Christianismus redivivus Christndom both un-christ'ned and new-christ'ned, or, that good old way of dipping and in-churching of men and women after faith and repentance professed, commonly (but not properly) called Anabaptism, vindicated ... : in five or six several systems containing a general answer ... : not onely a publick disputation for infant baptism managed by many ministers before thousands of people against this author ... : but also Mr. Baxters Scripture proofs are proved Scriptureless ... / by Samuel Fisher ...

Disproof.

As I replied then, so I reply still, that for ought I know the children of Turks and Pagans (dying in infancy) may be all saved, yet will it not follow (so much as probably) that therefore in reallity, or in my opinion either, the Devils may be saved also, which rude return is recorded by your selves to be then given, and stands for ever before the world, as the end of this your argument, and of your Disputation also, there being to this assertion of mine viz. for ought I know the children, or dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved, no other answer given by you in the Dispute, nor yet since in your Account, nor yet ever to be expected.

But Sirs, as great an Extasie as you seem to be in about this position, yet I as∣sure you if I had not learn'd it before, yet I have learn't it since from your very selves, who so strange at it, to be a thing not so strange as true viz. that the dying infants of Turks and Pagans may be all saved, and that the dying infants in your Christendom are in no better condition then the dying infants of Turks and Pa∣gans (for so I said, and not as you here misrelate it, then Turks and Pagans them∣selves) for if the dying infants of infidels are in no worse condition then your dying infants, then surely yours are in no better condition then they, and that they are in no worse condition then yours, nothing need hinder you more then me (for ought I know) from a belief thereof, unlesse you will refuse to believe your selves, who preach no lesse both to me, and all men no further off hence then in the next page, and the next save one above; for do you not say there that unlesse we will violate Christian charity, whose rule is praesumere &c. to presume every one to be in a good condition, till he appears to be in an evil, we must believe and hope all things of the little children of believers, since it cannot appear in infancy, that

they have barred themselves, &c. and if so why not of the infants of Turks, Pagans, and infidels? specially (to speak in your own dialect) since it cannot ap∣pear that these have any more than the other by any actual sin barred themselves, or deserved to be exempted from the general state of little children declared in the Scriptures, which is this, viz. That of such is the Kingdome of hea∣ven.

You see then how you teach us this precious piece of truth your selves p. 4.5. therefore I hope you will learn it your selves, viz. that we are to hope well of such infants as have not by actual sin barred themselves from Salvation, and al∣low us to teach it too in time, though hitherto you seem to be so far from giv∣ing way to us to teach the same, that when we speak well of infants, that have not by actual sin deserved exemption, and hope well of their salvation so dying, you so wretchedly forget it to be the doctrine your selves deliver, that with de∣testation you protest against it as abominable, as if there were as little hope to be had of the salvation of such dying infants, as are not born in Christendome, as of the salvation of the very devils: but your first doctrine shall stand of the two for truth with me, from which, though you often contradict it your selves, I shal not be frighted by your bigg words, but still hope as well of one dying infant as another.

Secondly (Risum teneatis amici?) it is enough I think to set him on smiling who is never so deep in his dumps, to see what a most pat, and pertinent place of Scripture you have here dragged in to the proof of infant baptism, viz. 1 Thes. 4.13▪ from whence (as the wheel barrow goes rumble to rumble so) it followes that infants are to be baptised: you might as well have said you may find it in the fifteenth of go look it, as send us to a text of so little tendency as this is of, to your present purpose: for what if we are not to mourn over the death of Saints, and Godly friends that sleep in Jesus, as those that can have no hope of such friends as they see to dy ung••dly (which is indeed the direct drift of the place) will it therefore follow that all those infants, that dy without baptism, are universally, and unavoidably damned? yet no less then this is here told by your selves to be your tenet, whilst you say our denial of baptism unto them destroies all hope of their salvation.

But Sirs is it so in earnest in your opinion, that no baptism no hope of salva∣tion?

Then thirdly, I have a treble charge to draw up against you.

• 1. of unchristian cruelty.
• 2. Of point blank popery.
• 3. of clear contrariety both to your selves, and to those very authors you refer us to, to read and learn by, and also to the very professed doctrine of the church of England whereof you profe••s to be the Ministers.

First I must cry out oh the Vnchristian cruelty that is hatched in your hearts, and here expressed, not onely to these thousands of infants, even of Christians that happen to dy unbaptized, at least to whom baptism is at this day denyed to be dispensed, but specially to that numberless number of infants of Turks, Pa∣gans, and infidels, to whom in infancy your own Doctrine denies baptism, as well as ours, and consequently (if your own bloody tenet of no baptism no salva∣tion to dying in••ants were true) all hope of their salvation.

Tis your common course to clamor and cry out against us, as having no chri∣stian charitie, as being most inveterate, and cruel enemies to infants, only for denying the baptism of those few, to whom you dispense it, as well as those Myriads of little ones, to whom your selves deny it together with us: but I ap∣peal to all people, who are not already so perfectly prejudiced against us by your prating, as to stand resolved to believe nothing but your blind dictates, to judge between us whether we are so cruelly opinioned towards infants, who barely de∣ny

them baptism, believing the salvation notwithstanding of all that dy in infan∣cy without it, or your selves rather, who deny that dispensation to all infidels in∣fants, which are twenty to one in the world, and yet hold that dispensation so necessary to salvation, that there is no hope of other then damnation to whomsoe∣ver it is denyed, whereas in confutation of you out of your own mouths (if your own sense of Mat. 18.14 be true, where you contend to have the word lit∣tle ones taken literally for infants) Christ himself saies there, that it is not the will of my Father that so much as one of these little ones should p••rish.

Secondly, oh the palpable papistry which is here openly professed by you, who yet would seem to protest against every inch of it, for it is one of the grossest pie∣ces of popery to hold no salvation to infants without baptism, and one great con∣troversie between them and protestants; yet you give the cause thus far, as to grant it to be necessary, and effectual to salvation of infants (whether ex opere operato or no, as you are silent in it here, so pray tell us another time) that there need be neither doubt nor fear of such dying infants damnation to whom its dis∣pensed, and can be no hope of the salvation of such as dy without it, or at least to whom doctrinally it is denied.

Thirdly, oh the wretched contradiction, that is here given.

1. To your selves, who say above p. 5. that it is breach of Christian cha∣rity to presume otherwise then well of such little infants, of whom it cannot ap∣pear, that by any actuall sin they have barred themselves or deserved exemption from salvation, and such are all infants in infancy, whether baptized or unbap∣tized, whether of Christians or heathens; and yet here you say, there is no hope of the dying infants of infidels, and in case we deny baptism to them as little hope of the salvation of such dying infants, as are born of Christian parents also: Hay-Ho! I dare say the dog is not good Mutton, if this be not uniform Divi∣nity.

Secondly, not only to other writers on this subject, as Mr. Cotton, who p. 85. of his book called, The way of the Churches in New-England, saith, one may remain a member of the invisible Church of the first born, when yet he hath neither part nor portion, nor fellowship in the particular flock and visible Church of Christ Iesus; which shewes (to the confutation of you, and Mr. Baxter also, who pins the salvation of infants so much upon their Churchmember∣ship and baptism) that infants may be supposed to be out of the Visible Church, and yet be hoped to be in a state of salvation also; I say not only to other wri∣ters, but to the writers your selves will us to peruse, viz. Calvin, and Vr∣sin.

For first, Vrsins Catechism, (as insufficient as it is to prove infant baptism) furnishes us with enough wherewith to confute this unsavory stuff you have here recorded, viz. the hopelesness of the salvation of such infants, to whom baptism is denyed, whose words are these viz.s

The want of the sacrament doth not damn persons, that dy without it, if those persons do not contemn it (and whether infants in infancy can possibly be said to contemn it though their parents permit them to dy without it, needs no great ex∣planation) again Christ doth not ere the more deny salvation to whom baptism is denyed.

Secondly Calvins institutions confesses at large that baptism is not so necessa∣ry to salvation as you seem to make it: his words are these Li. 4. c. 15. S. 20.t

What mischief that opinion brings viz that baptism is necessary to salvation,

few consider, and therefore they take the less heed in asserting it, for where that opinon grows on once, that they are all damned that dye unbaptized, our conditi∣is worse then that of the Iews, for hereby Christ may be thought to come not to fulfill, but to abolish the promises, if the promise which then was efficacious of it self to salvation before the eighth day, be not now available thereto, without the administration of the sign. and a little below Sect. 22. he saith thus:

Infants are not shut out of the kingdom of heaven that dye before baptism, therefore there will no small injury be done to the Covenant of God, unlesse we rest in that alone, as if it were not valid enough of it self, when its efficacy de∣pends neither on baptism, nor any other matters accessary to it.

By all this it may be easily perceived not onely who they are that streiten the Grace of God under the Gospel, and make it narrower then of old under the law, viz. not our selves (as you feign) but your selves, who say denial of baptism to infants destroyes the hope, that else might be had of their salvation, but also what an individuum vagum your Pamphlet is, wandering and swarving clear a∣side from the stars, you direct us to for light, and would seem to steer your own course by, Thirdly, to the doctrine of the Church of England, which though it own baptism as a sign and (falsely enough) as a seal of the Covenant of Grace that may lawfully at least be dispensed to infants, yet rejects that tenet however, as spurious, and popish that makes salvation and damnation depend so much up∣the dispensation, or denial of it to infants, that theres no hope of the salvation of those infants that dye without it: witnesse Rogers his Analysis of the 39. Arti∣cles, of the Catholick doctrine of the Church of England p. 167.168 we condemn (saith he) the opinion of the Russeis, that there is such a necessity of baptism, that all that dye without the same are damned, we may see how well the Church of England is serv'd among you, whose own ministers swerve from the sense of those Articles she makes them sweare to.

If you mean that a denial not de facto, but de jure i. e. not of baptism it self to infants, but of their right to baptism damns them, and that doctrinally onely, not really, they dying without it, you might have said so then if you had pleas∣ed, but your blunt delivery of your selves here, without any modification of your meaning, makes it out, as if you meant to fright the whole Countrey to baptize all their infants in all hast, as ever they mean to have any hope they shall be sa∣ved: besides if they be but doctrinally damned, and not really by the denial of baptism to them the matter is so much the lesse, for as they are not one straw the better, whether living or dying in infancy, if they have it, so they cannot be (as to salvation) one straw the worse, if they want it, and die without it, and then what need such thundring out of terror to the parents, as if there were no way but one, that is damnation to their dying infants out of hand; if they do not see to the ba∣ptizing of them in infancy before they dye? moreover, if it be doctrinally to damn all infants to deny their right to baptism, then how damnable is your doctrine to that innocent age, who deny it to no lesse then 20 to one viz. all the dying in∣fants of unbelievers? but the best ont is though your doctrine is so desperate and ungodly as to declare nought but damnation to all such, as the Pope doctrinally damnes i. e. all that are not born within the pale of the Church, yet there is salva∣tion enough for these infants, as well as for the other in Christ Jesus, whereby till they deserve exemption by actuall transgression, they may be saved really, though with you they are doctrinally damn'd, and with us as well as you deny'd to have, or so much as to have any right at all to baptism.

Thus Sirs I have done with your deep Disputation, there remaining no more but a certain magisterial moderation or determination, in which you are your own carvers, taking upon you to manage it by the mouth of him, whose onely argu∣ments all these are, in which piece of your Pamphlet I shall briefly take notice of some passages wherein you speak very fairly of your selves, very fowly, falsly and

injuriously of your respondent, very conrradictorily to what you said before, very ignorantly of the word, very impertinently as to the proof of faiths being in, and baptisms belonging to those infants you plead for, more then those you plead against, and then come to consider your Review, you speak as followeth.

Notes

• s

  Privatio sa∣cramenti non damnat ••i non accedat contemptus, christus non adimi•• sal••••∣em eis, qui∣bus adimi••••r baptismus.
• t

  Quantum damni invex∣erit dogma il∣led, male expos••••um, baptisma esse de necessitate ••al••••is, pauci animadvert••nt: Ideoque minus sibi ca∣vent, nam ubi inval••it opinio perditos esse omnes, quibus aqu•• tingi non contigit, nostra conditio de••enor est quam vereris populi, quasi restrictior esser Dei g••••••ia quam sub lege, venisse enim Christus censebitur non ad implen••as promissiones sed abolendas, quando promissio, q••ae ••un•• ante oct••vum diem, saluti confe∣••endae per se erat satis effi••••x, nunc absquo signi adminiculo rata non esse••.
• Non arceri a regno caelo rum infances, quibus è prae senti vita mi∣grate contin∣get, antequam aqua mergi d••tum fuerit, atqui jam vi sum est fieri nou levē inju∣riam dei sae∣deri, nisi in eo acquiescimus, ••csi per se in∣firmum esset, q••um ejus ef∣fectus neque a baptismo, ne∣que ab ollis acestionibus pendeat.