A Serious address TO Samuel oats, For a Resolve in some few QUAERE'S Touching his New-Baptisme& Ministry. ALSO A short and faithful word of Christian Advice to those of his Church in Lincolnshire, concerning their way, and that spirit by which they are lead. Together with a brief and plain Evidence of the Ground for Baptizing a Believers Jnfant-seed. By John Drew, a servant of Jesus Christ. ROM. 16.17, 18. Now I beseech you Brethren, mark them which cause Divisions and offences, contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not our Lord Iesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and faire speeches deceive the hearts of the simplo. {αβγδ}. Camerar. è veteri Graec. London, Printed for John Bartlet, at the guilt Cup at Austins gate or Pauls stump. 1649. To Mr. oats; the reason of publishing these Papers. SIR, WHen our Saviour questioned the chief Priests, Mark 11.30. Scribes and Elders about the baptism of John, Mark 11.30.[ which I conceive there to be his Doctrine and Authority for baptizing] whence it was, from Heaven, or of men? they answered him, vers. 31. we cannot tell. And truly, that which was the issue of their reasoning among themselves about that business, seems somewhat, if not very much( in the sense of many) like the result of those public debates lately had with you in these parts, by some differing from you about your Doctrine, Baptism, and Authority. Such as have opposed your Way have either been forced[ by reason of the disorder& {αβγδ}. confusion in those meetings, and that wild liberty of discourse you have taken to yourself] to give out this answer touching your Way, {αβγδ} eurip They could not tell whence it was; or at leastwise, have been interpnted to have done so, by the greatest number of hearers; the things in question being never brought to any satisfying head or issue. Now that it may not be adjudged by every man, that we know not from whence your baptism and Ministry is, I have adventured in some few Quaeres to give out my present thoughts and judgement concerning their parentage and original, showing them to be less from above then our baptism, and the Ministry of the Church of England which you make null and Babylonish. How it will be taken by you I know not; but I have observed it is your ordinary course in disputing( contrary to the laws of a dispute) to appeal at every hands turn to the people round about, as if you intended to cajole them all to a belief of what you speak, to be truth, whether they think so or not. Therefore I have assumed( though not for that end of yours, yet) the like liberty of appeal to the people, hoping you will be content with the same measure you give. Surely sir, me thinks it should be of great advantage to the truth( if those things you stand by be the truths of God) to put your pen to paper, and assert them publicly amongst us; this will much clear your way to such as doubt the warrant of it, and cannot come to be of your ordinary hearers: And by this means you will gain many thanks from others, who for the present, are fully persuaded against it; for then they may come to know where to have you, and what to hold you to,( for hitherto something you have held one day, and denied it the next) and assure yourself, Sir, if you will do thus, you shall be under-taken, if by no strong hands, yet rather then fail, by his weak hand willingly put out for the service of the Gospel, who is a friend to your person, but an enemy to your Errors. John Drew. A serious address to Samuel oats for resolution in some few important Quaeres concerning his New baptism and MINISTRY. SIR, HAving been present at some of those late Conferences( that I may not call them Disputes) which have been had publicly betwixt yourself and some others about your Doctrine and Practise, I have found no satisfaction at all from them concerning either, though they were admitted on purpose to satisfy any man that was contrary minded, as you have declared, and not for your conviction, though upon supposal you were in an Error;( which certainly, you that cry out so vehemently against Infallibility in Synods, Classes, &c. must give men leave to suppose till they know why one man may not err as well as an hundred.) You profess Disputes shall not move you, having perfect rest in your spirit, and full satisfaction already in every point that you hold, and in all things which you practise. And truly Sir, had other men who love the truth and ways of God as well as yourself, the like satisfaction, they would not grudge your success at all, but rejoice if the gleanings of anabaptism were greater then the vintage of any other way or profession whatsoever; till then, you must not be angry if they reckon the way you go in, amongst the first-born of the abhorrings of their souls; Jer. 6.16. they cannot but look at it as none of the good old way, but as a path utterly untrodden by the feet of Gods people, till of late some have unhappily turned aside to it; neither can they but look at those Errors which led you along in it, as Errors of the first magnitude. Suffer me therefore, Sir, who am in the number of these unsatisfied ones, to ease my thoughts of your way a little by giving them vent into some few Quaeres, both as a short Essay towards the trial of your grounds, and as a testimony to the truths and ways of God as well as against the unheedinesse of your ways, by reason of which the way of truth is evil spoken of. Those things which at present I would gladly have resolution in, are these, 1. Whether, to a safe and right Administration of the Ordinance of baptism, there be not as necessary required Authority in the Administrator, as Faith. Confession of sins and Repentance( without which conditions, baptism you say, is a nullity) in the subjects to whom this Ordinance is to be administered? If this be denied, I do not see but every man( at least) every believer is as lawful an administrator as Samuel oats; neither do I see why baptism by a Midwife( supposing the subjects right to it) can be disapproved, as thwarting the mind of Jesus Christ at all; Nay lastly, Mat. 28.19 I see no reason why Go ye, as a restrictive term should be inserted in the Apostles Commission from Christ, or how indeed there should be any Commission at all, though God be the God of Order. But if this be granted, as what sober man without some face of reason will stick at it? Then in the next place I must claim a little help from you for my resolution. 2. How yourself or any Rebaptizer comes by this Authority? Mat. 28.18 if you have it immediately from Jesus Christ who is his Fathers Plenipotentiary, you must either show us a new Commission( which I suppose you scarce pretend to have) or else make it appear that by an immediate call from Jesus our King, your name is put into that old Commission, Matth. 28.9. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them, &c. which Call as well as the former is extraordinary, having no Mediety at all of man in it; if this be the Resolve I must be fain to take up withall; great is my dissatisfaction not onely in regard it opens a door to multitudes of pretenders as well as S. O. yea to any man in the world who lists to pled the like Call; but, Secondly, because it utterly lays aside and Nuls that ordinary way of authorizing Administrators which Jesus Christ has left to his Church, viz. that mediate setting apart of persons approved by the hands of others in his name, and by his Authority, to whom this power belongs, I question not now, sure I am 'tis an Ordinance of Jesus Christ. 1 Tim. 5.21, 22. and he that by pretending an unusual and extraordinary Call or Power from Christ waves this Institution( since the rule of Scripture was perfected) shall find our great Ruler as jealous for it as for any other Ordinance he has left us, yea as dreadful as that Scripture renders him, Revel. 22.18, 19. Nay, Lastly, in regard I cannot see the Lord giving any testimony that you are thus of him, I must take leave to ask with the Joh. 2.18 Jews, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou dost these things? Joh. 5.36. Matth. 11.4, 5, 6. Our Saviour in the point of his mission refers us to the Fathers witness by his works, and would not attest his ministry himself, no not to John the Baptist; but show John, saith he, those things which ye do hear and see, &c. God never sets up any man as a wonder to the world, without a wonderful concurrence of his power and presence with him. Now Sir, 1 Cor. 12.30. where is your gift of tongues, your miracles? or interpretation of tongues? These I know you pretend not to, nor( for ought I hear) to any gifts but what are usually found in men ordinarily called; but an extraordinary call never wanted the evidence of extraordinary Abilities or Qualifications in one kind or other; therefore I believe your claim is not thus broad, unless by consequence and interpretation it prove so; for he who affirms that every believer has the like Call from God to Preach and Baptize that the Apostle Paul had, Acts 9. affirmeth himself, if he be a Believer, to be immediately and extraordinarily called,( this I dare trust without any proof for its truth, besides that rehearsal of the Apostles Call, Acts 26, 16, 17, 18.) But this Proposition was Mr. Febr. 8. oats his affirmation, and I leave others then to judge of what parentage the consequence is, and whether S. O must not need own the conclusion if these premises stand true? but though you disclaim and disavow your pretence to any such Call in plain terms, yet I persuade myself Sir, you are not ignorant that our Generation brings forth many who blushy not to stand by it, and let that be my Apology for heightening the sauciness of any such pretence;& let me tel you, were there any men really so called, their works like lightning would open to us the cloud from whence they dropped; they need not be pointed at by this man, that man, Mark 5.7. Acts 19.15. Act. 16.17. or any man indeed, the very Devils would cry out of them and aclowledge them. But now Sir, if you have your Authority from Christ mediately, viz. from the Church( for so I understand you sometimes profess yourself called) then my next Quaere will be this; 3. Whether came your Call, from a Church in order, built up according to that which you account the true Gospel platform, or from a company of Believers out of that Gospel form, or Order, viz. ungathered? I suppose it cannot come from the latter, because you deny the Ministry of the Church of England to be a true Ministry, chiefly from this very ground; because not called by a Church, that is, a Society of persons, men and women rebaptized and gathered into Order, according to your Way; which ground, though to me, it be an abominable one, as denying in effect that God ever had a Church true in respect of form[ which I conceive to be the Esse constitutivum of a Church] till anabaptism with her Rule and compass squared it exactly yet I say, this ground will serve me to build an Argument, Ad hominem, even against yourself, upon; If Mr. oats was called by lively stones out of any spiritual building which had not rebaptisation written upon the door, his Call was Antichristian, from his own principles; or if from any single man or society of men, officed or unofficed, out of this Order, it is the same; take heed Sir, there may be gray hairs here and there upon you, though you know it not; therefore I suppose that to avoid your being dashed out of office against the Rock of your own principles, you must needs be called from a rebaptized Congregation, and if so, then 4. Whether was this Church of your own gathering, or of another mans? if of your own gathering, then you gathered them without a Call; for according to yourself they could not elect or call you till they were baptized, and in that way of Fellowship or Order, which you are bold to call Gospel Order, or form. And then, if you were not sent immediately from Christ, you ran before you were sent or duly called by a Church, and so the second baptism of that Congregation was Null, because you were not an authorised Administrator according to our first Quaere. Surely therefore that Church from which you received your Call and Ministerial power was of another mans Gathering and Baptizing, and you yourself first a Member gathered and baptized by him. If so, then 5. Who called that man to gather and baptize those living stones built up by him into that Church whereof you were a Member? if yourself and those other baptized ones with you, then his Calling was Null, because you were not formed into that Order as to make you capable of calling a Minister, being unbaptised; And your Baptism received by his Administration was null, because to you he could not be an authorised Administrator. Thus in going a few steps backward, you must necessary hang all the weight of your new baptism and Calling, either 1. Upon one that was a Se●baptizer, that is, who baptized himself. Or 2. Upon one who restend content with his own infantbaptisme. If you stand to the latter of these stakes, then I would gladly know 6. How you can prove it necessary, that every man must be rebaptized before he can be a member of a visible Church, if one may be a Minister of such a Church, who contents himself with his christian only? if you stand to the former, then I Quaere 7. What Ground had that Person to warrant and make good his Selfe-baptization? I commend you for sticking close to the Rule for positive worship as you seem to do, when for this reason you impugn and nullify christian, because there's no Command in Scripture, as you say, either t●tidem verbis, or by good Consequence to warrant it. I hope such as cry out most against will-worship, dare not invent an institution; surely those that tell others they do nothing, if they bring not a Command for what they do in way of Ordinance, will hold out such grounds for their practise, as he that runs may red them. But I do seriously profess that I have stayed myself from running, and have leisurely weighed every Precept, and narrowly look't into the practise of baptism in the gospel, yet I could never see but always the Administrator and the Subject to which baptism was administered, were two different Persons; I cannot see either vola or vestigium, print or footstep of Se-baptization in the Scripture, though I would set myself in the greatest posture of indulgence, toward the maintaining of that practise that possibly I could. John 3.23. John 4.2. I have red of John baptizing some of the disciples of Jesus, with Peter, Paul, and the Eunuch, baptizing others; but of a Se-baptizer, nè {αβγδ} quidem, not one title. I persuade myself that the Apostles, and so all their Successors according to the Letter of their Commission, said thus to every one they Baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, &c. but I never heard of one that said so to himself. Surely I& Thee are two different Subjects, and unless a man wrong the Grammar of the Text, he cannot baptize himself. Of the two, there were more colour,( could it consist with the Anabaptists Principles,) for one to begin wrong, that never renounced his old baptism, then a Se-baptizer; for he that disclaims his christian, is an unbaptised Person ever, if not rebaptized, and finding none to baptize him, his Sebaptisme is ipso facto null, and so he is an unbaptised Person still, who having torn off the seal of his Covenant with God, cannot dispense the seal to others; an unbaptised Person is out of the Church, say you: and then say I he can let none in; 1 Cor. 11.28. God, saith the Apostle, sets his Administrators, viz. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, &c. in the Church; they are Church-members, Rom. 12.4. but one that renounceth not his Infant-Seale, might with some show allege for his practise of wrong, that of John the Baptist, who was never baptized that we red of, but retained his Infant-zeale of Circumcision. Yet neither will this help the Rebaptizer, unless he can prove himself sent to begin a new institution, as John the Baptist was, Mat. 11.9. yea, and as extraordinary a person, even more then a Prophet. But suppose Sir, you had a third nail, and that a surer one whereon you might hang the weight of your new baptism and Calling, viz. An Administrator from some Church of Anabaptists beyond the seas, in Holland, or some other place,( I do but guess Sir, because I know not to what shelter you may betake yourself,) so that may be S. O. was baptized by Mr. lamb, and Mr. L. by some rebaptized Minister of a foreign Church; upon this account the matter would be little the better. For then I Quaere 8. How came he to be your Minister? by what Authority did he baptize that first Person in England? who baptized Mr. Lamb? To baptize is an action of office and power; but how could this man be an Officer, or a lawful Administrator to him or any other, before there were any baptized Persons capable of electing him to that Authority or Ministry? Either retract this Principle Sir, that believers out of Order and not rebaptized, or[ as you call it] unbaptised, cannot call a Minister, or your Calling and baptism is easily driven to a nullity. But I believe you had rather hazard that, then raze so prime a pillar of your building. For that Principle being once retracted, the Ministry of England is acknowledged a true Ministry rightly called: and with that same breath you call yourself a schismatic and a Railer against what you knew not, a wandring Star, judas 13. a Subverter of unstable Souls, yea one that hath fed upon ashes, Esa. 44. 1● and now saith was there not a lye in my right hand? But supposing[ though I grant it not] that you had a direct and lawful Call from a Church in norfolk to a pastoral charge there, for thus I remember I have heard you tell people, yet 9. How should we be satisfied in these parts where you are of your calling hither, and of the warrant you have for those Administrations which you exercise yourself about, amongst us, those official duties of preaching and baptizing, if you stand to your often-mentioned Principle, That a Church ungathered can give no call? how many Persons in lincolnshire did you find rebaptized, to give you entertainment as their Pastor, if you baptized those People which make up your Church, before they were in a capacity of calling you? their baptism( as is evinced already) must be null, you being to them at least, no authorized Administrator, if you say you were a Minister before, thats nothing to them, you were an Individuum vugum for all that. Could they be in an order or way for electing you for their Minister, being unbaptised Persons; besides I know 'tis against your Rule to say you were a Minister of Jesus Christ, when you came to baptize them; for your Principles cannot allow of an indefinite Minister; if you have no flock, certainly no Anabaptist will aclowledge you a Pastor: and I have known you contest against Ordination before Election as Anti-christian. Certainly Christians in these parts, thoughly they honour a sent Ministry, will desire to see what warrant a Congregation in Norwich hath, to sand a Minister amongst them, before they can submit to him. They are not such Presbyterians as can aclowledge any Congregation in England for their Classis, to approve an Administrator to led them they know not whether, in a new way of Ordinance; they hate blind obedience, but love clear light, whether it be new or old; and I fear Sir, if the matter were well scanned, they have had little of this light from you; you have raised a dust amongst us; in stead of unfilming our eyes, helped us forward to confusion, in crying out against us as Babylonish; thickened our darkness, rather then brought us into Goshen; you have made many disputers, but I fear, very few believers. And if you rob real Churches, to gather to yourself a formal one; pick and pilfer away none but hewn stones to lay in your building; I'll say, he knows little, and loves the truth less, that thinks he may adventure, or will go about to acquit you of sacrilege. But I am somewhat too far from your Call now, which is that thing I would fain meet with. If you came not hither as a Minister, in the common usage of the word; yet( as I think you have hinted) it is lawful to minister as a gifted brother, and so you might do in way of probation to their electing you. This may be granted; and were it possible[ saving your Principles] for them to elect before their baptism, it might advantage you: but since that cannot be, you are as far from being their Minister still, as when you were at Norwich; for then, I think, you were their Brother. But, 10. How come you to step so suddenly from a brotherly to an official Ministry? such I understand baptism to be: for if it be a Brotherly ministry, we are all bound to baptize one another as oft as we meet together for edification: but surely 'tis the act of an empowerd Administrator; and how you should be so to them, while unbaptiz'd, is the thing that I would very gladly learn of you. Could you tie such a knot as this upon the Ministry of the Church of England,[ pardon that expression( sir) I call that one Church which indeed is many, as the Apostle doth, 1 Cor. 1, 2.] I believe you would dare the whole world to untie it: If the stars in that firmament were no better fixed then you appear to be, I am persuaded your train had thrown down not onely the third part of them, Rev. 12, 4. Rev. 2, 1. Joh. 10 29. but three parts, if not all four, long before this day. But surely Jesus Christ has them in his right hand; and though your Doctrine of falling from Grace makes it an easy matter to pluck his sheep out of his hand, yet you'll find it hard getting his shepherds from thence: though you look at them as your greatest enemies, they are sure Christ will own them for his Jo. 15.14. friends. And now I have done with your Ministry, suffer me one Quaere touching that Ministry, the subjects whereof are commonly called Priests by yourself and your contumelious followers; even the Ministry of the Church of England. I desire you seriously to think of satisfying me in this. 11. Whether any man may safely persuade himself, that Jesus Christ will so far own an Antichristian Ministry, as to honour it with converting millions of souls to himself? Can that power which in its nature is directly contrary to him, and of implacable enmity against him,[ for such is the very essence of whatever is Antichristian] can that, I say, possibly do Jesus Christ such service as this? If any souls have been fed up to life, and nourished by the Ministry of the Church of England, Jo. 21.17. 'tis an argument of its love toward, and not enmity against Jesus Christ. The Lord would not honour David with the building him an house, 1 Chron. 28, 3. Ps. 116, 15. Rev. 17.6. because he had been a man of war and shed blood; yet Davids wars were lawful: but Antichrist making war against the Lamb, hath been drunken with the blood of the Saints,( whose death is precious in Gods eyes) and with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus; and will the Lord( think you) honour Antichrist so far as to suffer any Ministry or Order of his setting up, to build him an house? surely no. 'tis an invincible argument that they are arrows of Christs sending, even out of his bow, Esa. 60.8. 1 Cor. 9.2. 2 Cor. 10.18. when they hit the mark he aims at so right. They are factors for Jesus Christ, surely, that bring souls to him, as the doves to the windows. Christ in this sets to his seal that the Ministry is his: 'tis not to be thought, sir, he would reveal his arm so mightily, in an Order set up merely to overthrow his kingdom, as whatsoever Antichrist sets up is. And I am verily persuaded, souls have been built up as surely to salvation by their hands,( call them Babylonish, if you please) as ever they are like to be by yours; though you would have us think, believers were never built up as spiritual houses, in England, till they were blessed with a second baptism. If they were built up and edified to heaven, I hope you'l not tell them, you can build them better. I have red this Phrase in an Tertul. aedisicant in ruinam. De praescr. haeret. 1 Cor. 3.10 old Writer, by him applied to some lately-revived heretics; They are built up, saith he or edified to destruction. I pray God your building prove not such at length, even a taking poor souls off from that sure foundation laid for them ministerially by such builders and workmen as need not be ashamed; 2 Tim. 2.15. and a setting them up at last so high and tottering above Ordinances and above duties, that they fall: If so, their fall will be very great; I should weep over, and not rejoice at their ruin; and the Lord grant I never see it. This I know, error is unsteadfast, 2 Pet. 3.17. and when we are wise beyond what is convenient, we know not where to rest. Waterbaptisme, Saltmarsh, Den,( as I am informed) and others. ere long, may be rejected by yourself, and left off or laid aside as a carnal rite, as it is already by very many formerly of your way: and what will be your Churches form then, I know not. Men give themselves up to Sceptisme and uncertainty in judgement, by stepping one foot beyond the line of Truth; one Error must have at least two more for its supporters; and when one Truth is undermined, the whole kingdom of Truth shakes. Hence it is that many wild Opinionists, Errori assinis ambiguitas, quip dubitatio species inscitiae. Scal. exer. 148. that make Religion like a Feather, are so unresolved what to fix upon, that like a man treading upon thorns, they step here and there, and stand still no where: They see that striking at one Truth, wounds so many, and Truth having yet a kind of secret awe over their hearts, they do but make ventures, and hit upon nothing. Were it not better sir, to feed and nourish men up with satisfying truths, then always to keep up their appetites after Novelty? to endeavour the establishment of their hearts with grace, as the Ministry of England hath done, Heb 13.9. then to loosen them from a liking of sound doctrine by vain janglings, as some preaching out of envy have done? I am persuaded confidently, that as Christ hath owned, so he will ever own that Ministry which begets found hearts, above that which brings forth disputing heads. He knows but very little in this business, who knows not that as much has been said against the Ministry of the Church of England formerly by men[ hatched under that very Ministry to Faith in Jesus and a Gospel profession by their own acknowledgement] ringleaders to a Separation as a state of higher purity( which might be granted without any milling of that Ministry) nay more has been spoken by those persons to this point then S. O. is able to say; Robinson can, &c. all which notwithstanding in the judgement of sober and advised Christians never amounted to such a sum as would Antichristianize that Ministry. They have been as heedless in drawing up their Charge as yourself, but as weak in managing it against the Ministry as those Jews Acts 25.7. who laid many and grievous complaints against Paul which they could not prove; you have hung as heavy weights as they upon smaller threats, and if all they gained being cast up, was but a discovery of their Fathers shane, some blemishes and corruptions both in their calling and exercise of their Functions( which the godly Nonconformists both saw, and declaimed against as well as they, but could not then get remedy] what further advantage your accusations will have against them, I am not able to discern; truly I know no men( unless they be Seekers,) who have any ballast of Christian wariness or preadvision at all wherewith to weigh their Judgements, that dare say, there never was a true Ministry in the Church since the Apostles Age till now: but this must needs follow, if those grounds you build upon be able to bear up your charge; for it is an easy matter to find out corruptions,[ greater then any you can now show,] cleaving to the Ministry in all ages since the Apostles; and if that be sufficient to render it Anti christian, then Christ hath had no true Ministry for 1500 years at least; and it is as strongly conclusive too against magisterial power, even that maladministration should render the Order of Magistracy to be no Ordinance of God. But they must be stronger blasts then these Sir, that blow the Ministry of England to a nullity; you must prove that ministerial power cannot be in the hands of a wicked person, and then you do something; for if it may be in the hands of such a Person, why may it not be derived from his hands? if you say it cannot be in his hands, then you must prove Indas, Demas and Diotrephes, to be no Ministers, and this will go a great way towards the clearing of what we desire to see. Let me tell you Sir, if to all the strength of your Arguments, you should call in that more base ignoble aid of swords and pistols, horns and hoofs, you could not nullify the Minstry of England; we yield you stand upon the higher ground in this respect to the nulling of it, and[ if such a way might stand with your principles] to the laying the Ministry as flat as the walls of sericho; but though I pretend not to prophesy, yet I believe that S. O. will scarce have his joys made so full while he lives, as this would make them: Ministers may be, and are very like to be brought to a less well-being,[ which is a kind of a Media scilicet natura inter esse& non esse minus been esse. Scal. middle state betwixt an esse and a non esse] but never to a non-being; though the taking away or impairing their livelihood and outward subsistence may bring them very low, yet pray remember Sir, this is a weak Argument to prove their Calling a nullity; you may easily prove them poor by this Reason, but scarcely Anti-christian. One thing more is yet hehinde that I must entreat satisfaction in. 12. Whether default of that outward form and order of fellowship amongst the Members of Christ,[ which may be nearest to the rule,] can be of that importance with any heart graciously wise, though but gently charitable, as to unchurch the People of God, for Ages and Generations together, as not to allow them the name of a spiritual building or house, but only of so many stones amongst rubbish, judas 16.25. an indigested heap, or a mere confusion, because not exactly formed up to that platform? If the want of this external form,[ for the inward and essential form is faith,] be not of such weight as to unchurch them, then give me leave to tell you that your inconsideration and rashness in thus humbling all believers not of your way, and your lavish censures of all forms but your own, will be required at your hands, by that God who judgeth rightly, and is jealous of his Peoples honour. But if it be of such importance, then I think no man can assure himself, that since the Primitive Age God ever had a Church; for though we have testimony sufficient even from their sufferings, for the faith of a thousand times ten thousand, yet we have no witness at all, that any company of believers in any Generation since that time, came up so close to the Rule in point of form and Order, but they might have come up closer. And I am afraid that if this whole kingdom would now come up to your darling, form or way, we should presently have another held out as nearer the Rule then it. O Sir, me thinks this should make you mingle your drink with weeping, even to hear the faith and zeal of Gods old Servants, by any men, thus cast to the Moles and Bats, thus tumbled into the dark hole of invisibility,[ for Christians without that Gospel order which may serve the turn, are not visible,] rather then[ as one glorying in the abundance of his own light, and making sport with other mens blindness] thus to lay more weight upon their weaknesses, and if they were any way vile, to make them yet more vile by unchurching them yourself, which censure to a sober knowing Christian is almost of as killing a found as Anathema Maranatha. Nay, Sir, 1 Cor. 16.22. not only the Churches of God before us but all those now amongst us, if not of your way, are served with the same hand. 'tis not enough for you to dash all the Infants in England, by one heedless stroke, out of Covenant with God; even those little Lambs which have not attained to the Actings of Faith and Repentance, out of the hedge of Christs sheepfold into the verge of Satans kingdom, with Jews, Turks, Pagans, &c. But you make strange havoc, spoil and vastation amongst those of riper years, un-churching many, who otherwise are your best friends, as the Brownists, the rigid Separatists, yea and all those Churches of the Congregational way[ commonly called Independent] which the very Presbyterians honour and look at as true Churches, yea very near to the Rule in point of form: And all this, because they submit not to a second baptism, and will not be so prodigal of their own comforts, and of their Childrens privileges, as you would have them. If you say you do not thus, then how can you make Rebaptizing necessary to the form of a true Church? Certainly, sir, your charity is less then your knowledge, or else your knowledge is very small. Nay, yet further, this mad rashness stays not here,[ if we may believe a competent Mr. bailie Disswas. 2 part. witness in this Case, who knows more of the ways of your Churches, I am persuaded, then you yourself do] but to them of your way, the small remnant of Christians in Anabaptistick societies, which alone they honour with the title of true Churches, seem even too many to be saved: therefore new Separations are run into, and those so severe that there lives not one Anabaptist upon earth, who by multitudes even of Anabaptists, is not condemned, with all who adhere to his sub-division, as a man in a false way, not only without, but in opposition to the true Church. You may give me leave to make mention sometimes of the judgement of those of your own way, with reflection upon yourself; since in your disputes, you will needs have all the Ministers of the Church of England hold the same thing, whether they will or no: I hope you will readily receive that Law you give; and then why may not I say, 'tis your judgement, That some Societies of Anabaptists are not true Churches? And then sir, take heed you be not unchurcht yourself. But 'tis safer inferring any thing from the common Principles of your way, then from the Practise of any man, or society of men. satisfy me therefore in those things which I have fairly deduced from your own grounds, against that Ministry and those Churches which I am persuaded are true; and it shall not much trouble me to hear those Churches censured, which I have good ground to think are false; as your subdivided Anabaptistick societies may be, for ought I can say or see to the contrary. Sir, if I shall receive satisfaction from you in these few Quaere's, either as publicly as I desire it, or otherwise as you think best; I must promise you to fall down before the Truth, and that as soon as it appears to me; yea, I shall readily give up that lot and portion which as yet I retain in the Ministry, and shall aclowledge your way[ though not the only true form of Church-Communion] yet at least the truest of all others. And this advantage you will have from your pains, even the gaining one from the error of his ways. I am none of those that shut mine eyes against light, let it come in at what crevise it will. I am persuaded, I shall be lead into all Truth; and if by your hand as the Instrument, I be lead out of any error, I shall glorify the God of truth in you, Gal. 1.24. and publicly disavow my pertinacy of what I am yet very hesitant in, yea confident that till further conviction I ought not to cast away or part withall. But if that satisfaction come not from you, or elsewhere; I must constantly continue, according to that enmity in my judgement against your Principles, an avowed enemy to your ways; and I am confident I shall ever be willing to spend and be spent for the vindication of Gods sacred Truths and Ordinances, Eph. 4.14. and to lay out those small talents I have received, towards the establishment of his people in grace, notwithstanding the cunning craftiness of any that shall lye in wait to deceive. J. D. A short word of Advice to those of M. oats his Church in Lincolnshire, touching their way, and that spirit by which they are lead. With a brief and plain Evidence of the ground for Baptizing the Infants of Believers. Christian Friends, THe Apostle tells us it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, Heb. 13.9. and when I duly consider from what ground he lays that truth home to the Hebrewes, I cannot but wonder it is no greater a startling then indeed it is, to men of unsteady spirits in their entertainment of divers coloured Doctrines, or Doctrines of a different thread, as the {αβγδ}. word there used sometimes signifies. Now the Apostles ground was this, even their ready compliance with any thing that was handed out unto them under the name and Title of Truth, every Pretender to the mind of God, every one that could but say, lo, here is Christ, or lo, there is Christ, Mat. 24.23. that could but tell them this is according to Scripture, or that is according to Scripture, presently won both their ears and their affections, as appears by his endeavour to beat them out of this Grace-weakning temper, by an earnest exhortation to the contrary, Be not you carried about with divers and strange Doctrines; upon this ground he ballasts them with this stable and weighty truth, {αβγδ}. Chrysost. for it is a good thing that your heart &c. whence I think may be easily gathered, that to be carried about with divers and strange Doctrines, argues an heart unestablished with grace. Far be it from me friends, in the application of this, to charge the meanest of you as voided of grace; but give me leave to pray that the God of grace would bring back your hearts to an establishment in the love of those solid Gospel-truths and doctrines of grace, with which many of you have been glad to be acquainted formerly, though of late you adventure to reckon them amongst Doctrines, 1 Cor. 3.12. that are no better then hay and stubble, if not much worse, Anti christian and devilish. Nothing hath the happiness of so ready an entrance into Peoples heads, as insinuations that they are not taught so well as they might be. {αβγδ}, Nazian. Novelty is the rarest Cook in the world, this garnish sets off any dish to palates of a variable relish; but that Christians, who of old were upbraided with steady adherence to their principles, as an Obstinatio fidei. tart. Apol. {αβγδ}. Gal. obstinacy of faith, should be now conscious of such lightness, as like children to be easily tost too and fro with every weak blast of error, may be the worlds astonishment, and may cause every faithful son of truth to sigh, even to the breaking of his loins; For the Gospell-enemies must needs set up their banner, when this is told in Gath, and published in the streets of Askelon. The Papists could never gain that advantage against the gospel by their inquisitions, sword, fire and faggot, which by a few subtle deceivers of late is put into their hands, without any stir at all, yea and that under a varnish and pretence of Gospell-advancement. The Bee hath been an emblem of a Christian, for their similar properties of Agility, care and useful chemistry; — saepe lapillos tollunt, his seize per Inania nubila librant. Virg. I can but wish now that we could learn to imitate those creatures in one thing more, which Naturalists observe in them, and thats this, in their flying they use when tis stormy to poise themselves with little gravel stones, as a ship with ballast, that they be not carried away with the wind; but alas, multitudes of Professors in our Generation are not thus wise; for if any wind of doctrine does but fill their sails, they are ready without any weight or ballast of Christian wariness to launch forth into the deep, not fearing rocks or shelves, or without fore-thinking indeed whether that wind drives, to what port or harbour, and so make shipwreck of themselves, Grace being not the Pilot, judas 13. but some swelling conceits or vain ends of their own, which at length falling into the waves, leave them there to foam out their own shane. Eph. 1.14. Any Doctrine[ though delivered by such as use a Text of Scripture, {αβγδ}. Chrys. {αβγδ}. as cheaters do a die] if guilded with the name of Christ be it never so poisonful, a pill is swallowed; is it the Lord? saith Peter, and he gird his fishers coat unto him, and cast himself into the sea, but I know not whether ever Christ gave him thanks for it, or no. But I shall forget myself in declaiming against this giddy spirit amongst us, Joh. 21 7. Mat. 17 15 this devil that often throws us into the fire and into the water, how he got in amongst us the Lord knows; neither shall I spend time in enquireing after that. I never red that the Disciples asked how the unclean spirits and devills came into the possessed ones; but their work was always an endeavour to cast them out. Something I have propounded unto your leader S. O. as an unsatisfied man about his new baptism and ministry, trampling under foot the ministry of the Church of England; And that which I would entreat you his followers, without prejudice to look upon from me as one that is a partaker of the same Hope with yourselves, is this; viz. A brief examination of the warrantableness of that chief thing which submits you to his Ministry, even your second baptism; this I conceive you are lead unto by judging your christian a nullity. If therefore the Infants right to that Ordinance be confirmed. I shall easily have the unwarrantablenesse of your late dipping granted me. 'tis not my design, Friends, as one that strives for mastery to make any huge flourish with multitude of Arguments( which usually at last fall into one) or to make a noise with many vain words; Magis offendit nimium quàm parum. Cicero Eccles. 12.11. Exod. 27.12. I will contend for this truth but with one weapon[ for since I must needs offend you, Ile do it with the least, if it be possible] I shall give you but one reason sharpened and pointed from Scripture, which is given me, as a nail from that Supreme Shepherd Jesus Christ in the behalf of his little ones, to be fastened in the hearts of all such as prise Gospel privileges; one witness of this credit will answer for all Believers children in the world; one real Rod( like that of Aaron) will swallw up all the Magicians Rods that lye before it. It is a command from Scripture for Infant baptism that you seek, and complain that no man is able to show it you. Now sirs, though I be the weakest Champion for truth, of many thousands in our Israel, yet I dare undertake to clear up this command unto any unbiast and indifferent man. To bring you a command from Scripture in thus many words and Syllables no man ever went about; and if onely this will suffice you, even to show such a Text as this. Go ye and Baptize the Infants of believers, 'tis no marvel you complain for want of satisfaction. That man who will undertake to make it good to me under the gospel, that I ought not to mary my Sister, or my Daughter, that I ought to keep the first day as the Lords day, or that my wife might partake of the Lord Supper, shall find it a very hard task, if I be resolved to take nothing for proof but a plain text of Scripture from the Gospel commanding the one and forbidding the other. Friends there are few men in their right wits who profess Christianity, but will readily aclowledge, that what is fairly drawn from Scripture is as true as Scripture, though not formal Scripture; for 'tis impossible that any lie should be raised from that which is truth; thus by good consequence 'tis easily proved that now, the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath or Lords day; that a woman as well as a man may eat the Supper; &c. and if you see a command fairly rising from any Scripture, or scriptures, laid together for Infant baptism, it is as much in effect as if Christ should have said I command you all that believe in me to Baptize your children; if you think not so, then let me desire you that the next time you hear Master oats raise any Doctrine, or Doctrines from Scripture, you would tell him he may not do so; commands by consequence are not binding, if it be not somewhere else in Scripture in so many words, you may not receive it; and when he applies any thing to you from the Word as a truth of God to be embraced, bid him show it you in the very words he delivers it to you from Scripture, or else, tell him he does nothing. Friends, do not allow that liberty to one man which you deny to another, this is not faire dealing; if that be not truth, or not binding which ariseth fairly from the Word, I pray you take heed of believing or submitting to any word or syllable in his sermon that is not express text of Scripture; but now to proceed. I shall undertake to prove christian as fairly to arise by good consequence from Scripture as M. oats shall be to prove any Doctrine that ever he delivered to you which was not in so many words in some other place. I suppose it will not be denied that all along under the old administration of the Covenant of grace from Abraham till Christ, all the Infants of of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first Gen. 17.11, 12. sign or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord which was Circumcision; I mean all the Infants naturally capable of that sign; he that can red the Scripture, will not stick at this, and then my argument runs thus. Where there is the same reason of a Precept or command, enjoining any practise continued, there may and must be the same practise continued. For, when God gives the reason of any command, that reason is the ground of the command; and till that reason ceaseth, he is very bold with God that dare exempt himself from the practise. Now to assume; but the reason of the command for signing Infants of Covenanters with the first sign or seal of the Covenant under the Old Testament continues still in force for that practise under the New Testament; Therefore now that Command is in force to all persons in Covenant as well as it was then. The mayor cleared If the first Proposition be denied, viz. where there is the same reason of a Precept continued, there must be the same practise; then every man may set himself free from any command of God, and who can say unto him, what dost thou? for the Lord commands nothing without a reason; if there be no reason expressed, the reason of his will is implied, which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world, till he makes it appear that ceaseth; this is very clear; but the second Proposition is that whereon the strength or weakness of the Argument in this dispute lies; let us see therefore whether it speaks home for their privileges who cannot speak for themselves, yea or no. That which I am to prove, is this, That the reason of Gods command for signing Infants, &c. continues in the same force under the Gospel that it was in under the Law; and then if any one now decline the practise, Ile be bold to say unto him what dost thou? and take my proof thus. The reason of the Command for signing Infants of Believers under the Law, with the first sign or seal of the Covenant, Minor proved. Gen. 17.7. &c. was this promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as is evident Gen. 17.7, 8. compared with the 9, 10, and 11. verses, where this promise of God, and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, &c. to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, therefore thou shalt circumcise every male, as a token of the Covenant, verse 11. But this same reason of the command continues in force under the Gospel; God doth as truly say to every believing gentle now, I am thy God, and the God of thy seed, as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, so he is called, Rom. 4.11. Therefore I may conclude, that believers under the Gospel have the same command for signing their Infants with the first seal of the Covenant of Promise[ which now is baptism] as Abraham had to sign his under the Law, with the first sign &c. which then was Circumcision; and now sirs, if the blessing of Gal. 3.14, 29. Abraham be come upon you, and if you be heires according to the Promise, you may easily see where to find a Command for baptizing your Infant-seed. It will be necessary to examine what is alleged by those of your way for weakening the first Proposition before I proceed to prove the Minor. Now the only thing of any weight that I know is this. Object. Gods Covenant with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant, as appears, say they, by his promising Abraham temporal things, Gen. 17.8. therefore we may not argue from thence to the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel. I answer. The Scripture nowhere calls that Covenant a mixed Covenant, but on the contrary notwithstanding any civill promises of temporal things it is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be; The mayor cleared. the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, Gal. 3.17. which I think is enough to make it a pure Gospel Covenant. Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace. Outward things, as appurtenances altered not the Covenant, nor made it mixed at all, unless that Covenant we live under be mixed too, for outward things are promised to believers under the Gospel, as Rom. 8.32. 1 Cor. 3.22.23. 1 Tim. 4.8. besides, this Covenant with Abraham is called a Covenant of Justification, Rom. 4.2, 3. of Grace, verse 4. of Faith, verse 13. and I am persuaded that Abraham had not been called the Father of the faithful, if believers had stood in a different Covenant towards God, with that in which he stood; as for differences in the manner of administering and dispensing that Covenant, they matter nothing if there be no difference in those Evangelicall promises which make it a Covenant of Grace, but no man is able to make this appear; therefore this exception weakens not our Proposition, nor the Argument at all. Now to go on to the proof of our second Proposition in the Argument, which is, Minor proved. that the reason of the command for signing Infants, &c. even this promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, continues in full force under the Gospel, I refer you to that Scripture. Acts●. 39. to make it good. The promise is unto you and to your Children. What promise? Why, this must needs relate to a former engagement, yea, and that too made unto them to whom the Apostle Peter speaks, viz. Jews; and I know not to what engagement this can have reference, if not unto Gods promise made to Abraham of being his God and the God of his seed after him. Certainly he is one of those that are blind and yet have eyes, Es. 43.8. who sees not from this Text that this very promise is in force and appliable to Believers under the Gospel; and if this stand good, then the command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of Grace, viz. baptism, stands good too; for this promise is the reason which God gives of his precept; God will own a Believers children therefore he will have them marked for his. Those exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth-priviledge of Believers children under the Gospel, I shall briefly take off. 1. This promise, say some, is of extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as the gift of tongues, faith of miracles, &c. with which Christians in that Primitive age were ordinarily endowed. 1. How doth this svit with the promise made to Abraham, I will be thy God, and &c. unto which I have shewed you the text relates. If it be meant of extraordinary gifts, Abrahams believing seed before Christ had them not, yet to them the promise was made good. 2. It is impossible, refer the Text to what promise you will, that this should be the meaning of it; for then all believing Jews should have had extraordinary gifts which they had not; yea, and all Believers to the end of the world might run to God for extraordinary gifts by prayer from this very promise; for it is of use to the end of the world, as appears by the latter part of the verse, Even to all that the Lord shall call: ye very few Believers, I presume, pray for such gifts. 2. Object. But these words [ At many as the Lord our God shall call] expound the Apostles meaning, which is this, their children should receive the promise if the Lord called them; this I know is mainly urged by divers of your judgement, and gloried in; but friends, without any cause. I answer. That this particle [ Even] with that which follows, Whom the Lord our God shall call, has relation to the next foregoing sentence, viz. those that are afar off, for the explanation of that, and not unto this sentence to you and your children; so that the Apostle speaks thus much, The promise is made to you and your children for the present, and when the Lord shall call those that are afar of, and strangers to the Covenant of promise, they and their children shall be heires to the promise as well as you and your children are now. 2. If the Apostle had meant to apply the promise onely to those who should be called of God to believe then it had been needless to have made any mention at all of children; and certainly he would onely have said, the promise is unto you Jews, and to all that are afar off when God shall call them: but the holy Spirit sets down nothing in vain; therefore surely the Infant-seed of Believers have some portion in the promise, because they are mentioned as well as their Fathers; to you, and &c. 3. That cannot be the Apostles meaning which utterly overthrows the scope he aims at, and that is to show the Jews they shall be bettered rather then worsted by believing in Christ; and he would very hardly have made them believe this, should he have left their children( who were always till now reckoned in Covenant with them) in as poor a condition as the most barbarous Heathens in the world; they are but afar off; and when God shall call them, the promise is to them. I tell you the taking away a childs privilege goes near the heart of a parent; and think but what a bad argument this would have been to bring in the Jews. 'tis could comfort to hear that their children should be made as much aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel by their Fathers embracing the Gospel, as the very Pagans. Surely this would stave off the Jews from Christ, rather then bring them on, and thus I leave you to judge of the weight of this Exception. 3. Objection. But 'tis said, the Promise is to you and your children, you that are Jews and the seed of Abraham, not to the Gentiles and their children; now if this be not made good, the Argument fals, because we are Gentiles by nature; and thus I haue heard S. O. say, That if he knew a child of Abraham according to the flesh, he would baptize it. 1. I answer. If believing Gentiles live under the same Covenant that Abraham and his seed did[ which has been proved] then though they were none of his seed, 'tis safer to apply the whole promise to them. I am thy God and the God of thy seed, then to cut off and circumcise the tenor of the Covenant, and to say unto Believers now. God is onely your God, not the God of your children; is not this to make a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant? and to rob Believers of one of the most precious comforts they have by promise, even Gods owning their seed? which they cannot be assured of as the Jews were, without their children be admitted to the first sign or seal of the Covenant, which is baptism now under the Gospel, as I shall prove by its succeeding Circumcision, by and by. 2. Are not Gentiles the seed of Abraham? Then I would be resolved in this, whether Christ took upon him onely the nature of the Jews, or of Jews and Gentiles both? If onely of the Jews, how must the Gentiles be saved? If of both then how will you construe this Text, Heb. 2.16. He took upon him the seed of Abraham, if you will not allow the Gentiles by any means to be Abrahams seed? but yet further. 3. 'tis plain in the Gospel that Faith makes a Believer the child of Abraham; yea, and a surer heir to the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, then carnal descent from Abrahams loins doth. Abraham had two seeds, one descending from Ishmael, and another from Isaac; all that came from Abraham were not children, Rom. 9.7. But in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Isaac was his special seed, and typ'd out his believing seed under the Gospel, for verse 8. they which are the children of the flesh, these are not,[ that is, not in so peculiar a manner] the children of God as the believing seed, for the children of the promise are the seed, the seed by way of eminency, that is, the prime seed. And mark I pray you, how the same Apostle explains and applies this to our purpose, Gal. 4.28, 29. The Galatians were Gentiles, but being believers, Wee, saith the Apostle, as Isaac was are the children of promise, and so the special seed of Abraham; the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are, but by Faith they became his prime seed and heires apparent to all the Promises as Isaac was, who is said in the next verse to be born after the Spirit as well as Gospel-believers are. And sirs, shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed, and halve the Promises to them, when as they are full and large to his worse seed? the Apostle will not suffer this, Gal. 3.29. If ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heires according to the Promise, which surely needs must be according to the full extent of that Promise made unto our Father Abraham; for if it be not ours so fully as it was his, then we are not heires according to the Promise; If our seed be exempted, it fals much short of what was said to him, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. And mark, Friends, I beseech you, that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. In thee shall all Nations be blessed; not only his natural seed, that was but one Nation; but all that were of the faith, shall be blessed as children, of what Nation soever, verse 7. For Faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision, Rom. 4.10, 11. to this end, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not Circumcised. And truly I wonder, since the Gospel is so clear, that Believers are Abrahams children, that any man dare rob them of any comfort or privilege wherewithal he was invested by that Promise to which they are more sure heires then any of his natural seed, as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities. But lastly, 4. Do believing Gentiles come into Covenant as the Jews were cast out? if they do, then they bring in their children with them; for the Jews Infants were cast out with them, and then God is the God of Believers and their seed still; though they be not the natural branches of the Olive, Rom. ●●. 17. that is the carnal seed of Abraham, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Rom. 9.5. if they do not, then the Apostles allusion from graffing cannot hold good; for when a scien is graffed into any stock, Rom. 11.17. all the twigs and branches that grow out from it partake of the fatness of the root. Thus in our case, the root may be the Covenant of God; the natural branches now broken off with their twigs, are the natural seed of Abraham, even the Jews; the branches wild by nature graffed into that root or stock, Gods Covenant, are believing Gentiles who come in with their seed or twigs that grow from them, else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off. But peradventure you may say as some do, that Christ is that root or stock the Apostle speaks of, and not Gods Covenant, therfore we cannot say Infants as twigs are taken into Covenant if they be not in Christ, which we cannot tell who are and who are not. This cannot be from the Apostles scope in that Chapter which is mainly to prove that the rejection of the Jews is not irrecoverable; and one argument that he uses in the proof of this laid down ver. 16. is, if the root be holy, so are the branches; Rom. 11.16. now this root must needs be the Covenant or God or their holy Ancestors who derived inlike sort holiness to them, as the first fruits being holy derive holinesse( by Gods institution) to the whole lump, and as the root being holy, deriveth holinesse( by Gods Covenant) to the branches; or else he misseth the scope in his Argument, which is to show that the Jews shall be ingrassed into Christ, and become holy, because their root is holy; which will strongly follow, if we take Abraham, or the Covenant of God with Abraham and his seed for the root, but not if Christ be taken for the root; this is good arguing, if Abraham, or the Covenant of God with him and his seed be holy, then the Jews( although now broken off) are or shall be holy also, for Christ imparts his holinesse to none but such as are actually in him by Faith; but the Covenant of God or our holy Ancestors may derive a federal holinesse to their seed, though not actually in Christ; else the Apostles Argument touches not, much more shall these which be natural branches be graffed into their own Olive-tree, verse 24. and if it did not, how are the unbelieving Jews beloved for their Fathers sakes? ver. 28. object. So many as are believers, come into Covenant, and none others, for the Apostle saith, By Faith ye stand, ver. 20. I answer. If Believers exclusively, that is, those and none other come into Covenant. viz. no Infants or Non-believers,[ for we must distinguish Non believers from unbeievers, such as are not come up to a capassity of professing Faith( though they may have Faith Seminally, that is, in the Root) these may be called Non-believers, and such are all Infants, yet I dare not say they are all unbelievers] if I say, onely actual Believers come into Covenant; v. 20. then onely such as were actually in unbelief were cast out; for the Apostle saith as well, Because of unbelief they were broken off, as, By Faith ye stand; now, 'tis certain their Infants were broken off with them; and that they were all actual unbelievers, and such as rejected Christ at their Fathers casting off, I presume you dare not affirm; and if not, then that such onely as are actual Believers were taken into Covenant, Heb. 12.24. I dare by no means affirm. For if Christ be the Mediator of a better Covenant in respect of its better administration, what man may take the boldness to say Believers infants are left out in the Gospel administration which is better, and yet taken in under the legal administration, which was the worse? Or if any one will be so bold as to say it, who may safely credit him? surely leaving out a Believers seed is something material to speak the Covenant-dispensation under the Gospel more uncomfortable then that under the Law; which, how harshly it sounds in the ears of such as look at Christ Jesus as the enlarger of his peoples privileges by his coming in the flesh, I leave you to judge. And thus I have made good my Argument, the reason of that command given to Abraham for signing his infants with the first sign or seal of the Covenant of Grace is of force with Believers under the Gospel; God is still both their God and the God of their seed, therefore the command is still in force; and now the first sign or seal of the Covenant by the institution of Christ, is baptism. A Believers Infant hath the like right to that Ordinance, which Abrahams Infant-seed had to Circumcision during the continuance of that Ordinance. But it may be objected, you take this for granted in your Argument, that baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, and that it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, which very many deny, and you have not proved. If the former of these be proved, the latter cannot be denied; if Baptism succeed Circumcision, it must needs serve for the same use, or else there is no succession; If a Master turn away a man-servant to day, and hire a maid-servant to morrow, she she cannot be said to succeed him, if she be not hired to perform that work which the manservant did; or though there be not the same reason of baptism and circumcision in all respects, yet if baptism be an Ordinance set up by the appointment of Christ to serve for the famed spiritual ends that circumcision did, Exercitac. pag. 3. &c. [ which Master Tombs the ablest man reputed that ever writ for your way, readily grants] then I do not know how you will avoid the succession of baptism to circumcision. You may see it proved more fully by Master Cotton, Master Marshall, doctor Homes and others upon this point, to whom I refer you if you may be permitted to red them; I will onely open that one place Coloss. 2.10, 11. for the proof of it, Col. 2.10, 11, 12. and then pass to your main Objections. The Apostles scope in that chapter is to persuade the Colossians of our absolute and full completeness in Christ under this Gospel administration of the Covenant of Grace that we might not hanker after mens traditions or the rudiments of the world, least it might be Objected, v. 8, 9. we are not so complete in Christ as the Iewes were under the old dispensation of the Covenant; they had circumcision, but we want it, and consequently the spiritual benefits signified and sealed by it, which is the cutting off of the body of the sins of the flesh; the Apostle answereth, we have that by the circumcision of Christ, in whom also ye are circumcised, &c. v, 10. but least it should again be objected we want an outward sign and seal of this, Paul answers, neither do we so, for we are butted with him in baptism, &c. v. 12. which signifies the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh; what doth baptism then but succeed circumcision, being an outward sign of the same thing substituted in the place of that abolished Rite? nay give me leave a little further, I think this place is very full for the baptizing of infants; for baptism must succeed in the same subject, or else it cannot be said to succeed at all. If one of our late Kings sons should be crwoned King of Scotland or Ireland only, he could not be said to succeed the King of England, because the subject of his Government in respect of latitude is changed, and he comes not in his fathers room as King of England; this therfore I say, pleads the right of infants very strongly; if baptism doth succeed circumcision, it must be in the same subject, and that extended to the full latitude that circumcision was, viz believers infants as well as themselves; and indeed the Apostles Argument is not satisfying unless our infants are to be baptized, for it might be objected we are not yet as complete as the jews were, because that besides their own circumcision they had their infants circumcised, Deut. 30.6. to sign and seal unto them that God would circumcise not only their own hearts, but the hearts of their infant-seed also as is promised; but we in our baptism, though we have a sign and seal that God will wash and purify our hearts, yet we have nothing to confirm this unto us that he will wash the hearts of our infants also. But admit the baptism of our infants as well as of ourselves to succeed in the place of circumcision to the jews and their infants, and then the Apostles Argument proceedeth fully, and concludeth invincibly, that we are as complete in our baptism, as the Iewes were in their Circumcision. By our baptism we enter into Covenant with God, which infants are not capable of, because to a Covenant it is necessary that there be a mutual consent and agreement of both parties, covenanting together. To this I answer, that as the Heavens are higher then the earth, Cotton. so are the ways of God higher then our ways, especially the ways of his grace& of the Covenant therof; with men indeed mutual agreement is necessary to a Covenant, Esa. 55.9. but not with God; the Lords appointment makes a Covenant, whether the creature consent to an Agreement or no. We red of Gods making a Covenant, Gen. 9 9, 10, 11. not only with Noah and his seed, but also with every living creature, that he would never sand a flood to destroy them from off the face of the earth any more; here was only an appointment of God to this Covenant; could the beasts stipulate or agree? surely an infant is as capable of covenanting us the Fowles of the air or the beasts of the Field. But your main objection, is this, Obj. Infants are not believers; but the Gospel of Christ approves none in the Lords Covenant, nor admits any unto it's privileges or seals,( of which the Ordinance of baptism is one) but believers; and therefore we red of none Baptized but upon profession of faith, confession of sins &c. I answer, 1. Neither did the Old Testament approve any. in the Lords Covenant but such as believed; yet infants of Covenanters were approved to be in Covenant then; and I presume you will not stick to grant they were as much unbelievers then, as infants are now; but it is one thing to approve the person of any one in Covenant, and clearly another thing to approve him to be in the Covenant: as for example, God did never approve either Iudas in his Apostleship, nor Demas in his Ministry, yet he did approve it that both of them should be admitted to their Ministry. Gen. 17.23. God did never approve of Ishmael in Abrahams family, yet he approved it that he should be in his Fathers house, and also be admitted to the Covenant of his Father and the Seal thereof, till his own profaneness cast him out, and I have cleared it that the promise runs to gentle believers and their seed as fully now, as unto the Iewes and their seed of old, and if unbelief in infants then denied them not a place in the Covenant, I cannot see why it should do it now. 2. I dare not say that infants are unbelievers; for though they be not capable of the hearing of Faith, the preaching of the Gospel which ordinarily begets belief, yet they are capable of the Spirits teaching;[ this I am persuaded you will readily grant me, unless you think, as your teacher S. O. doth, that a childs soul is not perfect, as being Not created by the Father of spirits: so he held Febr. the 8. begotten by the Father and Mother] which Spirit being the principal part of the immortal seed of the word, can beget the grace of the new birth, and Faith without means; and if infants for want of hearing the word in their own persons want faith, and for want of Faith may not be Baptized, then for want of Faith they cannot be saved; for so run the words, Mark 6.15, 16. If for unbelief they must not be baptized, for unbelief they must then be damned. If you say, that's meant of the Lords way of saving grown men, infants are saved another way, and upon other terms; this makes a breach for me to go out at for the baptizing of infants, as well as for yourselves to go out at for their salvation; for I can say, and that more truly, infants are baptized another way, and upon other terms then grown men, and hearers of the word are, viz. upon their parents Faith which entitles them to that Ordinance; if either of an infants parents do believe, he takes hold of the Covenant for his Child, because in believing the glad Gospel tidings published, he believes this, that as God has proclaimed himself the God of believers and their seed, so he will be his God, and the God of his seed; and now his children are no longer Pagans and Infidels, Rom. 11.16. but the children of the faithful and holy, in whom God hath Covenanted to work Faith, and the grace of Regeneration in the elect seed, and to offer both it and the means thereof unto all the seed, till they utterly reject it. 3. I answer, the Apostles in their practise of administering baptism onely upon profession of Faith, set us not up a rule against infant baptism, unless it be recorded that they did refuse absolutely to baptize infants, if offered to them, because they could not profess Faith in Christ. Is it safe arguing from the not doing of a thing to a non-equity of doing it? Especially if there be a rule for it when occasion is offered, as in our case by the believing parents tendering an infant up to God in Covenant upon this promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. Or is it good reasoning thus, because we red not that the Apostles baptized any infants, therefore surely they baptized none? Especially when it may be as probably gathered from what is written that they did, as that they did not. 'tis recorded that they baptized whole houshoulds, Act. 16.15, 33. 1 Cor. 1, 16. and 'tis no where said there were no infants in them. We do require profession of Faith before baptism from Proselytes and men of grown yeares, whether Iewes or Pagans, as the Apostles always did; but show us any ground from the word excluding the infants of such as profess Faith and are baptized, either from the Covenant or from the Seal of it, and then you shall see us quickly lay down our plea for infant baptism. Obj. But is there any danger to defer an infants baptism till we see God outwardly call it? Answ. Yes, there is danger, even of the Parents transgressing a rule, they fulfil not all righteousness, lay hold upon the Covenant but to the halves, leaving their seed out of the Promise, and doing what in them lies to disinherit them; for when God calls the children of believers to a Profession of faith, the promise comes not to them at all as the seed of believers, but as believers themselves: unless therefore infants be baptized and so accounted of Gods family, till they cast themselves out of it, a believers child hath no more privilege from his Parents faith, then a Pagan-infant hath from its fathers unbelief. But this we affirm, That the children of believers do come on themselves to believe by reason of the Covenant of grace, which God hath made with believers and their seed; for by that Covenant he hath promised to writ the law of faith, as of all other saving graces in their hearts, that they may come in Gods time and way to enjoy all other saving privileges of the Covenant, as did their fathers before them; and hereupon infants have a right to that first sign of the Covenant, Baptism, which alone they are capable of having administered to them while infants. And friends, if calling for children outwardly to come unto Christ will suffice you in this, they cannot be said to come before they are called in Mark 10.14. and if Christ call for them by his promise to their fathers, they do truly come[ and upon an outward call too] though brought in their parents arms; their root is holy, so are the branches by a Covenant-holinesse at least, which the Apostle speaks plainly to, 1 Cor. 7.14. and though that place be eluded by your Teachers, with saying infants are holy that are sanctified to the believing Father as the unbelieving wife is, and no otherwise, he having an holy use to them both: yet let me tell you that this is a very weak evasion; for when Paul saith the unbelieving yoke fellow is sanctified, he doth not leave it so without a restriction, but faith, he or she is sanctified to the believer, which must needs limit the sense to the believers use; but speaking of children, he leaves out that limitation, and saith not, they are holy to the believer, but positively, they are holy; now to be sanctified to a believer, and to be holy, are very different, and therefore let not us make them the same; sickness is sanctified to a believer, so are bonds and imprisonment; is sickness therefore and persecution holy? the fallings of Gods children into sin are sanctified unto them, God enables them to make a sanctified use of their fals; but I dare not say that fallings into sin are holy; the childes holinesse therefore is more then the sanctification of the yoke-fellow unto her husband; and if that be not Gods reckoning it to be within his holy Covenant, for its fathers sake, I would gladly learn of you what it is. And thus by the guidance of those beams of light which have broken in to my spirit from above by the word, I have broken through the clouds of your main objections, and presented that sacred truth of God,( for which I have contended) clear to the view of every gracious heart that stands in an impartial awe of Gods word. If you seek for a command to baptize your infants, I have told you where to find it; if you would know how that command can stand with the Apostles practise, I have let you see; and I doubt not but such as lay sure hold upon the blessing of Abraham by faith, will own every privilege of Abraham as a believer for theirs, amongst which this is a choice one, even the encovenanting their infant-seed with them. I have but briefly put into your hands and somewhat rodely, that which other of Gods faithful witnesses choycely anointed from above have spoken in this point: for I think it almost impossible that more should be said, then what they have written for evidence of this Argument; and had not their writings been hide from you, I doubt not but you would have been baptized into a spirit of better obedience then for the present many of you are. The Lord give you hearts willing to retreat, when you see yourselves beaten back from your errors by the strength of truth, and not obstinately to persist and go on, 2. Thes. 2.11. deceiving and being deceived, as men given over to a spirit of strong delusion, and utterly fallen from your own steadfastness. I had thought to have spoken something about the point of general atonement with which you are strangely taken, 2 Pet. 3.16, 17. and very impatient of all men contrary-minded; but let me entreat you seriously to weigh how your tractate is handled already by Mr. Stalham of suffolk in that business, Mr. Stalbams vindiciae Redem, tionis. if it be lawful for you to look upon any thing that makes against Mr. oats, or tends towards the shaking your hearts in whatsoever he tells you is a truth. I desire you only, as touching this matter, in the fear of God to consider 1. Whether Election be not a truth as clearly held out in the word, as that of Christs dying for all? if you say not, Ile bind myself to every one of you upon the forfeiture of my faith, through Gods assistance to make it clear, when ever you shall call me; and for the present look into these Scriptures, Rom. 8.29, 30. Rom. 9.16. to the 24. Eph. 1.4, 5. 2 Thes. 2.13. weigh them well, and deal not deceitfully with your souls. 2. Since Election can be taken but one way, even for Gods choosing and calling a people out of the world for himself; Joh. 15.19. and Christs dying for all may be taken several ways, as either for to save all, or to procure some benefit for all; whether it be not more safe to take Christs dying for all in that sense in which it may consist with Election, then in that sense wherein it utterly overthrows it; a gracious heart is as jealous of every truth of God, as of any one single truth; and though Mr. oats say we bind mens hands, and tie up their legs with a kind of an eternal decree, yet I shall take leave to tell him, if that decree which he mocks at take no hold of him, better were it for him, though Christ died for all, never to have heard syllable of the name Jesus. 3. Whether Christs putting all men in point of means only, into a possibility of salvation, can stand either with this Election of God or the certain salvation of any. For friends, that which on is only possible to be, its possible it may not be. 4. Whether there be any just ground for you to charge the Ministers of the Church of England, with making the way of salvation too narrow when they make it broad enough for all belevers? let profane unbelieving wretches complain of this, it doth not to well become you who profess the holy faith; you know streight is the gate and narrow is the way, &c. and he that makes it broad enough to take in unbelievers, speaks wickedly for Gods grace, and let him answer it. 5. Whether the Gospel may not be preached freely and fully, though sinners be never told that Christ died for all? I say tis his dying for sinners makes it Gospel, and not his dying for all sinners; for evidence of this look into 1 Tim. 1.15 And now let me from what has been spoken advice you, that you would take heed of being too hasty in judging those[ to whom you cannot vouchsafe the name of Ministers] as teachers of lies, and men leading people in false ways, merely from accusations drawn up against them by heedless gainsayers; if 'tis crime enough to be accused, I wonder where you will find an innocent man. Speak not the Ministry Antichristian, till yourselves or Samuel oats can prove they counterworke Christs design of saving souls: I am persuaded some of you are the seal of their Ministry; if so, you requited them very ill, 1 Cor. 9.2. when instead of gratifying God in them, you do even despise them in your hearts, if not hate them with a perfect hatred; but they are willing to take up with that of their Master, joh. 15.20. and will never fail to account it their greatest honour to be made a Spectacle unto the world, 1 Cor. 4.9. &c. and to Angels and to men, yea to be trampled under foot as the mire in the street for the cause of Christ and his Gospel: the Lord in whose hands they are, will enable them to approve themselves as his Ministers, in much patience, in affliction, 2 Cor. 6.4. &c. in necessities and distresses, by honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report, as deceivers and yet true, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing and yet possessing all things. Thus I take my leave of you, desiring that you would overlook every expression[ if there have any such escaped from me] which savours not of the Spirit of meekness. If any of you be unsatisfied in any thing here laid down by me, I am ready to take it up, and to maintain what I have written, as knowing God will own it for his truth, and not suffer it to fall by reason of the weakness of his hand who is yours and every mans in Gospel service. JO: DREW. FINIS. Imprimatur, March 8. 1648. JO. DOWNAME.