this earth why washing all over as he calls it should not be used as for that reason that is given against it here by himself at second hand and by Mr. Cook at first of whom he borrowes well nigh every bit of what he saies against a totall dipping save only his fearful fairfowl flourishes upon it viz. First that the measure of water and manner of washing the whole body is not appointed Secondly That then in the Supper there must be a eating to the
bad for then there is manifest falsehood in many promises and threats the natural seed of righteous men often perishing and being not counted their own fathers children unlesse they be like them in righteousnesse as Iohn 8.39 Christ denies Abrahams natural children to be Abrahams children and blessed with him because they did not as Abraham did and contrary wise the natural seed of the wicked prospering when they do well contrary to Prov. 2.21.22 Is. 20.14 Ps. 37 20. if the word seed were there taken for the natural seed where it is said the seed of evill doers shall never be renowned And so the seed of the serpent and the children of the devil expresses those that do his works to say nothing I say of this which yet is enough to blunt the edge of Mr. Bas. argument grant the word seed here to be taken for the natural seed of the righteous even those in infancy may be many wayes blessed though they neither be baptized in infancy nor inchurched yea they may be blessed with eternal salvation dying in infancy without either baptism or membership in the visible Church for I hope you will not say those 1000s of Jewes and belieuers infants that have died before circumcision baptism and visible admission are damned without any more ado because they fell short of your admired membership and if these be blessed with salvation to whom you delay baptism why not those to whom we deny it doth our denying baptism to an infant before he dies send him to hell sooner then your delaying it till he be dead But however the seed of the righteous may be blessed with many temporal blessings as provision fruitfulnesse multiplication and yet not be taken into the visible Church and to say the truth if Mr. Ba. had not been resolved to wrest this Scripture besides its true sense to botch up his proofs into a multitude he might easily have seen by consultation with the verse before that it is not such a thing as membership that is here meant by the word blessed but meer matter of outward sustentation I never saw the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread he is ever merciful and lendeth and his seed is blessed i. e. provided for and preserved from beggery and considered by others in time of adversity as he considered others in the like case And lastly whereas he challenges us to shew where ever God pronounced any blessed and yet took them for none of his visible Church saying t is absurd once to imagine it that he did I assert it is most absurd in him to imagine the contrary for God himself by promise pronounced Ishmael blessed saying as for Ishmael behold I haved blessed him and I will make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly and make him a nation because he is thy seed and this at the very same time when he denied to establish the Covenant with him which he establisht with Isaac and commanded that he should be cast out of Abrahams family from sharing with Isaac in that very covenant which Mr. Baxter contends with all his might p. 64 65. that whoever are not in it are not under the promise of the mercy which Church-membership is with him a speciall part of In proof of this consider and compare Gen. 17.18.19.20.21 with Gen. 21.10.11.12.13 as if there were no blessing but that of Church-membership or at least no blessing without this of Church-membership whereas as admired a mercy as this meer membership is with Mr. Baxter persons may be blessed without it and also witnesse the Jewish Nation which for the most part were reprobates they may have admission to the meer mercy and bare blessing of membership and yet perish and be accursed for ever The 18th plain Scripture-less proof for infant Church-membership and baptism is this If infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted then certainly it was not proper to the Iews and consequently is not ceased but infants are therefore The Minor of which argument Mr. Baxter endeavours to prove aswell as he can and this he doth First partly by perverting the sense of the text Mal. 2.25 where it is said God made two one i. e. instituted the ordinance of marriage between man and woman that he might seek a seed of God i. e. a legitimate Issue for legitimacy onely in the issue is the result of marriage and that among what parents soever even heathens as well as others for whom as well as others that state of marriage is sanctified yet Mr. Baxter saies he made two one or ordained marriage that he might seek a seed of God in another sense that better serves his turn i. e. to seek Church-members as if Church-membership in the seed were the direct result of the state of matrimony in the parents which every simpleton knowes to be false for marriage is honourable among all and was ordained for all mankind as well as the Godly and yet the seed are not therefore Church-members besides marriage was instituted in the state of innocency to this end that mankind might be propagated in a more modest way then other creatures and not that the seed so propagated might be Church-members Secondly partly by a heap of frivolous conjectures of his own in which a man may warrantably enough chuse whether he will believe him or no but whether his Minor viz. that infants were Church-members before circumcision was instituted be true or false it makes nothing to his purpose unlesse he had made surer work in his Maior for that is so inconsequent and utterly unsound that had I happened to have heard his argument before it came in Print I should have spared him all his paines about the Minor and have put him to the proof of his Major the consequence of which hee 'l never make good by fair play while he breathes for there were many things long before circumcision was instituted which were proper if not to the Jewes till the Jewes were in being yet to the ceremoniall law that was after more clearly given to the Jewes and to that old Testament of which Moses was the Mediator and circumcision the sign and the Jewes the subject and yet were tipicall and ceremonial onely and so ceased together with circumcision as the keeping the seventh day the sacrifices the cleannesse and uncleannesse of certain creatures and if that were at all before circumcision as Mr. Ba. does not plainly prove it to be among the rest the Church-membership of infants His 19. plain Scripture-lesse proof is this If God be not more prone to severity then to mercy then he will admit of infants to be members of the visible Church but God c. therefore c. Oh the wit of this man how wonderfully doth it work and wind to and fro and wander far and neer to fetch in any manner of fewell wherewith to feed that false faith men live in concerning infant baptism for fear it should be quite extinguished and brought to nothing
dominions the same for they rule but over all and you over no more then you can subject the subject matter of your churches the same viz. whole England whole Scotland whole Common-wealths the whole world at once if it would as Catholikely submit to your directory as it did once to the Popes in point of worships and payments at least whether godly in their conversations or no your parish form the same your Ministry a Ministry by the same orders and mostly of the same men new moulded not so much in mind and manners as in manner of ministration according to the laws for alteration in a word your whole Hierarchy though new suited so far the same that you are no lesse Cozen Germane to them then they two are one unto another why may it not I say be proportionably reproved notwithstanding a number of honest and godly men among those that are not more numberlesse then so godlesse that they may well say of themselves Nos numeri sumus fruges consumere nati 5. Specially since the best men are by so much unworthy to be justifyed favored in the false form they are found in by how much in some respects they do more wrong to the truth then the very worst that are in that wrong way with them For though the wicked Ministers are the worst both to themselves and to all others otherwise whether Popes Prelates Presbyters or Popish Priests of of any kind yet herein the best are worst and even more injurious then any viz. as they are greater stumbling blocks to some and by standing still in a superstitious way stand more in the way of such as living more at a venture by their example in all things then the word would else escape it then prophane ones are capable to do thus pious Priests that are adored as Popes in their several parishes more dazzle their peoples eyes from discovering the whole mystery both of iniquity and godlynesse then dissolute rude proud paultry ones possibly can when once the Gospel comes among them yea Pope Caelestinus Pope Clemens Pope Innocentius Pope Pius Pope Formosus Pope Vrbanus do more captivate their cures to continuance in crooked customes then either Leo or Helbrandus When men in a false Ministry are any better then ordinary in their persons though never so Antichristian in their performances yet how many are hardened to the heeding of these as Christian enough for their sakes but when they are not onely traditionary in their services but impious and impenitent in their lives this renders not onely their deformation more discernable but also reformation more desirable then else it would be so as corruptio optimi est pessima the pervertures of good men are most prejuditious if not pernitious to the truth ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur leges the parish Ministers immodest manners makes modest men look out for some better lawes and Gospel There 's one thing more I know you will charge me with for you Ashford Disputants did once before thousands when there was seemingly lesse occasion then now viz. that I am too sharp and Satyrical that I rail at and revile you in stiling you an Adulterous generation Antichristian Hereticall Schismaticall To which I say first that though some of you would have muzzled me up then by an Article from that which you call reviling least happily I should have unmaskt you too much yet in your sense that Article shall not bind me at this time with your leave for you call that reviling that is not so would you set your selves soberly once to reason things out i. e. to discern them properly as they are you would find that no man is reviled that is seasonably and soberly declared and denominated to be but what he is for be the titles we note men by never so grosse yet are they but their proper names if in all things suitable to the subject hence though I can excuse your ignorance in terming me Anabaptist for that 's impropriation indeed yet I le more then pardon you print me out how you will so you print me no worse then you prove me and as for me whatever stile I put upon you as I do it in a serious and not lusory way so I make it out to be your due as also what you Presbyters put upon the Prelates and you Prelates upon the Popedome viz. the denomination of Antichristian Strumpet Babylon and such like you make plainly enough appear to be their due and therefore I cannot possibly be said properly to revile you forasmuch as upon the self same Account as you cry out upon each other and use these disgracefull and opprobious termes as you term them towards one another I as justly cry out in the same language against you all unlesse you will yield to it as I know you will not that you are Revilers your selves If what I say of you be indeed more then the truth I le not onely expect your contradiction but accept thankfully your correction of me from the word but if you cannot from thence deny but that I call you what you are then as you will not be guilty of overcharging your selves as well as me you must acquit me from the guilt of reviling for as I lend you no worse language then you lend one another in the like cases so as I plead my innocency in it must you plead your own else can you be held guiltlesse no more then I but we must all be revilers togegether When the Pope challenges the Prelatical party for stiling him the Roman Antichrist and the mystical Whore of Babylon and the Prelates likewise come upon Presbytery for making them as much Babylon as the other for so doth Mr. Rutherford the Scotchman calling the two Governments of Italy and England the Popes and Prelates lawlesse Church Monarchy saying of the Prelate that he could not find his Father and was ashamed of his native Father Diotrephes i. e. the Pope and that the Pope was his Godfather and Rome his Godmother and that Antichristian Prelacy was but spilt Popery half dyed Papistry terming them also children of Babell when also I say you of the Presbytery are challenged by the Bishops and the Prelacy by the Popes for revilers in the words wherein you challenge us and wherein Paul was questioned for his term Thou wâ—ited wall viz revilest thou Gods high Priest you can excuse your selves no otherwise then he did i. e. we wist not that you are Gods high Priests but are assured you are rather what we call you even so if you shall say to my self revilest thou the Ministers of Christ I say Sirs I wist not that you are Ministers of Christ any more then the Pope himself i. e. as much as just nothing for as quod efficit tale must be magis tale vertually at least if not formally so nil dat quod in se non habet so that the Roman Antichrist being no true one