in after ages too were the Apostles themselves viz. Father Peter Father Paul Father Barnabas Father Iames Father Iohn and the rest whose authority from Christ was great indeed and adequate with the Scriptures then written and the foundation for all the Churches to build on and such was not the authority of the Churches then much less since which are to be subjected to their word in Scripture this Church and these fathers never knew such a baptism as yours nor is there the least tittle of talk concerning any such matter to be found among them Or if by the Church and Fathers of it whose authority and practise you build on you mean those of the ages next to the Apostles Then first I marvel why you should put your selves upon the triall by succeeding ages and decline the first and purest age of the Gospel of all specially since there 's as clear history and more infallible testimony given in the word of what was done by the Church and the first fathers the Apostles then ever was in any age inferiour to it whatsoever and more specially yet since its being in after ages is no palpable argument of its being in the first age for the mystery of iniquity was at work from the very Apostles t is now Ergo it was then is not so good a wherefore to our why as we look for besides t is ingenuously confest by your own writers viz. Mr. Blake in answer to Mr. Blackwood p. 58. that faith can hang on the humane testimony of the succeeding fathers in whose daies infant baptism was no further then de facto viz. that it was onely and not de jure that it ought to be and Mr. Marshal p. 5. of his sermon that the practise of the thing in their dayes proves not the truth of it at all Secondly neither doth the second Century help you so much as to a proof de facto For First as much as you would seem to be verst among the fathers in which many Priests are better read then in the Scriptures and some to seem to be better read there then they are will quote the fathers when they have not read them but by snaches and pickt a few fine phrases out of them to make their sermons the more sententious yea and sometimes for those very sentences for which they might more truly quote the Apostles that primitively pend them witnesse one of your tribe whom I heard with my own ears say of Heb. 2.16 he took not on him the nature of Angels thus viz. for as Saint Barnard saith when as he might as well have said as the spirit or as the Scripture saith He took not on him c. if yet he knew that t was in the Scripture as much I say as you are versed in the fathers you are desired by Mr. Blackwood a man better read in those fathers then either you or I yea you and Mr. Marshall also who quotes Iustin Martyr are desired by him in his storming of Antichrist p. 25.26.27 to prove if you can out of any place of Iustins genuine works who is the antientest father extant next the Apostles whose works are accounted on that there is so much as the name of infant baptism much more the thing yea he tells you ye may as soon find a Dolphin in the woods as any such thing save onely that t is once mentioned in a spurious book falsely called his out of which book Mr. Marshalls quotation is neither doth Mr. Blake gainsay this nor yet Mr. Marshall in their replies nay they rather seem to grant that it s to be doubted it was so which makes me as well as Mr. Blackwood not a little wonder that Mr. Marshall should quote it with so much confidence I mean so as to assert it thereupon as a matter manifest that the Church counting from the time of Iustin Martyr viz. 150 hath bin possest of the priviledg of infant baptism for the space of 1500 years and upwards for had he not doubted but that the words he cites were without question the words of Iustin himself he had not had sin but now he hath no cloak sith he demonstrates to all men Dubitatum per magis dubium and tells the world to make them believe that Iustin disputes the condition of children that dye baptized and unbaptized when yet it s not believed but much doubted by himself whether Iustin did any such thing yea or no as to the words Mr. Marshal p. 4. of his sermon cites out of Irenaeus who lived toward the end of the second Century which Englisht are thus viz. Christ came by himself to save all all I say who are born again unto God infants and little ones c. it s not likely that in this sentence that father by the word born again meant baptism as Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal contend for by that sence they father such absurdity upon that their father as children that pretend to honour their father may be ashamed of whilst they make him say Christ came to save all infants that are baptized when as neither all infants that are baptized are actually saved quâ baptized nor are any unbaptized infants damned quâ not baptized but both alike saved as both alike they either dye before they have bard themselves by actual sin and derserved exemption or living to years believe and obey Christ and both alike damned as living to years they both alike obey not his Gospel but however let Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal squeeze what they can from the quotation it must yet remain as doubtful whether the speech of Irenaeus if it were his own were at all of infants baptism as it doth whether the speech fathered on Iustin though it be of infants baptism were at all his own and so what dubious evidence the second century affords so much as de facto that infant baptism was then in being all men may see whilst you can say no more then perhaps it was so and a fool may say as much as perhaps it was not which is a proportionable answer to that argument for t is commonly said in the Schooles saies Mr. Marshal that forte ita solvitur per forte non Secondly but what if your testimony de facto concerning the practise of infant baptism in the second century were as clear as t is cloudy yet what green headed antiquity is this in comparison of that we plead from viz. the Apostles themselves when you are stormed out of all your strong holds then you send us still to ages above us and cry out your practise is of 1500 years standing but sith you cannot say as we can of ours t is above 1600 years old nor is yours now likely to live to it as good you had said but 15 for our way onely being found in the first century and yours not at all before the second we are a people so much elder then you upstarts that your antiquity is but novelty with us
nine wayes at once such Noniformity there is among you some saying this and some that and some you wot not well what your selves What pretty Checker work is there in your judgements about one and the same thing wherein you would be unanimous and uniform if you would return all unto the truth O how doth Babell come tumbling down by this Division of tongues even as when theeves fall out true men come to their goods even so suâ—ely will the true Church come at last to the understanding of this truth even that no infants at all are to be sprinkled when they shall see what a do there is about it among divines and how they would hold it if they could tell how and say something for it if they could tell what the disputers and scribes will scuffle one with another till their poor people not knowing which to follow will at last betake themselves to leave them all and follow Christ. What Sirs is the Gospel the plain simple gospel such a maeander as this is Christ thus divided were Paul Peter and Barnabas and Iohn and the rest of the Apostles and ministers whose Successors you all say you are but are not in very deed so intricately intangled in vain janglements about one and the same question as you are both among and within your selves so that your answers and Accounts for your practise hang together more conjangletine then conjunctim but no marvel if the Cat winckt when both her eyes were out you draw nigh to God O yee Priests with your mouth and honor him with your lipps but have for the most part of you removed your hearts far from him and your fear towards him is taught after the precepts of men therefore are ye drunken but not with wine you stagger but not with strong drink for the Lord hath powered upon you the spirit of deep sleep and hath closed your eyes you Prophets you Rulers you Seers hath he covered you have disserted the truth and are degenerated into a counterfeit kind of Baptism that never descended from above that hath stood now of a long time jure Ecclesiastico but not jure Christico and so the best of you know not how to hold it now the truth returns from the land of her captivity without fidling and faining and patching and shifting and such shameful ridiculous thwarting of your selves and one another with yea and nay in your joint prosecution of one and the same cause as will if you reform not in time object as much to the Ha Ha-He of that part of the Christian world that yet wonders after you of the protestant Clergy as other popish toies have done the Papacy to the Papè of such as once wondered after them give over therefore your dabling of infants faces and baptize believers by profession cast away all your wood hay and stubble which cannot endure the trial by the light of that day that is now approaching and begin the Gospel again as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be in this world world without end Amen Thus Sirs saving your vain boasting what innumerable Arguments and such through furniture from Scripture from reason from the Churches and Fathers Authority from more modern Authors amongst whom you mention Calvin Vrsin Dr. Featley I have shewed that Scriptures are against you that Reason is against you that the Primitive Church and Fathers are against you that the immediately sub-primitive Church and Fathers are against you that the praepostern-Church and Fathers are though some against you some for you so little to be regarded in their testimonies in respect of the Superstition of their times that if they were all wholly for you they prove nothing de jure as neiâ—her do the testimonies of the more antient Fathers by Mr. Marshalls and Mr. Blakes confession that though the Clergy and all Christendome Pope Civil powers and people have been so fully for you for ages together as that they have persecuted all that have been against you yet this shewes the badness of your cause by the bloudiness of it and so makes more against then for you that two of those three Authors of your own alledging are as much for you as men can be that are opposite to you for they as ignorantly as your selves own your practise though they disown and overturn one or two of the prime pillars and grounds you practice from that the third viz. Dr. Feaâ—ley is killed as dead as a door-nayle by Mr. Den and that your selves and the other sticklers that still stand up in your cause are so miserably imbroiled in civil wars divisions diversities of design to bring about the same thing contradictions clashings Ayes and Noes among your selves that you can never make an handsome head against the truth till your matters hang more harmoniously together so that nought remaines in which you can hope unlesse your self excusing quarter crying Epistle to the Reader which is also answered can stead you but your forlom hope of these three following Arguments which are more then half laid sprawling already and that tottered troop and ragged Regiment of Scufflers against Reason and that Scare-crow that comes up in the Rear of the Review and that Patheticall summons of all the Pastors to come in and succour you and oppose the growth of Anabaptism by preaching what they can against those Hereticks the Anabaptists but disputing no more with them because the effects of disputing with them are dangerous All which by then I have dispatch a little more dispute with whether I shall be more weary of writing or you of reading this as I know not well so it matters not much I shall its like give over then however First then to the first of your three Arguments that ensue Review The First is taken from the universall practise of the Church of God which the Adversaries would not hear of at the Disputation The grounds of it are expresse texts of Scripture Mat. 28.20 Lo I am with you alway to the end of the world Iohn 14.16 The Comforter shall abide with you for ever ver 17. The spirit of truth ver 26. Who shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I have told you Iohn 16.13 He will lead you into all truth The Argument is this To hold that Christs promise is not true is damnable blasphemy But to hold that the universall Church hath erred in so necessary a matter as baptism and that for so many hundred years is to hold that Christs promise is not true his promise of being with his Church of guiding it by the spirit into all truth Ergo To hold the Vniversall Church hath so erred is damnable blasphemy If the Anabaptists object That the Church of Rome useth this Argument for her traditions The Answer is That those traditions which she pleads for were neither universal nor doctrinal as this of baptism and therefore the exception against her was just and those
that formed them will shew them no mercy and the lord Iesus shall come with flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not his Gospel and that because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved for this cause God shall send them strong delusions to believe lies that they all might be damned who had pleasure in unrighteousnesse c. who ere transgresseth and abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ hath not God every soul that heareth not the voice of that Prophet shall be destroyed with the mouth confession is made unto salvation and an hundred such like as speak of an necessity of good works as well as of faith viz. self-denyall taking up the cross and following Christ c. speak of and to infants in non age while they know not their right hand from their left But Sirs oh that you would once understand for then all your intricacies sottish and absurd assertions and disputes about infants would be ended and save you a world of perplexity that now you are in by the ignorance of it that the word was not written as the way and will of God concerning infants in infancy but concerning men and women in order to their salvation by Christ Iohn 6.39.40 And this Sirs is no other answer then you use to give us when we argue against infants believing thus viz. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word preached But infants cannot hear so as to know Christ by the word preached Ergo infants cannot believe You tell us true faith in Adultis can come no other way but by preaching but in Infantibus faith is begotten otherwise so you fancy but you have no Scripture for it as we have that faith comes no way but by hearing Babist But that Scripture Rom. 10. speaks only of the way of faiths comming to adult ones Baptist So say I of welnigh the whole body of Scripture it speaks of the way wherein men at years must expect to be justifyed and saved and not of infants for they may be saved without faith so when we plead with you against the baptizing of infants I mean such of you and such there be amongst you as are ashamed as well as some that are not to say that infants have faith we tell you the Scripture speaks only of baptism of persons confessing sin professing faith that faith and baptism use still to go together as he that believeth and is baptized the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized if thou believest with all thy heart c. therefore those that believe not may not be baptized you tell us again of these places and of all that ever we bring out of Scripture where baptism is mentioned that they speak of adult persons of whom t is confessed by you that faith and confession and profession is required in order to baptism but not of infants that cannot perform them So Pareus in Vrsin Cate. p. 384. 385. and also many others and your answer is very true and grants all that we desire for indeed all the places where ever baptism is mentioned throughout the Scripture do speak of it as in relation to grown persons and not to infants therefore because the Scripture is wholly silent in such a thing we dare not meddle to baptize infants but as we grant your answer to be true so I hope you will grant it to be as true in our present case for if some of you when we call for faith to a persons baptism or else deny that person to be baptized say thus viz. true no baptism without faith of such of whom faith is required and who are capable to act it i. e. of men at years but infanâ—s being uncapable to act faith and it being not required of them therfore they may be baptized without it which conclusion you make without book to for the word warrants you not to make it why may not we when you call so universally for faith to every ones salvation or else saying assuredly they are damned return the like viz true no salvation without faith of persons capable to act it and of whom it s required but infants being uncapable to act it and it being not required of them therefore they may be saved without it Babist This conclusion is spoken without book and as unwarrantable by the Scripture as you say ours â—s sith the Scripture speaks as much of salvation by faith as of baptism upon faith and as little of salvation without faith as it doth of baptism without it therefore still we have at least as good ground to say infants may be baptized without faith as you have to assert they may be saved without it Baptist. No I shall leave you behind here for sith the Scripture speaks of the impossibility of infants believing and yet with all of their saluation as your selves confesse in your own interpretation of that clause viz. of such is the kingdome of heaven but no where at all of their baptism it shews that they may be saved without believing but shews not that they may be baptized without it besides to hold any of them to be damned before they have by actual sin debard themselves of salvation is abominable cruelty and breach of Christian charity with you who yet confesse that all of them have not faith p. 19. but to hold they need not to be baptized cannot bear the like construction sith t is acknowledged by them that deny their bapâ—ism and by them also who absurdly assert to the contradiction of themselves that the denyal of baptism to them denies all hope of their salvation that they may be saved nevertheless though they die unbaptized so that whether we who hold that to them all belongs the kindome of heaven though they neither believe nor are baptized before they die or you that hold no salvation to them without faith and yet hold that all of them have not nay that very few of them for how few are believers infants to others have faith whether we or you I say do justly deserve the censure of damning all or at least innumerable infants dying contrary to that evident testimony of Scripture and sentence of our Saviour that to them belongeth the kingdome of heaven and contrary also to the rule of Christian charity set us by your selves which is to presume well of every infant that he is in a good estate till he appear to be in a bad and by actual sin to bar himself and deserve exemption from the general state of little children declared in Scripture which is this that they have right to the kingdome let the most simple but honest Reader judge between us As for the two texts you say are brought in proof of justification of infants without faith viz. Rom. 5.18 Rom. 11.7 who urges the last of them I know not for my part I take it to be of no tendency at all either to your purpose or
purses in the name of a prophet she hid it in three measures of flour in all which places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Englished in or by Resp. As if because this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath other significations besides into but specially the signification in in other places where very common sense and reason shew that it cannot there bear be Englished into but only in therefore it cannot by any meanes bear to be Englished into in this place where it s as good sense save that it shewes sprinkling to be nonsense yea and more suitable to a genuine and candid construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and undoubtedly to the spirits meaning in the place to English it into then to English it in for though he was rantized Anglice sprinkled into Iordan be ridiculous yet he was baptized Anglice dipped into Iordan is as proper to the full as he was baptized in Jordan yet they blush not to say for so saies Mr. Cook and there lies the very force of his reason viz. that because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in though he knowes iâ— signifies into also therefore it were absurd to render it into here at all Mr. Blake also makes this his sole ground whereupon to say that the Scripture is against our Englishing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here by into because elsewhere viz. in the places they alledge where the sense will not bear it to be read into its rendred all along in or by I cannot but believe that those two gentlemen are Judicious enough to discern their own halting and meer shuffling in this case for if I should argue upon them as to but one of those places where they will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Englished in on this wise viz the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very frequently and most properly signifies into as namely Luke 5.3 he entered into one of the ships Rom. 11.24 thou art grafted into a good olive tree Ephes. 4.9 He descended into the lower parts of the Earth Mat. 6.6 Enter into thy Closet Mat. 6.13 lead us not into temptation Acts 8.38 they went down both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch therefore it is absurd for you to render it in in Mat. 4.13 and the Scripture is against that interpretation if I say I should urge so upon them and so they argue to us ward they would quickly spye out my nakednesse in that consequence but O how abominable blind are they at home Neverthelesse I tell you plainly that though right is right and to be stood for to a tittle and that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 1.9 were rightly rendred it should be rather into then in yet the service the word in will do us in that place is little lesse then what the word into will do so that we need not stand contending for the sense of into having enough from your own professed sence of in without the other wherefore waving out right in that at present we wâ—ll freely fall in with you as the sense is in yea we grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and that in many more places then those alledged by your selves as namely to add to your store Act. 2.27 thou wilt not leave my soul in hell Luke 11.7 my children are in bed with me But is it so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and is so rendred in that place and many more then I am sure that here it doth not signify out of for he that is in a City put a Nazareth or Capernaum is at that time when said to be in it not out of it nor only by it but in it money that is truly denominated to be in a purse is at that time truly in it and neither out of it nor beside it leaven hid in three pecks of Meal whilest hid is in it overwhelmed covered with it and not on the outside with a few dusts of meal sprinkled on it only He that is in hell i. e. the grave in bed while he is truly said to be in it he is in it and not at it only and so he that is truly denominated to be baptized in water or in Iordan in the River Jordan is not out of it not at it not by the side of it not neer it only as you fancy them to have bin that were baptized of John in Jordan He I say who is said truly and the spirit lies not to be baptized in Jordan must needs be whilest he was in the Act of this baptizing not out of Jordan nor just by it only but truely in it and that 's more then he needs to be in order to baptism if he can be baptized as well standing by it only in that fiddling way of sprinkling Whereas therefore you contend against baptizing i. e. dipping into Jordan into Rivers and plead for a baptizing in water onely by the Example of Christs baptism which you yield in Jordan but not into it I marvel what wide difference you see in these two that you should grant it to be in and yet be affraid to grant it to be into Jordan you cry out not into not into by any meanes for that is no way consistent indeed with your dry washing but by all meanes let it be in only viz. in water in the River in Jordan let it be in water then as much as you will for me so it be in water that you are baptized and not out of it and not well nigh without it as most of yâ—ur christened Creatures are whilest little or none in comparison of such a measure of water as must necessarily be in order to a true baptizing of them doth once come neer them Fourthly it appears plainly that the way of baptizing in the primitive times was by totall dipping not sprinkling in that they chose to do it in places where there was much water or many waters which they need not have done if sprinkling might then have past for baptizing Iohn baptized in the River Iordan and was baptizing Iohn 3.23 in Enon neer to Salem and the reason is rendred thus viz. because there was much water there and there they came and were baptized and as the reason why they went to be baptized there was because there was much water or many waters for the word is Plurall so surely the reason why they went to such a place was that they might be baptized i. e. dipped in water as they could not conveniently be elsewhere at least not every were for where might they not easily have bin sprinkled and upon this account no doubt as Iohn chose to preach about those River sides viz. Iordan and Enon that their converts might conveniently be baptized Paul and Silas being at Philippi and abiding in that City certain daies to preach the Gospel on the Sabbath the most likely time of vacuity from other occasions for people to assemble to hear in went
upon you above that are held out by any of you out of the armory of Scripture in defence of infant baptism and those are Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 10.1.2 both which not onely knock sprinkling oth'head but may also very easily be sheathed in the bowels of baby-baptism As for the first it speaks as well nigh all scripture doth not much medling with infants not onely to buâ— of adult disciples only of whom as well as to whom and not of infants in way of satisfaction to them and answer to those that would have brought in the old circumcision made with hands among them Paul saies ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands which circumcision without hands there spoken of is not baptism neither as some dream who thence also draw in circumcision and baptism to be of so neer kin that as they have both one name so they must both have one subject also for baptism is no more done withoutehands then the other but the sanctification or inward circumcision of the heart cutting off the foreskin i. e. the filth of the heart which things infants do not in token of which he tells them they are not sprinkled but buried i. e. overwhelmed in water with Christ in the outward baptism wherin also they are risen with him through faith c. All which things he that imagins they more include then exclude the sucking infants of such to whom he speaks is no man in discretion with me As for the other place its most evident the Apostle speaks not of baptism litterally but Metaphoically onely there they were baptized unto Moses i. e. by the visible tokens of Gods presence amongst them viz. the cloud and Sea assisting and siding with them and overthrowing their adversaries they were confirmed in the belief of God and his servant Moses as we by baptism are in the faith of Gods goodnesse to us and of his Son Jesus Christ in further confirmation of which meer figurative sence of the word baptized you may do well to consider that though they were said to be baptized in the cloud and in the sea which phrases however sound forth such a total immersion as is not in two or three drops of water fingered on the face yet they were not so much as wetted with either the cloud or the sea for its said Exod. 14.21.22 the sea was made dry land under them and they went through it dry shod or on dry ground which they could not be well said to do had it so much as rained upon them such a figurative sence of the word baptize there Mr. Baxter himself denies not p. 90. yet Dr. Channel urged that place in a publique dispute at Petworth Ian. 1651. as one of his arguments for infant baptism besides Secondly if you will needs have it properly taken that they were baptized really and not quasi baptized as Mr. Baxter yields they were and if you will needs make that baptism such an emblem of ours that ours must have an adequate subject to that which say you was infants as well as parents then t will put you to your trumps to excuse your selves handsomly in your now denying to infants the same spiritual meat and drink in the supper which they then eat and drank of in a figure also viz. the Manna and the Rock which both were no other Antitypically then the bread and wine are mistically in the supper i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ. For all your vain boasting therefore of what innumerable arguments you have from Scriptures I say the Scriptures are sure enough on our side nevertheless taking the word in a sutable sense you do well to call your Scripture armes or arguments innumerable for indeed they are not to be numbred for even unit as much more nonit as non est numerus being no more than just none at all Secondly whereas you boast of the innumerable Arguments which may be brought for your infant rantism from reason the full force of reason is utterly against you and so wholly assistant to our cause that the unreasonablest man amongst you will once see it when sound reason comes to reign and sway the scepter indeed Yea not to stand reasoning on it now how reasonless a thing it is to ask a company of men and women as the priests were wont to do at the font thus viz. do you believe in God the Father and Christ c. and will you be baptized in this faith and when they answered yes that is all our desire then instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized to take a small sucking babe out of their armes and dat him with a drop or two on the face and send away all the other unbaptized Babist The sureties or parents in so saying do but represent the child that could not speak for it self and expresse his good resolutions to forsake the divel c. and his desires to be baptized Baptist How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signifie things to sucklings while they understand them not and that too by such a vanishing visible sign that when they can understand they neither see nor never shall and such like Trumpioall transactions to which there are as few grains of reason concurring as there are inches in an Apes tail even your selves however it happens that you so contradict your selves yet that is no news with you as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism are even in this very cause found falling out with and fighting down right against reason hand smooth but some four or five pages below this why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections which by your own confession p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism but I le spare you till I come thither 3ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof which you complain and grumble much p. 1.11.12 that t was set aside and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation is so utterly against your infant baptism that even this alone were it of any esteem with you had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it and laid the itch and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty is most manifest if by the Church of God and the Fathers therof you mean what I do viz. the Church of God in the primitive which were the best and purest times of the Gospel whose practise in this particular is set out in the word but specially in the Acts of the Apostles the fathers of which Church and of the Church