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.

Ile muse a little if you will, now I am upon it, by what kind of holiness of theirs you would have prov'd it: I deny not but there may be in infants of believers a kind of holiness, yet there's neither that kind by which you commonly conceive you can, nor any kind by which you possibly can evince the verity of such a pra∣ctise.

The holiness you mean certainly is either

• ...Matrimonial,
• ...Ceremonial,
• ...or Morall

Morall holiness, I cal that which is opposed to sin, moral wickedness and pro∣faness of heart and life, but sure you do not mean this holiness, or if you do, what do you mean by it? do you mean some inward quality, inherent habit or prin∣ciple of grace and spiritualness, as whereby these infants of believers may be de∣nominated as the true Saints or holy ones of God are viz. Partakers of his holiness as Heb. 12, 10. and holy i. e. qualitative, though not quantitative, in the same manner, though not the same measure? and if you do, is this habit innat••s, acquisitus or infusus, by birth, or begotten in them by frequent acts of ho∣liness, or infused from above? for one of these three it must be, if it be an Ha∣bit.

But 'tis not the first, for secundum te at least (O Priest-hood) they are born in sin, and are by birth this way as unholy as any others.

Not the second, for secundum te again, by your own confession these are not capable in infancy to act either good or evill, yea instruction of the understanding must go before any actings be, yea weigh but your own expressions a little p. 18. of your Pamphlet where you tell us thus much in plain terms, that instruction of the understanding in matter of faith in some sort, must go before any act of faith can be discovered; to which I fully assent, and add, that instruction of the un∣derstanding in matter of holiness, (and this infants are not capable of) must go before any act of holyness can be discovered.

If you say the third, then pray tell me three things.

First, How its discovered to you, or how you know that theirs such a habit of holyness infused into believers infants in that non-age whereupon you build your boldness to baptize them? for by the fruits only it is that we can know persons Mat. 7.6. to be good or evil, and you confess pag. 8. that infants have not the exercise and fruit of faith, and commonly in your pulpits that holiness is the fruit of faith, and Iames challenges any one if he can to shew him his faith with∣out his works, Iam. 2.18. yea you say plainly that the seed of faith sown after di∣scovers it self when the season comes p. 8. and that no judgement of science can be passed, till the acts themselves be seen, and examined for a posteriore only (mark that word only) the discovery of habits is made, these are your own sayings in your Review p. 18. whereby you plainly unsay all that here you say of believers infants faith, and holiness, for if it be so that the discovery of these habits is only a po∣steriore, i. e. by the fruits, exercises, and acts, and that Infants have not these, then how I trow have you the discovery of it at all, before the season, that these habits are in them? yet such is your shameless inconsiderateness, and custome of contradicting your selves, that you pretend to a discovery of it so farr as to at∣tempt here the discovery of it to the world: will you allwaies feed the world thus with your own groundless fancies, and fashion it in religion according to your own careless conception? will you alwaies affirm things so to be, and venture to make them known, and yet confess they cannot be known too? O curas hominum o quantum est in rebus mane!

Secondly, pray tell me how this holiness, which you assert to be in believers infants whereby you would make it appear that they have the spirit, doth appear any more to be in them then the spirit it self; are they not both a like dark to us, and unapparent? yet you profess to prove the one of these by the other thus, they have holyness therefore the spirit, and if to one querying, how you know they have holiness? you should say thus they have the spirit, therefore holyness, 'twere a proof no more impregnant then the other, for you could do more then leave the people, whose blind guides you are, as much in the dark as before, by this, and by that I am sure you do no less: when men fall to proving (as you have done hitherto all along in your Disputation) things undiscernable by things as undis∣cernable as the other, and things that appear not at all, by things that appear no more at all then those they would make to appear by them,

Nescio an anticyram ratio illis destinet omnem.

Thirdly, I pray tell me how this holiness appears to be in believers infants whom thereupon you would have to be baptized, more then in unbelievers infants whom (though in your practise you promiscuously admit them with the other yet) in your proofs you except from your baptism? is there any more Specimen or shew of holiness in them then in these? the best spectacles that ever I beheld with, could never behold it; Is there any more capableness of such an Infusion of ho∣liness, or of having such an habit infused? Is there any experience of it when they come to years that the infants of believers had this holiness in their infancy and unbelievers infants had not? if so, how is it that when they are grown, the children of unbelievers have holiness very often, when as oft the other prove wic∣ked, and have not? (have a care of your shinnes (good now) by all means)

do the children of believers fall from it? is there any promise of God, whereby he stands ingaged to infuse holiness into these infants in infancy, when he will not infuse it into the other? and if so, how it is it that we must necessarily hold (for so you say your own selves in your Review p. 18.) that God is not bound (for if he hath promised it as you say he hath Acts 2. then he is bound) to work it in all the children of Christian parents, nor barred from working it in any of the chil∣dren of infidels? Is there any promptness to acts of holiness, whence only you can clearly argue ad positionem habitus, in that infancy in which you sprinkle them, in believers infants than in the other? all your skill in Physiogmony can never find it: or can you argue ad negationem habitus, to no holiness in an infidels infant more then in anothers? your very selves acknowledge you cannot: if not, why more I wonder ad negationem spiritus? why more ad negationem baptismi? why more ad negationem nugationis istius vestrae, viz. your trivial new way, or rather no way of baptism? to which if it were baptism indeed, you must admit, if not all, then not at all in time of infancy, or else your absurdities are unsuffrable, Sirs suffer me to come cross to you, and hit you home with your own cross interrogatory p. 18. are those infants of infidels, between whom, and those of believers, you objectors will admit no comparison, inclinable to acts of holiness? or not? if the former, it presupposes then that infidels infants have the habit also as much as the other, and so the working in them, and those born of believing parents may be one, and so their holiness, and faith, and spiritualness, and baptism be one too, which all your Dispu∣tation doth deny; if the latter, I freely confess these are not inclinable, nor yet the other neither.

These premised the Answer is in your own very words pag. 18. That unless it could be certainly presumed what children have the habit, i. e. of faith, holiness, what have not, the working of the spirit is not known to us, he is nei∣ther bound nor barr'd there can be no conclusion made, and therefore Quis nisi mentis inops &c. how justly may they be concluded by themselves, as well as by others, to have hand plus cerebri quam cimax sanguinis, and no more under∣standing then those whose right eye is utterly darkned, who premising these sen∣tences themselves, do for all that make this conclusion, viz. that these infants have faith, Holiness, the Spirit, and thereby right to baptism above all o∣thers.

Or secondly Sirs do ye mean by it some Negative holiness, consisting in their being without sin, and having yet no wickedness, and prophanness, the thing, which (and more properly by farr) you stile innocency in the next words? though yet o curious criss-cross you will not hold them guiltless neither: if so, for my part I give you in my assent to it, that infants are innocent, but I cannot help it if it do you no good in your cause, for first are infants of believers any more innocent in time of infancie then the rest? how so? not by birth, for they are all alike born in sin, secundum ••e, not in life, for it cannot appear that the one have more blurr'd them∣selves, or barr'd themselves by any actual sin from baptism (if innocency be that which intitles to it) then the other

But secondly to say the truth Sirs so far is baptism from being intailed to in∣nocents, and holy ones only, as their only right, that it belongs rather only unto sinners, for though Christ for examples sake, and for other ends, submitted to it, who yet had no sin of his own, but he had ours by imputation, yet the most proper use of it to all else that submit is to signifie the remission of their sins Mat. 3.6. Luk. 3.3 Act. 2.38. Act. 22.16.

If believers infants therefore be so righteous, holy, i. e. innocent, &c. as you make them, and I dare not deny but that they are, nor dare I saie otherwise for the world of other infants in infancie, having more charity than your selves, even so much as to presume unumquem{que} bonum nisi constet de malo, they are so little inrighted to baptism thereupon, that till they sin they are much rather exemp∣ted

from it: for if baptism be a sign to signifie to him who submits to it, the re∣mission of his sinnes in plurali, (as Acts 2.38. and in all other places it seems to be) then its utterly usless to such (and therefore to infants) as, being yet under no Commission of sinnes, need yet no sign of Remission of them.

Secondly. Matrimonial holiness I call that, which arises from the conjugati∣on of two viz, one man and one woman only into one flesh, according to Gods ho∣ly ordinance and institution; the subject of which holiness is not onely marriage it self, and the marriage bed, which is said to be honourable among all men, and undefiled, or which is all one, to be holy, Heb. 13.4. but also the married persons of what rank, quality, religion soever, when once come into that conju∣gall relation, whether both or either or neither of them be believers; and the seed or infants that are born of them in that condition, which are called by God him∣self, Mal. 2.15. a seed of his own seeking, a godly seed, or seed of God, which he owns as truly, lawfully, honestly, holily begotten, according to his own ho∣ly appointment, and not basely, beastly, trecherously, adulterously, nor corrupt∣ly, as those are which are not begotten in the bed.

Opposite to this holiness, these holy ones (I mean the married couples, and their holy seed) are all the lusts of concupisence, objected on strange flesh; un∣cleanness, 1 Thess. 4.7. adultery, fornication, and unclean agents, i. e. adul∣terers; and the unclean issues of the adulterous bed, viz, the adulterous brood, or the seed of the adulterer and the whore Isa. 57.3.

This kind of holiness I dare say you do not mean, yea the most of you will hard∣ly be perswaded that there's any such kind of holiness at all, or if you be it makes nothing for your purpose, for what if infants of believing parents be (as infants of unbelieving parents also are, when begotten in lawfull wedlock) holy in such a sense, doth this tend at all to prove them to have the holy spirit, which is the thing in hand? yet this even this, and no other is all the holiness meant by Paul 1 Cor. 7.14. where he saith, else were your children unclean, but now are they ho∣ly, that very place which your selves so often send us to, for proof thereof, when we deny your Antecedent in this consequence, viz. Infants of believers are ho∣ly, therefore to be baptized: This that I say as 'tis not deni'd (to my knowledge) by some that are for infants baptism, so is it most undeniable to any that will but plainly and impartially consider the direct drift of the Apostle in the verse, which is not any such matter as to shew that there's such a sanctity in the unbelieving hus∣band, or wife of believing yoke-fellows (for these are there said to be holy as well as the children, with the same holiness) and in their children also, as in∣rolles them all, viz. the unbelieving parties, and the children, as well as the be∣lieving parties in the Covenant of grace, or in any such outward Church cove∣nant, as inrights them to baptism, membership and fellowship in the Congrega∣tion, but to shew such a sanctity or holiness, as clears both their conjunctions, and conceptions to be pure and guiltless, such as frees their bed from the account of baseness, and their brood from the account of bastardy, both which in the sight of God and men would else be unholy, i. e. utterly unlawful and unclean: his scope is (I say) to convince them of the lawfulness of that state, i. e. of a believer and unbelievers being man and wife together, by the lawfulness of the seed that proceeds from them, and by both these not onely of the liberty and legality, but the duty also of their continuance together in that civil marriage relation, not∣withstanding their different religion, as well as if they were in Religion one and the same: The Corinthians had written to him (it seems verse 1) about many cases; wherein they were scrupled, and among the rest about this, viz. whether a hus∣band or wife comming into the faith, and leaving their yoke-fellows still in unbe∣lief; might lawfully own and cleave to them still, as their true and lawful yoke-fellows, as before they did, when they were both in unbelief, or as they may one to another that are both in the faith, or whether they must not rather leave them

now, and disown them as to that old capacity, because of this spiritual difference that now was between them, in answer to which he tells them, that by all means if the unbelieving parties will be pleased still to abide with them, as before, the be∣lieving parties must not depart, nor put away; and to satisfie them further in so doing, he renders them this good reason, viz. for the unbelieving wife is sancti∣fied in, or to the husband, and the unbelieving husband to the wife, which is as much as if he had said, you are as true man and wife in the account of God as before, your marriage is an honourable, your bed as undefiled as before, your unbelieving husband or wife sanctified as a lawful companion to you as well as before, your living and lying together is as holy, and unblameable in the eyes of God as before, and to put this more out of doubt yet, least any should remain un∣resolved, he minds them further by another argument (ab absurdo) the absurdity which they it seems were too inconsiderate of, that would follow upon it, if this were not so, for else (saith he) your children are unclean; else (that is) if you de∣ny your selves in this case of different Religion to be lawful man and wife together, you heed not (for wise men do not at all times see the ill consequences of things at present, as Mr. Tombes well observes, and as stark m••d as Mr. Baxter saies page 87. of his Baby-book the Corinthians were, if they did not mind this) you heed not what mad work you will make by so doing, hereby you will deny your children to be a lawfull issue; you will bring the blame of baseness upon your begettings, and the blot of bastardy upon your off-spring; for all men know (though at all times it may not come into their minds, nor then possibly when ther's most need it should) that by the same reason that the parents are not holy in their coming together, nor sanctified one to another by the ordinance of God, viz. true and lawful matrimony, the babes begotten and born of them, cannot be that godly seed, Mal. 2.15: but must be base born and unclean, and this the Apostle here hints unto them in this clause, else were you children unclean, thereby evin∣cing or evidencing to them, who doubted of it, the warrantableness of their a∣bode in their marriage contract: but now saith he, i. e. though you are one in the faith, and the other in unbelief, yet your children are holy; and honestly born for all that (as else they could not) and you consequently holy pure, and ho∣nest in your communion.

And here I cannot but note by the way how egregiously Mr. Baxter pedles in a long prate to Mr, Tombes page 86, 87. about an impossibility of the Corinthi∣ans knowing their seed to be legitimate, and yet doubting their marriage to be unlawful, whereas they might in general know it, and yet in special at this time not be so serious in considering it; and how impossible it was for Paul rationally to argue from the effect to the cause, so as to go about to convince them of the law∣fulness of their marriage, by a consideration of the lawfulness of their seed, which flowes from lawful marriage, and is a consequent, of which that is the cause: whereas in cognitione (praesertim confusà) effectus sunt priores causis: in order to such knowledge as the Apostle seeks here to beget them to, which was but as it were a certain remembrance of what they might have easily gathered of themselves, had they not been so forgetfull as to need a memorandum, 'tis not irrational to clear the cause by the effect, as to say there's smoak, therefore there's fire, yet the fire is the cause of the smoak, these infants are no bastards, but legitimate, ther∣fore their parents were married is the very same.

This therefore I say again is all the holiness here intended. As for that federall holiness you fiddle men in the ear with as the only holiness here aim'd at, I confess I once rawly uttered it in discourse my self, when being a sprinkler of infants (as you are) and as stiff a stickler for that practise as the blindest ••mong you, I was made choise of to defend it against the Baptists, who not by force of Armes (as the Priest-hood once did) but by force of Arguments at last overcame me to-their way, but as I was then pretty well faulted for fastening such false constructi∣ons

as of a faederal holiness on that place, so upon a more serious search into its sense, I have found it my self so faulty, that if I had said a fiddlestick holiness, it had been but somewhat more ridiculous, so far is Paul from dilating on any such kind of holiness in that Scripture, where to convince them of a meer civil san∣ctity, and to shew that different Religion destroies not any civil relation is verily the very utmost of his errand.

To inculcate this yet a little more upon you, let me press you to lay to heart these few considerations.

First that, as here in this fourteenth verse he shews that the civill relation, or in∣st••••utive holiness of the state between man and wife is not nullified by a difference about the faith, so but that they may abide together therein, though one be a believer, and the other an infidel, without any sin or guilt contracted to the belie∣ver by such continuance in their contract, so in the following verses he shews that the civil relation, or civil sanctity of the State between Master and Servant is not nullified thereby, so but that they may lawfully live together in that state, though the Servant should be a believer, and the Master an infidel; or the Master a be∣liever and the Servant an Infidel ve. 21. art thou called being a Servant, i. e. to an unbelieving master, care not for it, i. e. distract not thy self about it, scruple it not solicitously, as if it were an unholy, unclean, unlawfull, or sinfull state for thee to remain in, for v. 22. he that is called in the Lord, i. e. to the faith being a Servant, i. e. in bondage to a Master not yet called, is Christs free man, i. e. acceptable to Christ, even in that state and relation to such a Master as before; and in the favour of Christ, as also he that is called being free, or a Master himself is Christs servant, i. e. one whom he owns for his, accepts and justifies, though happily he may be by covenant in relation still to unbelieving servants, he is holy, honorable, and undefiled in his state as a Master, and that by virtue of the Ordinance of Christ, who hath sanctified that condition and relation of Master, and Servant to each other, as holy for them to abide in together, though in Morall respects the person of one of them may be holy, and the other wick∣ed.

The very like to which Pauls hints in his exhortation to servants, even of unbelie∣ving masters, 1 Tim. 6.1. where he bids believing servants that are under the yoke, though to unbeliving Masters (for in that he saies & they that have believing Ma∣sters in v. 2▪ it argues that he means such as have non-believing Masters in the first) That they should count them worthy of all honor because they are their ma∣sters still, by the ordinance of God that hath set and sanctified them in their place and station as honorable and holy, though in their persons and practise they may be contemptible, vile, and ungodly; the like he saies to Christians concerning civil Magistrates, though infidels, Rom. 13. that being ordained of God and sanctified, or set apart as his Ministers for civil good, they are to have a reverend, honorable, and even holy estimation of them in their hearts, and to a∣bide in their subjection to them in matters civilly righteous, even for conscience sake.

The like he saies to children that are in the faith (I mean not infants, for the Scripture was not penn'd to such) concerning their parents, whom, as they are their parents, they are to honor as those, who are by right of Divine institution under a stamp of holiness, and civil sanction towards them as Superiors to be re∣spected in that Relation, whether they be believing parents yea or no: for belie∣ving children such as are written to in Pauls Epistles Ephes. 6.1. 2 Col. 3.20. may and oft have ungodly parents, as well as believing parents ungodly children, or believing husbands and wives ungodly yoak fellowes, yet alwaies to be own∣ed in the Relations, as husbands, wives, parents, children still; thus we see that persons may be vile, and so far to be contemned Psal. 15.4. yet holy, pure and honorable in their capacities, and so far to be so accounted on, they may be

unsanctified in their hearts, and lives, and yet be invested with such a civil san∣ctity by a dint of Divine imposition, and institution as may denominate them severally sanctified in their stations, and naturall or civill places of Relation, thus Magistracy and Subjection, Mastership, and Servitude, Mariage, and Pro∣pagation of mankind in that way being all holy Ordinances of God, all sanctified by his word and stamp upon them as honorable, and undefiled States and waies, to be and abide in, persons may be unworthy, unclean, unsanctified in their man∣ners, and yet be holy, honorable, sanctified, true legitimate Magistrates, sanctified subjects, sanctified Masters, sanctified servants, sanctified wives, sanctified parents, sanctified children, so as to be according to their several capa∣cities reverenced, submitted to, served, protected, provided for, used, own'd, law∣ful to be continued with each by other (fide & infidelitate non obstante) without respect to religion, yea though the Relata, Pura Masters, and husbands, &c. be unbelievers, and the Corr••lata, viz. servants, wives, be believers in the height. This to resolve the Corinthians in, who might possibly, and very easily be gravell'd herein, specially considering how that under the law, where the di∣spensations indeed were different from the Gospels, they were commanded to put away their wives, is the down-right, and onely business, and design of the Apostle in the fourteenth and following verses, where besides his direction in particular, in this difference of faith and unbelief, when it falls out between man and wife, Master and servant, which two he instanceth in only in this chapter, he gives a general direction to all sorts of persons in every condition, quality, capacity, rank, or relation, to abide therein, if they please, as sanctified and holy, i. e. by civil sanction to abide in, in these words verse 17. viz. But as God hath distri∣buted to every man, as the Lord hath called every one so let him walk, and so ordain I in all Churches, and also in these v. 20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

The Sanctification therefore or holiness here talkt on is only civil sanction, as to men, wives, and their children, a holiness only Matrimonial, and not a faederal or Covenant holiness (as you dream) unless instead of the holiness of Gods Covenant, you mean the faederall holiness, or holiness of the mariage Covenant, or any civil covenant, or tie between superiours in relation, and their subjects, which all indeed, when once solemnly contracted, and entred are also Gods ordinance, Gods Covenant, which he owns, and will most se∣verely punish the pollution of, therefore as the Harlot that deals treacherously with her husband is said Prov. 2.17. to forget the Covenant of her God, i. e. the marriage contract; and the Covenant where by the man and wife are one is said to be of Gods making Mal. 3.14.15. so God threatning Iudah for her whoredomes most terribly, Ezek. 16.38. saies he will judge her, as women that break wedlock and shed bloud are judged; so likewise did he plague Zedekiah when in the capacity of a Prince, he covenanted to give liberty to his Servants, but did not Ier. 34.18. so when in the capacity of a Servant to Nabuchadnez∣zar that set him up, he covenanted and sware allegiance to him, but sleighted his covenant and brake it, which God calls his own oath and covenant, the breach of which he would recompence on his head, Ezechiel chap. 17. verse 16. 17, 18, 19.

Secondly, let it be considered that the holiness and sanctification here meant, and mentioned what ere it is, is said to be in the unbelieving parent, whether husband or wife, as well as in the children, and therefore it cannot be your faeder∣all or outward Church-covenant holiness, i. e. such a holines; as intitles to baptism, and intailes Church-membership, Church priviledges, and Ordinances, to the subjects to whom it is predicated, sith the unbelieving husband and wife are denominated by it too, for as of the children it is said they are holy, so of the non-believing yoke-fellows it is said they are sanctified, between which there is

no more difference then between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which seem to me but a Hendiadis, or double expression of the same thing, and not more unlike then two 6 pences, and a shilling; and will not this absurdity ensue, which I dare say you will evade if you can, if the holiness be such as you say, viz. that the unbe∣lieving husbands and wives must be baptized and inchurched also upon their yoke-fellowes faith, being sanctified thereby as well as the In••ants? therefore is it not rather think you a Civil and Matrimonial then an Ecclesiastical, & faeder∣all sanctity? Your usual evasion is this.