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 ...

Baptist.

Unless they be baptized in their infancy? why are you so sure of hitting upon the day, and hour of their first discipleship, or conversion to the faith, if you baptize them in the first of their infancy? what are all the children of Christians (I hope he doth not take Christians in so large a sense as Mr. Blake does, for Pa∣pists and formall Protestants, as well as zealous professors, and yet by some passages in his book me thinks he makes the pale of the visible church as wide to the full as the other) are all these I trow disciples with him, not only relatively, but really also i. e. converted truly from their mothers womb? or if he mean not this of nominall Christians, or the seed of Christians at large (which with Mr. Blake at least are born Christians) but of the children of true converts, sincere believers, such as are Christians indeed, what is it evident that all, or at least the most (as Mr. Baxter saies) of the children of real disciples are as real dis∣ciples as their parents so soon as they are born? are the seed of true believers true converts mostly by birth? how then do so many of them as well of the seed of meer nominal Christians, prove wretches, and ungracious a great while, till God workes on them, and many of them, to the grief of their parents, even to their dying day? and yet thus it should seem they are in Mr. Baxters opinion, so that if they be baptized in their first infancy, under ••he notion of such, they are in all likelyhood baptized when they are first made disciples even immediately up∣on the point, and period of their conversion: and besides if they may so safely be supposed all, or most of them to be truly converted, and upon that account bap∣tized in their first ••efancy, as he saies, then how doth this square a squint, with what he saies also (to go round again) in the same chapter p. 128? viz.

That men are usually who are born and brought up of Christian parents, wrought to this, meaning to conversion and true discipleship by such insensible degrees, that the true beginning cannot be discerned.

• 1. by others.
• 2. no not themselves.

And p. 139. Now if it be the sincerity that is looked after, who knoweth what day or year the child began to be sincere in his profession? for my own part I aver from my heart that I neither know the day nor year when I begun to be sincere, nor the time when I first began to be a Christian: how then should others know it? and when Mr. Tombes would have baptized me I cannot tell, and as large experience as I have had in my Ministry of the State of Souls, and the way of conversion, I dare say I have met not with one of very many that would say they knew the time of their Conversion, and of those that would say so by reason that they then felt some more remarkable change, yet they discovered such stirrings and workings before, that many I had cause to think were themselves mistaken; and that I may not tell men only of mine own experience and those of my acquain∣tance, I was once at a meeting of very many Christians, most eminent for zeal and holinesse of most in the land, of whom diverse were Ministers, and some at this day as famous and as much followed as any I know in England, and it was there desired, that every one should give in the manner of their conversion, that it might be observed what is Gods ordinary way: and there was but one that I remember of them all, that could conjecture at the time of their conversion, but all gave in that it was by degrees, and in long time, now when would Mr. Tombs have baptized any of these?

All this Mr. Baxter saies in proof ont that the time of the first conversion of children of christian parents, or when they are first discipled cannot be known for the most part, by either themselves or others, whereupon he concludes that if we baptize them at age, though never so punctually at the time of their profession of faith, re∣pentance, and desire of baptism, we cannot possibly baptize them when first disci∣pled, or immediately after conversion, as we ought to do by the example of the primitive times (wherein yet they did thus, and no otherwise, witnesse all the in∣stances of his own alledging) but those that baptize them without delay so soon as ever they are born, they cannot do otherwise then jump just with the very time wherein they are first discipled (according to the primitive pattern he himself pro∣duces, wherein of all that were baptized, whether Iews or Gentiles, immediate∣ly upon their being discipled, we read not of one infant) And good reason why they must needs hit right upon their first being discipled or converted, that baptize them in the first infancy, for though the time of the first conversion or discipling of the children of Christian parents be not scarce possible to be conjectured at ei∣ther by themselves or others, yet (to go round again) it may so safely and surely be supposed and conjectured to be in the first of their infancy, that they may war∣rantably be baptized then (as then newly made disciples) without any danger of aberration from either Christs commission or the primitive custom of baptizing per∣sons when first discipled, and professing themselves disciples: O the wisdom! he that being in the fire would not come out to hear how bravely Mr. Baxter brings about, and about again his businesse in that 8 chapter of the second part of his book, tis pitty but he should be burnt.

And lastly whereas Mr. Baxter queries so oft when Mr. Tombs would have such baptized, the set time of whose conversion? is not distinctly known lea∣ving Mr. Tombs to tell him his mind as he sees good himself, I tell him (if he ask me the same question) that in my mind such whose conversion is not known when it is (as by his own confession the conversion of Christians children some times is not, witnesse that one in which he instances, and (as few as he knowes of that sort) yet how many hundreds of the children of Religious parents (among whom I my self make one) do know when they were first truly converted? such I say should be baptized as neer as may be, upon the time of their conversion and becoming disci∣ples, and if it have been then fo••eslowd, it must be after as soon as it can, but in no wise so many years before it, as the priests unviversally do it: and such of whom it is not known nec per se, nec per alios, when they first were discipled, and converted) but oh how do I fear, that as he that never doubted never belie∣ved, so many of those implicit converts Mr. Baxter talks on, that never knew when they were discipled and converted, were never yet truly discipled hor conver∣ted at all to the truth as it is in Iesus, but as they had it more by tradition from their fathers, then unfained search of Scriptures) such I say of whom tis not known when they first were converted and discipled, shall by my consent be baptized, when ever it is first known that they are converted and discipled unto Christ, by their own profession of their conversion and discipleship, and desire of baptism, and this not by my consent alone, but by the joint consent of all these very Scrip∣tures, which Mr. Baxter himself hath co••ed for our example and warrant, all which if (as far as Christs own precept and practise, and the primitive Churches example can do it) they do not warrant the baptism of all, and onely such per∣sons as were first taught, or made disciples by preaching, or instructed till they both learnt, believed and imbraced the Gospel, and professed themselves disciples and offered themselves to baptism, and consequently of no infants, then for my part Ile lay aside all sense and reason, as no more to be heeded as a help to under∣stand the Scriptures, and turn a very Tom-fool, and he that can Altobelogick these Scripture institutions and instances into plain Scripture proofs of infant Church membership and baptism, Erit mihi magus Apollo: for theres no mention of in∣fants

either expressely or implicitly in any one of them: Oh (therefore to Eccho back to Mr. Baxter a little in much what his own words to us concerning those Scrip∣tures p. 127) that those who are so inclinable to seperation from the primitive pra∣ctise, would consider the unfitnesse of infants to be admitted by baptism to be Church members under the Gospel! Oh that they that in church whole parishes, as if they, because the Pope will have it so, were all Churches, and will have no trial at all, and discoveries of the work of persons conversion, before they admit them, but take them all at hap hazard as they fall from the belly within the bounds of that parish where they are plac't, and popified, would but lay to heart all these Scripture examples, and make more conscience of observing their rule, and not presume to be wiser and holier then God, when it was mans first over∣throw to desire to be but as God, though he did not attempt to go beyond him, as the priests do in adding other Subjects to his ordinances, then himself appointed: which changing of his law will be mans last overthrow Isa. 24. doubtlesse those that Christ baptized by his disciples, were Church-members; but those were not infants, but such as were first made disciples by preaching onely Iohn 4. and be that will go beyond Iesus Christ in strictnesse shall go without me, I do not think he will be offended with me for doing as he did i. e. for baptizing none but such as believe and professe themselves disciples, and as repent of their sins, and desire to be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of them: and so I have done with Mr. Baxter till we meet again, onely since

Mr. Marshal is pleased ponere obicem to object, and bolt in here, that we cannot say none in these places were baptized, but such as did thus, i. e. believe and professe themselves disciples p. 217. to Mr. Tombs because the word onely is not here, I may well call it obicem, or objectionem obularem, a hint not worth a half penny; and if he appeal to his own conscience, it will tell him no lesse; ne∣verthelesse what ere he thinks, I say again, all that were baptized in the forena∣med places, were such as are there specified to be profest converts and believers, and if there were any more let him assign and shew us whom, and weel believe him: as for the housholds himself is in the sands, whether there were any infants in them or no, and I have shewd above, that they that were baptized in them, are exprest all by some clause or other exclusive of infants, and conclusive onely of adult disciples: besides Mr. Cotton confesses that the infants were not baptized with their parents, and that the infants that were brought to Christ were not baptized at all (for ought he knows) nor their parents neither, and here are all the Scriptures that declare how baptism was done then, and to whom, most of which are cited by Mr. Bax∣ter himself, from which you cannot possibly scrape so much as any old odd end of an example for such a businesse as your baptism. As for us, besides that plain pre∣cept we have in Mat. 28. even every whit of this is plain ••resident for our baptism, and comes into our assistance against all your cavils (O ye Priests) for thus I argue viz.

The baptism of men and women professing faith in the Lord Iesus, confessing sins, calling on the name of the Lord &c. is a baptism, yea all the baptism that the Scripture speaks of, either in way of command or example.

But the baptism which we dispence, is a baptism of men and women professing faith in our Lord Iesus, confessing sins, calling on the name of the Lord, gladly re∣ceiving the word &c.

Ergo that baptism which we dispense is a baptism, yea all the baptism the Scripture speaks of in way of either command or example.

Therefore S••rs, how hath Satan bewitched you that you cannot believe and obey the truth? what will you onely think things, and thrust your thoughts of them as oracles upon all others? will you imagine and suppose, and dream, and dote, and fancy, and fain a baptism, that the Scriptures and first Churches never knew, and then father your figments upon the Scriptures, and fasten them as the

fashion which, the whole world must be forct to follow and conform to?

Moreover I do not at present remember any one part of Scripture, which your selves summon into your help in this case of infant baptism, that doth not yield ammunition, and much matter against you more then for you, unlesse it be one or two used by your selves, which one may as well with Skoggin untile the house to look for an hare as urge either pro or con about infants baptism, so farre shall he be from finding in them any proof for that, or the true baptism either: as name∣ly 2 Cor. 13.5. 1 Thess. 4.13. There are but two places that I know of, be∣sides those I have already turned upon you above, that are held out by any of you out of the armory of Scripture in defence of infant baptism, and those are Col. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 10.1.2. both which not onely knock sprinkling oth'head, but may also very easily be sheathed in the bowels of baby-baptism: As for the first it speaks (as well nigh all scripture doth, not much medling with infants) not one∣ly to, bu•• of adult disciples only, of whom as well as to whom (and not of in∣fants) in way of satisfaction to them, and answer to those that would have brought in the old circumcision made with hands among them, Paul saies ye are cir∣cumcised with the circumcision made without hands, which circumcision without hands there spoken of, is not baptism neither (as some dream, who thence also draw in circumcision and baptism to be of so neer kin that as they have both one name, so they must both have one subject also) for baptism is no more done with∣outehands then the other, but the sanctification or inward circumcision of the heart, cutting off the foreskin i. e. the filth of the heart, which things infants do not, in token of which he tells them they are (not sprinkled) but buried i. e. overwhelm∣ed in water with Christ in the outward baptism, wherin also they are risen with him through faith &c. All which things he that imagins they more include then exclude the sucking infants of such, to whom he speaks, is no man in discretion with me.

As for the other place its most evident the Apostle speaks not of baptism litte∣rally but Metaphoically onely there, they were baptized unto Moses i. e. by the visible tokens of Gods presence amongst them viz. the cloud and Sea assisting and siding with them, and overthrowing their adversaries, they were confirmed in the belief of God, and his servant Moses, as we by baptism are in the faith of Gods goodnesse to us, and of his Son Jesus Christ: in further confirmation of which meer figurative sence of the word [baptized] you may do well to consider that though they were said to be baptized in the cloud, and in the sea, which phrases however▪ sound forth such a total immersion as is not in two or three drops of water fingered on the face, yet they were not so much as wetted with either the cloud or the sea, for its said Exod. 14.21.22. the sea was made dry land un∣der them, and they went through it dry shod, or on dry ground, which they could not be well said to do had it so much as rained upon them, such a figurative sence of the word [baptize] there Mr. Baxter himself denies not p. 90. yet Dr. Chan∣nel urged that place in a publique dispute at Petworth Ian. 1651. as one of his arguments for infant baptism, besides Secondly, if you will needs have it proper∣ly taken that they were baptized really, and not quasi baptized, as Mr. Baxter yields they were, and if you will needs make that baptism such an emblem of ours, that ours must have an adequate subject to that, which say you, was infants as well as parents, then twill put you to your trumps to excuse your selves handsomly in your now denying to infants the same spiritual meat and drink in the supper, which they then eat and drank of in a figure also viz. the Manna and the Rock, which both were no other (Antitypically) then the bread and wine are mistically in the supper i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ.

For all your vain boasting therefore of what innumerable arguments you have from Scriptures, I say the Scriptures are sure enough on our side, nevertheless ta∣king the word in a sutable sense you do well to call your Scripture armes or argu∣ments innumerable, for indeed they are not to be numbred (for even unit as,

much more nonit as non est numerus) being no more than just none at all.

Secondly, whereas you boast of the innumerable Arguments which may be brought for your infant rantism from reason, the full force of reason is utterly a∣gainst you, and so wholly assistant to our cause, that the unreasonablest man a∣mongst you will once see it, when sound reason comes to reign, and sway the scep∣ter indeed. Yea not to stand reasoning on it now how reasonless a thing it is to ask a company of men and women, as the priests were wont to do at the font, thus viz. do you believe in God the Father, and Christ &c. and will you be baptized in this faith? and when they answered yes, that is all our desire, then instead of them who profess their faith and desires to be baptized, to take a small sucking babe out of their armes, and dat him with a drop or two on the face, and send away all the other unbaptized.