be declined that as he who preaches it though an Angell from heaven is to be hâ—ld accursed so he that doth thereafter shall have no thank for his labor for in vain do they worship him that either teach or take for doctrines the traditions of men Secondly and further to prove it least Mr. Marshal and the Dr. should not grant Vossius that Tertullians denial is of the baptism of all infants even of believers as well as infidels I argue that more plainly First from the universallity of the expression of himself in his disswasion which extends to all manner of persons without exception for it may be thought he was somewhat soiled with that superstition which was rife in after ages viz. that baptism was best dispensed towards the end of a mans life that he might have a sign of the forgivnesse of all his sinnes at once whereupon Tertullian would not have unmarried persons baptized until temptation was over so far was as he from desiring such early dispensation of baptism as that to infants I say his perswasion to delay it extends to all manner of persons and therefore to the infants of believers as well as to other little ones Secondly his indefinit and indifferent expression of these little ones concerning which he speaks for saith he specially about little ones promiscuously including all excepting none as it had bin necessary for him to do if he would be understood to speak but of some and not of others for if Mr. Marshall should preach or write his opinion against the baptism of unbelievers children onely retaining to himself his present earnestnesse for the baptism of other little ones and deliver himself downrightly and indifinitely thus onely in way of dissawsion viz. I would not by any means have little one baptized I find no ground baptizare parvulos to baptize infants c. so running on and never distinguishing so as to say in that sermon or speech I mean onely infants of infidels I should not take him for so judicious a man as I yet hold him to be saving his holding so stiffly still for infant baptism Thirdly by the reason he gives why he would not have little ones baptized viz. least their sureties should be in hazzard of non-performance of their words by reason of their own death or their God childrens untowardnesse which danger may come as well by baptism of believers infants as of others As whose Sponsors whether fathers or mothers or God fathers and God-mothers may die before they grow up or if they live be frustrated of their ends by the wickednesse of these children or god-children also Fourthly in that he speaks of such children of whom the Lord said forbid them not to come unto me which in the Priesthoods own sense at least are believers children yea and them onely by which clause according to you he may seem to speak of them onely rather then of infidels childrens onely whom you your selves forbid to be brought to Christ at all Fiftly in that he saies let them become Christians when they know Christ belike then if your sense be true some Infants may be warrantably enough made Christians before they know Christ but some infants again may not at any hand be made Christians till they know Christ which if it were Tertullians meaning as t is yours he might mean honestly in it as you do but t is too mean an opinion to keep touch with the word which never knew any way but one wherein disciples and Christians were made i. e. of profest faith repentance and baptism after they knew Christ by the preaching of the Gospel Sixtly in that he saies we should be more wary then to commit Divine substance to them to whom earthly substance is not committed now we know that earthly substance can be no more wisely committed to infants of believers in their non age then to infants of infidels Seventhly by one end why he would have them be capable to beg salvation first viz. that God may seem to give it to them that ask it which end is destroyed if baptism be dispensed to believers infants in infancy for they can no more ask it then the infants of uâ—believers Eightly because he saies it behoves them indifinitely meaning all them that enter into baptism to pray and confesse sin c. which conditions are as exclusive of all infants as of some those of believers being no more capable to do that then infants of infidels are Ninethly what ever children he disswaded from the baptizing of here and so saith Mr. Marshall and Mr. Blake its most evident de facto that they were wont to be baptized then or else there had been no object of his diswasion therefore if his advice to delay to them were concerning infants of infidels then its evident that in Tertullians time t was the custome to baptize infidels infants as well as Christians and so if antiquity of infant baptism were an argument of its goodnes it s as good an argument of the goodness of baptizing infidels infants also which with you is well-nigh as bad as the other is good Babist True de facto we have evidence that the baptism of infidels infants then was but that fathers disswading from it is an argument that t was nought and though crept in yet a thing that was not so from the beginning Baptist. Then I hope if ever you come to be perswaded and it is a wonder that none of the reasons above be cogent that t was indeed from baptizing of any children at all that Tertullian diswaded we have an argument of your own for it that the baptism of any mens infants is naught also and a thing that was not so from the beginning and so if Mr. Marshall himself be not by this time sick of Tertullian I assure both him and on all that I am and of all the Fathers also with whom in this controversie I would not have meddled but that your Pamphlet flutters so so with naming the Fathers and takes iâ—â—ll that testimonies from the Fathers were not taken on the day of the Ashford disputation I say again I am sick of them not so much with fear at the sight of any thing in any of them that makes against us for I find nothing that hath the strength of a straw against our way throughout them all even these few Iunior inferior ones themselves that are most against us for the Seniors are more fully on our sides and some of the Iunior ones also as Basil and Chrisostome both in the fourth Century whose words as Mr Blakwood cites them p. 28 29. of his storm are thus viz. First he ought to believe and after to be sealed with baptism and if any one have not corrected the transgression of his manners and hath not made vertue easie to himself let him not be baptized Which words are exclusive of infants t is not therefore any disadvantage that comes by them to our cause which I am sick
not by being the fleshly posterity of a believer though it should be of believing Abraham himself for even his own fleshly were not his spiritual seed but onely as they believed with him but by bringing forth fruits of repentance doing his works treading in the steps of his faith you belike have found more wayes to the wood then one whereof when ones failes you in the fight you commonly take your flight by the other and with you there 's two wayes whereby persons nay which is a greater mystery whereby the same persons even believers infants in their very infancy may and do become Abrahams spiritual sons and heirs viz. first by their own walking in the steps of Abrahams faith i. e. believing themselves which though it be the true way of becoming Abrahams spirituall seed yet infants are not capable to walk in it Secondly by being the natural progeny of believing parents which though infants are capable of it yet is none of the way whereby to be canonized according to the sense of Scripture the Spirituall seed of Abraham But it seems the terms upon which persons become heirs with Abraham of Gospel-promises and stand in true title to Gospel-ordinances are not uniform but multiform in your imagination for those on which persons in the capacity of parents are priviledged with the title of Abrahams spiritual seed and title to Gospel-ordinances and enjoyments are their own believings not anothers but those on which others i. e. all that are in the capacity of children to those parents are thus highly priviledged are the believing of their parents whether they have any faith of their own yea or no and yet some count that the childs own faith which the parent professes for him But Genus et pro avos et quae non fecimus ipsi vix ea nostra voco Sirs what pretty intricate blind bo-beep Divinity is this of yours do the same priviledges and promises belong to the believing parents and their children and yet though exhibited to them both alike in one and the self same phrase and form of speech for saith Peter the promise is to you and your children and to them that are farre off yea even as many meaning of you and your children and of them that are far off as the Lord shall call do they belong upon such various and different grounds viz. to the parents upon their own faith to the children upon the parents faith my father then it seems what ere his fathers were must prove his pedegree from Abraham by his doing as Abraham did or else he can be no gospel-son nor share at all in any gospel-priviledges and immunities but if he were a believer I his son may prove mine at easier rates by farr viz. by going no further then the faith and faederation of my father But Sirs will this hold a triall think you by the word is there any such manglements as these to be found there is it to be found there that now under the gospel-Covenant since that outing of the old Covenant and that fleshly seed that were heirs of it and all the tipical pertinencies thereof the faith and faederation of fathers inrights and enrouls all their fleshly seed as Heirs with them of salvation without any evidence of their believing themselves then tell me why the fleshly seed of those great believers Abraham Isaac and Iacob stand excommunicated from all Gospel-priviledges participations of ordinances promises c. even from the beginnings of the Gospel Church and first administring of baptism to this very day will you plead your own right above theirs to stand his children in the Gospel-Church by saying we had holy men and believers to our fathers but their fathers believed not the Gospel therefore worthily are they cut off with them I reply thus were not Abraham Isaac and Iacob their fleshly fathers and though remote ones yet were they not their true fathers after the flesh still as much as ever did Iohn Mat. 3. and Christ Iohn 8. and Peter Acts 2. deny them a standing in the Gospel house and admission unto baptism and membership without repentance and belief in their own persons and doing the works of Abraham did they I say put such off from all Gospel-expectations and priviledges who offered themselves thereto with this plea viz. we have Abraham to our father and dare you admit such without faith or repentance for whom you can make no higher pretence then this viz. they are the children of believers me thinks if meer birth-priviledges and fleshly descent must carry it still without faith in the seed themselves are not the Iews infants to this day higher born then any Gentiles infants in the world whose parents are believers for they verily can say no less then this we are the natural issue of the father of all the faithfull yet may they not be own'd barely upon that account to gospel-ordinances and if the natural seed and that by Isaac and Iacob of Abraham himself the grand believer which seed could of old claim a room by right of birth from Abraham in the house of Moses cannot possibly carry it so high under Christ as by the same descent onely without faith in themselves to gain a standing in his house or so much as right to be stiled their own natural fathers children as to the Gospel I am amazed to see you Gentile believers to conferre upon your meer natural seed the name of Abrahams spiritual seed and denominate your semen carnis his semen fidei 〈◊〉 The Iews though the natural seed of Abraham yet cannot have the account of the spiritual seed nor any right to Gospel priviledges because they believe not themselves which if they did they should have right to the Gospel as well as we who believe but sith they abide in unbelief they are cut off from all share in these things Baptist. Then learn once I beseech you this lessen from your selves which you will not learn from Iohn Christ and Paul viz. that the ground of standing Abrahams spiritual seed sons and heirs and Church-members under the Gospel is not the the faith and faederation of the parents by vertue of which you plead your childrens right to baptism saying they have believers as the Jews once to Iohn pleaded theirs saying we have Abraham to our father but faith it self in the particular persons so standing for so many Jews heathens infidels children as are of the faith of Abraham i. e. not born of faithful parents but faithful themseves as he was are incorporated incovenanted inchurched as Abrahams seed and Evangelically blessed with faithful Abraham but till even believers children yea Abrahams own believe themselves the parents faith cannot now possibly ingraft them the time of faith or standing by faith alone in the house or visible Church of God being now come in the standing by any fleshly generation what soever is done away yea Abrahams own children the naturall branches that grow out of his loynes are
were then called sinners of the Gentiles yea if that distinction of Iews by nature and sinners of the Gentiles spoken of Gal. 2.15 were now in being remaining unabolished it would be so farre from establishing that indeed it would utterly overthrow what Mr. Blake pleads for from it and instead of advancing the naturall seed of believing Gentiles so high in holinesse as he would have them to be by birth debase them rather into a worse condition then I dare say any unbelieving Gentiles seed is in by birth as to such a kind of uncleanness as they once were denominated by in all the world specially if it be so as he himself saies p. 10. of his birth priviledge viz. That the seed of believing Gentiles are now under one of those two heads in the text For if that distinction be not now destroyed and all men by birth come under one of those two denominations now under which of them I trow will Mr. Blake rank the infants of believing Gentiles he will not render himself so ridiculous sure as to say they are Iewes by nature and therefore unless the distinction be totally taken away he must say they are by nature sinners of the Gentiles which in the sense of the Law is as if he should say Doggs unholy common and unclean and more then we our selves dare say of any now new-born infants under heaven as in contra-distinction to other If he say they are neither sinners of the Gentiles nor Iews by nature neither then either he must say they are some third thing which if he do Mr. Blake himself will contradict Mr. Blake in that for he asserts pag. 10. of his Birth priviledge that the seed of believing parents under the Gospel must be lookt upon under one member of this division in this text and that the Apostles distinction and distribution is so full and compleat that a third cannot be assigned or else he must grant that this distinction is now wholly ceased under the Gospel which because t is the giving up of his whole cause he will be very loath to do and therefore rather than do so then which yet if he well understood what is best for him he could not do a better thing of the two he choses to the utter contradiction of himself to rank them under a third head to assert them to be some third thing namely a sort of carnal holy seed of his own and the Clergies coining a Relative holy seed of their own consecrating a faederall holy seed of their own feigning a holy seed hatcht in their own heads which are neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring nor sinners of the Gentiles nor Iews by nature nor Iews besides nature neither i. e. by personal faith as all true Christians are but quartum quoddam a certain fourth thing called Christians from their mothers womb or ever they are so much as christen'd into the name or discipled into the nature and yet for all this a seed set forth in such a transcendent manner as if all other were in comparison of them by very descent p. 13. unclean sinners unholy dogs and filthy swine 'T were enough to make a wise man wonder to see how superlatively Mr. Blake magnifies this seed of believing Gentiles above the seed of all other men in the world even above the fleshly seed of Abraham Isaac and Iacob themselves who only at least mainly had the promise of this priviledge of transmitting a Covenant holiness to their issue and this but typically and for a time neither even till that seed should come i. e. Christ and believers in him to whom all and only the Gospel promises were made He calls them Children of God and Saints by very nature Little ones of Sion in reference to infants of Infidells which with him are little ones of Babylon and yet to go round again this Babilon in his own opinion is not the Infidells but Rome a Church of Christians in name at least as well as the Protestant nations and consequently to go round again in his own opinion such see pag. 26. as transmit a covenant-holiness into their seed so far as in his own sense to make them little ones of Sion as well as the other and yet for all this too to go round again though it be execration with him to hurt the little ones of Sion i. e. in his sense the infants of such as are not infidels but Christians in name yet to go round again it is an happy thing to dash the little ones of Babylon i. e. in his sense infants of Papists who yet are Christians nomine tenus and not infidels and consequently secundum se the Lords heritage and such as have Christs name upon them and such as for a Turk to persecute were to be guilty with Saul of persecuting the Lord Jesus p. 30. against the walls p. 29. which little ones of both Syon and Babylon he is yet much mistaken in when all is done in taking either of them for fleshly babes of what parents soever Syons little ones in the true spiritual or gospel sense being the Saints themselves onely and not their fleshly babes as such even the little ones Christ Paul Peter and Iohn speak of Mat. 10.42 Gal. 4.19 1 Pet. 2.2 1 Iohn 2.1.12 13. And Babylons babes being no other then the C C Clergies adult disciples or A A Antichristian C C Christian creatures And to take notice a little more yet of Mr. Blakes high expressions of the birth holinesse birth happinesse birth mercy birth dignity of meer nominal Christians fleshly seed as they lie scattered up and down in p. 28.30.31.32.33 and other pages of his book he calls them a seed in relation to God as well as their parents and so indeed they may soon be if he mean of such meer outside Christians as he doth the inheritance of God the Saints and Servants of God a holy seed having a royall transcendency above all others as onely worthy the name of a people injoying the light nigh unto God a people of hope and expectation children that have blisse as if they were actually and inalterably already stated in it and possest of it and all other infants and people as inalterably designd and devoted universally to cursing and damnation as having no Gospel at all belonging to them no not that Gospel which is to be preached to every creature a seed by birth priviledge to be baptized p. 27. which yet is more birth-priviledged then Abrahams own seed could have Mat. 3. even before their birth priviledge did perish from them such as have a large and full right to all the ordinances of God and priviledges of the Church appertaining to members as they shall be capable of their use by personall faith and good demeanor when at years and grown up and I wonder who hath not the like upon those terms even infants of infidels surely as well as they when at age and whilst infants they
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the nations t is not the nations in gross as Dr. Holmes also tells you p. 7. for then all must be baptized saith he and truly too if the word Nations universally taken doth there note the subjects of baptism but t is the Nations with restriction the nations discipled i. e. so many in all Nations as are first made disciples by teaching and not more that there are commanded to be baptized and this Mr. Cotton and Mr. Baxter and Dr. Featley and Dr. Holmes and wellnigh all your champions are well aware cannot be denyed and therefore rather then assert such a thing viz. that any more are here bid to be baptized then such as are first bid to be discipled they chuse to take so hard a province upon them as to proceed to the promotion of their cause by way of proof that infants are disciples Babist In Christs precept teaching doth not go before but follow baptizing Mat. 28.20 teaching them to observe all things c. Baptist. So Dr. Featley fiddles this ore indeed p. 39. for these are his very words to which I reply who denies that in Christs precept preaching follows baptizing but what of that doth it follow and is that the Drs. meaning trow that therfore it doth not go before it me thinks the man should not be so senslesse nor do I think he was so senslesse as to think so but the ground he stumbles at is the new found meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which I shall be occasioned to say more anon onely here it shall suffice to say thus much viz. as t is clear there 's a teaching to follow baptizing in Christs precept so t is as clear that there 's a teaching to go before of all persons to whomsoever baptism is dispensed a teaching a priori and a teaching a posteriori the first in order to discipleship and baptism the other after baptism in order to perfection baptism is by precept to be immediately after the first and the other is to be by precept so immediately after baptism that infants being uncapable of both the one and of the other viz. of being taught just before baptism and presently after baptism are thereby universally excepted from it yea these two teachings neither of which is to be used to infants are to come by precept so neer together that there 's no room for infants baptism to come in between them Babist They are not so much excepted by the words TEACH v. 19. and TEACHING ver 20. but they are as much concluded to be the subject of baptism under the word All nations because they are a great part if not the half of all nations as Dr. Featley and serve to make up a nation as well as their parents as Mr. Blake and in every nation make a great part of that nation as well as their parents as Mr. Marshal urgeth Baptist. As if the precept for baptizing did extend it self to all persons in every nation without any limitation or restriction or any praevious preparation to it save onely barely being of the nations Nec mediante doctrinà nec disciplinâ but is it so Sirs then let me ask you are not the infants of Turks Pagans Tartars Indians Jews unbelievers a part yea a far greater part and do they not serve much more to make up the number in nations then the Infants of believers why then if that be the ground you will needs go upon must not these be baptized as well as the other yea surely if this be a good argument to prove any ones right to baptism from this place because he is of the nations then stark natural fools as well as infants yea very profest profane ones open enemies against the name of Christ as Turks and Pagans being a great part of all Nations have as good right to baptism as any of those you rantize or we our selves baptize either for shame therefore forgo such rude kind of ratiocination This therefore that all Nations are bid to be baptized cannot make Mat. 28. 19. to be a precept for baptizing infants though they be of the Nations unlesse they were capable to be taught which because they are not that place commanding no more to be baptized then the same whom it commands also to be taught and that not onely before but immediatly after baptism is a plain prohibition of infant-baptism A second way wherein t is argued by you that there 's command in Mat. 28.19 for the baptizing of infants is from their being disciples which weak twig seeing your selves as it were sinking in your cause you all catch at yea I meet with none of you almost but in one place or other of your writings I find your fortifying your selves in that foolish practise by this childish consideration thus doth Dr. Featly Dr. Holmes Mr. Marshal Mr. Bayly Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter Mr. Cook Mr. Cotton among all which Mr. Cotton being the most formal and Syllogistical in his argument from this place beginning his book with it as Mr. Baxter also doth with whom I may chance to deal more then I will do in this place before I have done I le begin with him and in him and after him speak to you all sooner or later as occasion is about this particular Thus then he reasons from thence Such as be disciples they are to be baptized But the children of the faithful are disciples Ergo the children of the faithfull are to be baptized The former proposition is clearly exprest in the text saith he make disciples and baptize them therefore all disciples are to be baptized but had he concluded according to mood and figure or the tenor of this text or had he not been both blinded and minded to go besides the sense of the spirit in this place he would have said therefore all that are first made disciples by instruction are to be baptized and then he had mard all his proceedings concerning infants As for the second proposition which is the assertion of you all viz. That infants are disciples Mr. Cotton toward the proof of it so miserably misapplies 2. pieces of Isaiah that he rather proves himself thereby to be yet but an infant in discipleship and Gospel understanding then proves infants to be disciples from thence The first place is Isa. 54.13 whereby it s said by way of promise to the Church of the New Ierusaâ—em when once it shall be established a praise in all the Earth as it is not yet nor ever shall be till Christs second appearing when God shall wipe away all tears from her eies and secure her for ever from all future sufferings and oppressions That all her children shall be taught of God and great shall be the peace of her children from this place which is meant of all the Saints and that immediate teaching which they shall once have he argues thus to all the naturall infants of believing parents in the
come by faith and not of the way wherein infants have it and t is confest that faith in adultis in them that are capable to hear and understand is begotten by this means of hearing but not so in infants who cannot hear the spirit is not tyed to work by means in little infants to the bringing of them to the faith as he doth in men but without the outward hearing of the word he works saith in little children Baptist. This same that you now say fits us very well to you ward again when you say justification comes by faith for we grant that adultis to them that are capable to act faith justification comes by faith nor shall they by any means obtain it who are capable to believe and yet believe not but not so to infants who cannot believe the spirit is not tied to work by means in little infants to the justification or bringing of them to salvation as he doth in men but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without obedience in baptism or faith either he saves them in nonage and farther that they cannot believe which is properly as I shewed before not onely to have but act faith in Christ your selves tell us saying they have not the use the second act the exercise the fruit of it and so do not believe and so must according to your sense of Scripture if the word speak of them be cast into the lake of fire Rev. 21.8 but further grant they could have faith in both the habit and act of it also yet can they not obey Christ in other things which are required necessarily to salvation in the word of the Gospel at least concomitanter et consecutivè as well as faith it self they cannot hear Christs voice in all things they cannot confess Christ before men nor to be come in the flesh they have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts of it they cannot deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Christ nor hate father and mother and life for him nor keep his commandments nor abide in his Doctrine and many such like things all which the Gospel saies as universally whosoever doth not as well as whosoever believes not cannot be his disciple Mat. 18. Luke 14. Is not Christs Gal. 5.24 hath not God 2 Iohn 9. is a lyar and shall not enter into the holy City 1 Iohn 2.4 Rev. 21.27.22.14.15 is a deceiver and an Antichrist 2 Iohn 7. shall be denyed by Christ yea punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Christ for non obedience to the Gospel 2 Thes. 1.6 so that if the Scriptures speaking of the waies and means of salvation be to be understood as the terms and conditions on which dying infants shall be saved as well as men and without which they must be damned then all dying infants must perish contrary to your sense of Mat. 18.14 who take the little ones there for infants for it s said there it is the will of my Father that not one of these little ones should perish put the case therefore that infants could believe yet their case would be little the better as to salvation so long as still they must be short of shewing their faith by other good works without which faith is not saving nor worth a straw for what would it profit if infants could go so far as to say they have faith and yet have not works can faith save them Iam. 2. 14.26 no its dead and helpless for as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also Therefore the body of Scripture is to be understood as spoken concerning men and women and the means and way of their salvation and not of infants Babist Yea when the word speaks of works of holiness self denyal suffering mercy c. as the way to life which infants cannot do it excepts them from the doing thereof as no capable subject and not from the salvation nevertheless nor yet doth at except infants when it speaks of faith Baptist. Is not faith a work as well as repentance and the rest yea the main and principal work of the Law of Christ i. e. the Gospel Iohn 6.28.29 Secondly is it not as difficult a work for infants to believe in Christ as to obey Christs voice in other things and are they not still as uncapable a subject to do that as to do any more things that are required why then not exempted from that for the sake of their incapacity as well as from other things Thirdly if the spirit doth go extraordinary waies to work at all about the salvation of infants as you must confess he must and brings them to it without and besides the ordinary means he brings men by why will you tie and limit him him more to the ordinary way and meanes of faith then of obedience in other matters as repentance self denyal c as to their salvation seeing he must go out of the road and tract in the saving of them wherein he saves men may be not as well save infants without faith without which he will save no man as without self deniall and suffering and confessing of Christ c. without which he will save no man Fourthly specially since infants are not mentioned as meant a jot more in the places that speak of salvation by faith then in the places that speak of salvation by obedience in all things for as it is said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and be that believeth not shall be damned infants no where expressed or meant there so t is said as universally he is the Author of all them that obey him and he shall take vengeance on all them that obey him not and cut them off that hearken not to his voice infants no way expresly excepted as not meant there The Scriptures therefore are still to be understood de subjecto capaci when they promise or threaten things on conditions and terms of faith unbelief and other good and evill works as confessing and denying Christ and exclusively of infants where infants cannot possibly perform them for as when it s said he that works not let him not eat infants are no where excepted yet are not by the spirits appointment to starve though they work not neither are they meant there because they cannot work and as under law when it was said Cursed is he that continues not in every thing written therein and do this and live the way wherin men were to live or dy was set forth by those words and not the way wherein infants should be cursed or blessed accordingly as they were or were not found therein in infancy so Analogically when it 's said under the Gospel the just must live by faith and he that believes not shall be damned and Christ in flaming â—ire shall render vengeance to him that obeys not the Lord c. it is to be understood as spoken of the waies wherein men
in the place cited by Dr. Featley himself in the very forehead of his book in the next page of all before the fiâ—st t is evident that Greg. Nazianzen was for infants baptism but in case of danger onely i. e. if they were likely to die in infancy otherwise saith he for so Mr. Den cites Gregories words more fully in the place which the Doctor docks and custs off in the midst p. 49. of his answer to Dr. Featley otherwise let them stay still they be capable to hear and to answer and no more to your purpose speaks Pope Gregory the great whose words are cited out of Mr. Fox by Mr. Cornwell and out of Mr. Cornwell by Dr. Featley p. 63.64 in way of resolution to Austin the monk are no other then the same viz. that in case of necessity infants might be baptized as soon as they were born yet were their testimonies any more for thee then they are against thee they could make nothing for thee as to evince the equity of thy cause As for our way of baptism if it were our way onely we trust we should be against it our selves but sith it is the onely way of that word by which all works must be tried and all persons judged whose authority alone being absolutely divine if it were of any esteem with the adversaries thereof were enough to silence their disputes against it it will stand though never so many Councels and things which thou callest Churches and a 1000 Gregories were against it By this time you may see O ye Ashford Synodians how little ground you would have gotten by it if the Authorities of the Church of God from the beginning and the fathers of both that and after ages had been used by you to the advantage of your disputation when as not onely the primitive fathers of all i. e. the Apostles and the Church in their daies whose authorities you rebell against are wholly against you but also the prime of those postern fathers and the Church in their daies whose authoritie you so stand upon are nothing fot you But if by fathers and Chutch you should chance to mean either the universall CCClergy and their CCChristendom or the Christned Emperors Kings and civil governours that have thrown down their crowns to the Clergy and according to the CCClergies cruel sense and wicked will have been hitherto nursing fathers to the Christen Nations which they have reigned over both of which the Clergy hath reigned ore and nursed alias nusled in ignorance to this day Rev. 17. then indeed as Caiaphas did in an another case you speak truer then you are aware of for their authority alone I mean so far forth as it hath acted it self in a way of meer might besides rightâ— if it were of any esteem with such as chuse to obey God rather then man were enough to silence all disputes against infant-baptism indeed at least to lay the itch and quench the heat of them when not onely the Popes paternal precepts and decretals in the latin Church witnesse that of Innocentius the third who Decret Greg. l. 3. as cited by Mr. Cornwel enacted that the baptism of infants should succeed circumcision but also the imperial lawes and constitutions as well as Synodicall cannons required infant baptism in the Greek Church and that so strictly too as Mr. Marshall himself alledges out of Photius p. 33.34 to Mr. Tombes that whatsoever baptized persons would not bring their children and wiues too that 's more whereby you may note the goodnesse of those rimes and Churches when a baptizd husband was forct to bring his wife as well as his seed to baptism should be punished and who ever denied baptism to a new born infant should be Anathematized or cursed with a most bitter curse when also as Dr. Featley boasts out of Gastius p. 68. of his book At Zurick after many disputations between Zwinglius and the gainsayers of infant baptism the Senate made an act that if any presumed to rebaptize alià s baptized such as were falsely supposed to be baptized before should be drowned and at Vienna many meerly for baptizing such were so tied together in chaines that one drew the other after him into the river wherein they were all suffocated and at Ropolstein the Lords of that place decreed that such should be burnt with an hot Iron and bear the base brands of those Lords in whose lands they had sinned and p. 182. out of Pontan Catolog Through Germany Alsatia and Swedland many 1000 s 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 own 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 cruelâ—y 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 Vrsin 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
as things can be for omnia corpora sunt substantia yea all things are one for omnia sunt entia but in special so that the one is in specie the same with the other but this cannot be said of dipping and sprinkling for though they are both wettings with water yet are they not both baptizings for baptizing is not the genus in respect to them i. e. the generall of which dipping and sprinkling are the special dividing members but baptizing it self or dipping for these two are adequate each to other is the member opposite to sprinkling and and specifically different from it under the general word wetting with water so that still these are not the same so as that sprinkling can possibly be called baptizing Secondly if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie to wash any other way then by dipping yet that 's not the direct immediate primary signification of it for that is to dip or plung as you see in the Lexicon but at the best it is but indirectly collaterally by the by improperly and remotely that it so signifies and I ask whether when we try any matter by the signification of the word as t is in the original we shall go to the direct original prime and proper or to the the occasional remote indirect and improper signification to be tried by your practise it seems is built onely upon the indirect improper remote acceptations of the word and therefore is at best onely an uncouth indirect improper and farre fetcht practise Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies washing but it is a real total washing onely such a washing as is by dipping plunging and swilling the subject in water and that signification is yet many miles off from sprinkling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Lavo abluo i. e. to rinse to wash away to clense which things are done onely or at least most effectually immergendo by putting things in water and swilling them therein So that still such a washing as baptism is sprinkling is not and so you are never the nearer for all this Yea Fourthly neither do baptizing and sprinkling meet one another so much as in that third word washing so that they may be both properly predicated by it though in that more general word wetting they do for howbeit baptism is truly called a washing Heb. 10.22 and your bodies washed in pure water yet ne in aliquo sensu can sprinkling be truely so called unlese it be in insano sensu alias non-sensaliter for in sano sensu it cannot yea I appeal to all men to recollect to their remembrance whether they ever saw any thing truly washt in the way of sprinkling especially whether ever they saw any one wash things so well as they must do who are said Lauare abluere to rinse to clense which are the senses in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash in such a sleight way of wetting them as is made by such a sprinkling onely as you use Rantist The Pharises Mat. 7.4 held the washing of hands cups pots brazen vessels beds and tables and their washings are called baptisms and 〈◊〉 can you conceive they did any more then sprinkle water up on them Baptist. Yea surely Sirs why not they swilled and rinsed and clensed and totally wetted them with water or else I am sure they could never be said properly to baptize but by the spirit whoever uses that word when he speaks of sprinkling they would certainly be said to Rantize them Besides shew me any that use to wash whether it be hands face dishes spoones trenchers pots cups clothes brazen vessels or beds either when they are by any ishue defiled and I le venter to vent this verdict on such that they are but sluts and slovens if they do but sprinkle them Rantist There may he washings though and dippings too but what needs such a totall dipping as you use what command can you have in all the Word for such a madâ—â— manner of administration that surely is more then needs a man may love his house well enough and yet not ride on top on 't and so many persons like the way of dipping and washing in the dispensation we now talk of yea and practise it too and yet judge it needlesse to run persons into rivers and ponds and there plunge them quite over head and ears Baptist. To make good this doctrine of totall dipping against such as dippe onely secundum partem as well as those that in part also do but sprinkle I argue as followes Secondly from the practise of the primitive times wherein it is most evident they were totally baptized or dipped and that they were so appears plainly First by the Scripture formes of speech and expressions used about that matter which import and betoken no lesse viz. 1. if there were no other evidence the very denomination it self of baptizedâ—hat â—hat is given shewes it which in propriety of speech and according to the prime and native signification of the word is as much as totally dipped or wholly overwhelmed and covered with water put under water which they could not possibly in common sense and reason be said properly to be if they were but a little wet about the eye-browes only as those are to whom you dispense handling them as if you were affraid too much to wet them surely it would not have been said baptized much lesse baptized in Iordan least of all baptized into Iordan as t was said of people had they not been immersi submersi for so baptized is i. e. put into put wholly under the water by Iohn Rantist But if you stand so much on the signification of the word why do you not drown persons when you baptize them for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to drown as well as douzâ— or dip Baptist. This interposition is so weak and silly that some may suppose I frame such a simple businesse as this my self on purpose to render the Rantists the more ridiculous but I professe as ridiculous as it is it was once put to me by a Countrey Clergy man before a great Auditory of people and was as well laught at by them To which I answer if a little more yet much what to the same tune as I then did viz. besides the signication of the word which justifies our practise of putting under water we have president not only for that but also for the bringing persons up alive again not only for burying them in baptism but for the raising them again therein before their bodies aâ—e dead neither have we any president that they of old did use to drown them and thereupon we let it alone yea Sirs we leave that Diabolicall dispensation of Drowning the disciples of Christ to the Churches of whom Dr. Featley boasts who at the Rates whereby you reckon us to be Anabaptists are An-Anabaptists whilest they ordered as he saies p. 68. That such as prophaned their first baptism by a second dipping should
foregoing it s also evident that some of the Church of the Galatians were not baptized for the same expression is used concerning them Gal. 3.27 from which two instances it is apparent that baptism is neither necessary to make a Saint or to render him capable of Church-fellowship Baptist. As many as is a phrase that where it s used doth not alwayes nay doth never of it self necessarily expresse and imply not all or but some onely of the things or persons spoken of in the words that border about it but as it may happen pro re substrata according to the nature of the matter in hand and according as the sense thereof is manifest by the foregoing and following sentences expressing or implying it so that sometimes you shall find it signifying but some onely or a part exclusively of others or the rest of the body spoken to or spoken of thereabout and sometimes no lesse then the whole of it neither is it apparent whether a or but some onely is the sense of this term as many as where ere t is used but as t is made appear by the context or some circumstances in it and not a jot lesse then this is said by your self in that very objection of yours I am now answering to for of Iohn 1.12 as many as received him to them gave he power these words plainly intimate say you that some of them i. e. the Jews whom its said he came to did not receive Christ and for my part I grant they do so signfie in that place but why or how doth it appear that they must needs signifie there that but some of the Jews received him It appeareth not by any usuall or constant sense of the words as many as as if they alwayes sounded forth but some and never all of such or such subjects as are spoken of but it appeareth say you by the words immediately foregoing in which veâ—ily you say right for the words foregoing do plainly shew what the sense of these words As many as is in this Scripture for forasmuch as it s said plainly above that he came to his own and his own received him not i. e. for the generality of them rejected him therefore it s undeniably evident that here the words as many as received him do intimate that some did not receceive him but if you should take these words as many as received him abstract from what 's said above viz. that his own for the most part did not receive him then they were not necessarily to be so understood neither could they simply of themselves intimate so much and as these words as many as considered abstractively from the context or speeches adjacent are not of themselves termes so necessarily exclusive of some as they are conclusive of some so considered in a right reference to the rest of the words preceding and succeeding among which they have their place they will be found sometimes conclusive of no lesse then all those persons or things there spoken of e. g. if I were speaking of the whole company of men in the great ship or Royal Soveraign as Paul does to the whole Church at Galatia and say you are all in a pretty safe condition for as many of you have been admitted into that strong ship cannot likely be sunk does not the word as many of you signifie all the men he speaks to even the whole company of them that are in the ship and not some of them onely so and no otherwise is it to be understood in these two Scriptures viz. Rom. 6.2 Gal. 3.27 where you would needs have these words viz. as many of us and as many of you as were as have been baptized into Christ necessarily to intimate no more but that onely some of the believing Romans and some of the Galatians were baptized and to be conclusive of some in each of these two churches and exclusive of the rest even of them as being not baptized whereas there is nothing in the world more plain then this that these words Rom. 6. as many of us Gal. 3. as many of you as have been baptized c. if considered with that due relation they bear and stand in to the words foregoing or following do intimate to us that the whole Church of the Romans that were to reckon on themselves as dead to sin and bound to live to it no longer and that certainly was no lesse then the whole were baptized and that all the Churches in Galatia or all the believers among the Galatians were baptized Yea if the scope of the Apostle Paul in both the places be observed we shall find that he makes this no other then an argument and uses it as a certain medium or motive whereby to perswade the Romans that they were all to dy to sin and now to live to it no longer and to prove the Galatians even all of them to be visibly to us at least the sons of God by faith in Christ because they were all of them baptized into Christ and thereby had visibly put him on First take notice that the businesse he would perswade the whole Church at Rome to and prove to be the duty of them all is this that they should now dy to sin have no more to do with sin and live to God now how does he prove that and go about to perswade them to it which is his businesse throwout that whole chapter Rom. 6. no otherway as I find but by imminding them of it that by their being buried with Christ in baptism this not only was signifyed to them but also became the duty of them all and that so strictly that howbeit before not so obliged yet from thenceforth they must crucify the old man and utterly abolish the body of sin and live to righteousnesse what shall we saith he for so his sense is continue in sin i. e. we that are dead to it and have been all baptized into Christ in token of it God forbid know ye not that every one that 's baptized into Christ is baptized into his death yea therfore t is that we i. e. all we still himself and the whole Church to whom he writes are buryed with Christ in baptism into death c. to shew that as Christ dyed and rose again so we also should walk in newnesse of life for if we i. e. all we have been planted together i. e. in baptism the lively â—esemblance of it into the likenesse of his death we shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection c and so he goes on moving them all now to lead a new life and to be servants to righteousnesse by the consideration of the great engagements to Godward that lay upon them all since such time as they were baptized and forasmuch as you say they had all obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine delivered unto them you therein contradict your self and confesse no lesse then we assert viz. that they were all
it their duty as if the plain word of Christ in this point of baptism were such a nose of wax as might be moulded and metamorphosed into any model according to every mans mind and temper or quite canceld disanuld melted into no word of Christ at all at every mans haughty humour that is loath to debase himself so far as to submission to it as if my Lord and my Lady and Sir such a one had more dispensation from Christ then every ordinary body to shew for their non-obedience to that dispised dispensation some of them that are baptized under prayer and imposition of hands in order to their obtaining the spirit of promise some not having faith in the thing whether that baptism with the spirit Peter speaks of Act. 2.39 and Iohn baptist Mat. 3.11 doth belong to them or no though there promised to all that are and shall be repenting and believing baptized in water even as many as the Lord shall call whereupon the fourth principle of Christs doctrine will not down with them but when they come to that lesson in Christs ABC they must skip it and take forth and because it likes them not turn ore a new leaf to the doctrine of the supper and Church fellowship before they are prefecty past their primmer to all which confused pro and con congregations and mongrill kind of ministry and people that speak half in the language of Canaan and half of Ashdod I le here say no more but this viz. si eo quo caepistis pede perrexeritis c. proceeding as you begin and thriving to the hight of your principle throw the nations the body of Christendom which was once an uniform and more lately a triforme may in time become that which I judge also it must become for some small season before the end viz. a monstrous multiform and at last an omniform beast indeed But now as to the question whether these two for I must scarce speak of these severally but very succinctly and as it were together are of right and according to the mind and word of Christ to continue to the end in proof hereof viz. that they are I shall refer the Ranter and the rest if any other besides him do deny it but to two Scriptures which prove each of these respectively and remove some few more of such exceptions as are made against the present practise of both these two and the other two parts of Christs outward worship and service I have already spoke to and so put a period to this discourse The first is 1 Cor. 11.26 for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew or shew ye for the word may be read imperatively as well as indicatively the Lords death till he come in which words t is so clearly supposed that the ordinance of the supper is not according to Christs will to cease till the next appearing of Christ that it were to suppose a man to be void of sense and reason to undertake to make it more evident to him by framing any formall argument from the place The Second is Heb. 10.25 not forsaking the assembling of our selves together as the manner of some is but exhorting one another while it s called to day and so much the more by how much you see the day approaching where it is also most clear and undeniable that t is the mind of Christ that the Saints should keep together in one body in assemblies and fellowships one with another and that his sheep should not live in such a stragling state and condition such single fellowship between God and themselves onely as is now pleaded for by many that fall off from following or frequenting any societies at all and forsake such truly constituted Churches as they were once added to which argues apparently that as we say of sheep when they keep not with the flock but are found squotting up and down here and there by themselves alone and aloof from their fellows that some ill disease and deadly distemper is growing upon them but that they should keep together in flocks every sheep following the footsteps of the flock which name of flock is that by which Christ often denominates his sheep as Luke 12.32 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 to shew that he expects to find them in flocks and fellowships at his coming Ranterist Till he come is no other then till his coming into men by his spirit or in such full measures and manifestations of his spirit into mens hearts that they may be able to live up with him in spirit so as no more to need such lower helps from outward administrations such carnal ordinances such visible representations of Christ to the bodily eyes such legal rites and meer bodily exercises as baptism and fellowship together in breaking of bread are These things were used indeed and ordained as milk for babes in that meer nonage and infancy of the Church when Christ was known as a child as it were but now we are to know Christ as a man grown in us risen up in us aad to have fellowship with him more immediately and intimately in spirit and not in such external and meer fleshly formes we are to live higher then on such low weak empty elements and beggarly rudiments as these which were used and imposed for a time to resemble Christ to us from without but must be left when once Christ the substance that was set forth by those shadows is come into us Christ is now in the Saints the hope of glory Col. 1.27 So Heb. 6.1.2 leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on to perfection not laying again c. you see we must mind higher matters leaving these which were as a dark glasse or shadowy dispensation through which the Church once did see Christ and knew him after the flesh but now face to face 1 Cor. 13.12 and henceforth know we him so no more 2 Cor. 5.16 when I was a child saies Paul I spake as a child and did as a child and thought as a child but when I became a man I put away childish things 1 Cor. 13.11 every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousnesse for he is a babe but strong meat belongeth to them that are full of growth who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil Heb. 5.14 that which is perfect is now come and therefore what is imperfect and in part only as ordinances are must be done away and as for gathering of congregations peoples assembling together in the Church bodies to preach pray break bread to build up one ano in the faith search the Scripture c. t was a way of God for mens edification till Christ the morning star shined to which men did well to take heed as unto a light that shined in a dark place but now the day dawnes and the day starre arises in mens hearts yea the day breaks and
dispensation till the substance it self comes childish things that must be put away when once we become men things imperfect and in part onely which when that which is perfect is come must vanish and be done away and such like and all this as t is nor more nor lesse then we say our selves so t is even as much as we need desire thee to say as to the evincing of what we contend for for sith we yet see not face to face 1 Pet. 1.8 in whom though now ye see him not yet believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable c. when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is 1 Iohn 3.2 i. e. then and not before and since that which is perfect i. e. the substance is not yet come for as we that remain and shall be alive at the coming of Christ shall not prevent or as to perfection be before hand with them that are asleep in Iesus 1 Thess. 4.15 16 17. so they i. e. that are long since dead both in and for the Lord without us shall not be made perfect Heb. 11.40 sith we are not all yet come to be men at age to the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ therefore ad hominem till then we must look through the glasse till then the shadow and that which is in part and imperfect as being indeed most suitable to an imperfect state must stand till then the outward work of the ministry in point of offices and ordinance for the perfecting of â—he Saints for the edifying of the body must remain Eph. 4.11.12 13. Thou tellest us mistaking the sense of Paul Phil 3.13.14 Heb. 6.1.2 that higher things perfection are now to be minded and prest after and these to be forgotten that those are principles of Châ—ists doctrine which were once eyed and laid as a foundation but must be left and not laid now any more But contrary to what David saies of himself Ps. 131.12 thine eyes are so lofty thy heart so haughtily exercised in minding the things thou callest high some of which are too high and others too low and base for any Christian to be busied in that thou mindest not the words of Paul to all Saints Rom. 12.16 where he saith not minding high things for so the greek words truly translated are but together with high things minding low things t is confest that in some sense we are to forget or not to mind what is behind but to mind to presse after to reach forth to things that are before to leave the principles the foundation of Christs doctrine go on to perfection but not in thy sense o Ranter who hereby takest upon thee to buryall manner of observation of these things even by any under utter oblivion to prohibit all present practise of principles by so much as babes to rase the foundation so as to declare it not fit to be laid at first now as of old it was no not by very biginners in the School of Christ but in the spirits sense who in those places means no other then thus viz. not that the babes in Christ must not use milke in these times as well as in the primitive not that the beginner in Christs School is not now as well as then to learn his letters and to begin first in his ABC not that those that will begin to build themselves an holy temple in the Lord an habitation of God through the spirit must not now lay any foundation at all but that having laid the foundation they should not think that their building is at an end but build up higher grow up higher in Christ thereupon that they should lay the foundation so sure at first that they should not have need in respect of their non proficiency or relapses into sin to be laying these i. e. faith of remission repentance c. ore and ore again but to proceed to perfection that babes should not remain alwaies babes feeding on nothing but milk but growing in grace and in the knowledge of Christ and in ability to bear stronger meats higher doctrines that the young Scholar should not remain alwayes a novice an ABC darian no further learnt then in his horn book but according to the time he hath had learn to read perfectly that he may be able to teach others rather then need to be taught his letters again this is the spirits sense for otherwise it s ever necessary that babes have milk and absurd that a Scholar should be bid to forget his letters and how to spell that builders should leave laying any foundation when they begin nay veriâ—y the most studied Scholar must first learn and then remember his letters or else he cannot possibly read babes must be fed with milk at first or else they will not thrive to be perfect men builders must lay a foundation and have an eye to it too all along in their building upward even till they come to the very top observing how all the whole fabrick that they work after doth square and keep touch with that or else they may chance to make such a crooked fabrick as will fall to the ground at last yea perveniri ad summum nisi ex principiis non potest Thou tellest us as concerning the outward ordinances of the Gospel that bodily exercises profit little but art wretchedly ignorant of it that by bodily exercises which profit little Paul means not at all as thou dost the ordinances of Christ or any ouâ—ward parts of his worship and will revealed in his word for that is though not the greatest yet a great part of godlinesse it self which according to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a right serving of God according to his own will in his word of truth where he requires us to serve worship and glorifie him in our bodie as well as in our spirit 1 Cor. 6.19.20 but such bodily exercises and old wives fables as abstinences from meats lent'n and good friday fasts and such ordinances as touch not tast not c. which men subject themselves to after the commandements and doctrines of men of Popish Priests whose Religion stands mostly in such matters 1 Tim. 4.3.4.7.8 Col. 2.20.21.22 Thou tellest us as one of the main grounds whereupon there must now be no more walking in ordinances and that way of outward service that was at first that it was foretold 2 Thess. 2.3 that there should come a falling away from it and a treading down of all that outward form which then was which to say nothing how probable it is that that prophecy 2 Thess. 2.3 and several more do point more at that falling away that thou oh false prophet shalt cause in the very last dayes then at that which by the proud PPPriesthood hath been made before thee I declare to be such an absurd and senslesse consequence as is more worthy of a silent sleighting then a