In this Bloody Principle the first National Church in Eng land was founded, fo far as I can discern, when Auftin the Monk procured our Predeceffors the Ancient Britains, to be flain, of which we have given an account already. And by the fame Spirit and Principle National Churches bape been Supported all along. And when the Lord comes to make Inquifition for Blood, and brings into Judgement every fecret thing, (as he will,Pfal. 9. 12. Isa. 26.21. Ecclef. 12. 14.) then it will be made appear what Church was Founded in Blood, by whom, and for what cause, Rev. 18.24. Then it will be known how fo many came to be Maffacred, and who has been fecretly Murdered, and Famifhed in Prison, and why. Then it will be known why they stopped Mens mouths with Fire,and burnt the Books with the Men. Then it will be. feen why whole Libraries have been Confumed, Writings forged, altered, and corrupted. And then it will be as clear as the Sun, how, and why National Churches were Founded.

In the mean time the Faithfull are tryed as Gold in the Fire, and in Patience muft poffefs their Souls. Luk. 21. 16, 17, 18, 19, 1 Pet. 1. 7. 1 Pet, 4, 12, 13. Rev. 14, 12.

5. We cannot think the Gospel Church can be National, becaufe, fo far as we can Learn, none are to be admitted Members of the Gofpel Church, but fuch as manifeft fome figns of their being Regenerate or Born aẹ gain, and they muft firft be begotten before they be Born, and that begetting is of the immortal feed of Gods Word, that liveth and abideth for ever. Foh. 1. 12, 13. Joh. 3.5, 6,8. Fam. 1. 18. 1 Pel. 1. 22, 23.

But the National Churches admitt Infants to Memberfhip, who never heard the Word of God Preached, nor can manifeft any figns of a New Birth, but are only born after the Flesh or of the Flefh, and are the meer natural Oftspring of Men. And fo they are of no higher Form or more excellent Conflitution than the Jewish Church, which was compofed of the Natural feed of Abraham, which we think is not Confiftent with the more excel lent ftate of the Gofpel Church, and contrary to these

.

Scriptures. Matth. 3. 8, 9, 10. 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. Gal. 3. 26, 27, 28, 29.

Now tho we admitt not Infants to vifible Church Membership, because we find no Rule for it, yet we do not exclude them from Salvation if they Dye whileft luch, we are perfwaded they will be Members of the invifible or Catholick Church, that is, that they will be found amongst the Number of the faved; for we believe it is not the will of our Father which is in Heaven, that one of thefe little ones fhall perish, Matth. 18. 14. We do not think they are in a worfe Condition than the Hebrew Infants were with their Church membership; for our Saviour faith, Of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 19. 14. Tho they Dyeunbaptized, yet they do not Dye unbleffed, Mark. 10. 16.

But whereas we cannot find, or any ways understand, that the Gospel Church either was National in Chrift or the Apoftles days, or was to be National afterward, or can be National, by any light we can receive from the Word of God; therefore according to the beft of our underftandings, the Church of England is not the true Church of Chrift. Therefore we find our felves concerned in duty to God, to depart from her Communion,and walk with fuch a Church as is undoubtedly found in, and Founded upon the Word of God.

The 31. Caufe of our Friendly Separation from the Church of England, is, we cannot be affured by any means, that the hath true Baptifm, and where this is wanting there can be no true Church. We cannot underftand that the is right either with refpect to the Subject or Manner of adminiftration, that is, either that Infants fhould be Baptized, or that Sprinkling is Bapti zing. We do not find it fo in the Scriptures, neither do our Friends of that Church prove it to us by their Arguments. At leaft we do not apprehend that they prove it, and that's the fame thing to us as if they of fered no proof at all. Either there is no ftrength in their Arguments,or much weaknefs in our underftandings, and which foever of these it is, it comes to the fame Conclufion; we do not underftand it. And untill

we

6

we can understand that they have true Baptifm, we cannot account them a true Church. Its like they think the fault is in our understandings, and if fo, it is our unhappiness, but we cannot help it. If their Intellectuals be ftrong and ours weak, they must bear with us, fo far as I know, till we come to their Pitch. But we think verily the weaknefs is in their Arguments that they do not prove what they bring them for, and may be answered. And the Truth is, we are very Confident, That all that ever hath been urged against us, in this cafe, hitherto, hath been fufficiently Anfwered already.

To which purpose we will Hear what two eminent Doctors of that Church have faid, between them and us touching this matter, Namely Dr. Feremy Taylor, and Dr. Thomas Barlow, both of them made Bishops afterward.

Dr. Taylor was pleased to make † an Apology for us, on fet purpose to abate the hard thoughts of others towards us, and takes up our Weapons, and Argues Powerfully in our defence, and con

In his Liberty of Prophefying.

cludes in these words. Viz.

Thus far the Anabaptifts may Argue: And Men have difputed against them with fo much weakness and Confidence, that they have been encouraged in their Error, more by accidental Advantages we have gives them by our weak Arguings, than by any truth of their Caufe, or excellency of their Wit.

But the ufe I make of it as to our prefent Queftion, (faith the Dr.) is this, That fince there is no direct impiety in the Opinion, nor any that is apparently Confequent to it; and they which with fo much probability, do or may pretend to true Perfwafion, they are with all means, Chriftian, fair and humane, to be redargued or inftructed, but if they cannot be perfwaded, they must be left to God, who knows eveTry degree of every Mans understanding, all his weakneffes and ftrengths, what imprefs each Argument makes upon his Spirit, and how unrefitable every

Rea

"Reafon is, and he alone judges his Innocency and Since "rity. And for the Queftion, I think there is fo much to be pretended against that which I believe to be Truth, " that there is much more truth "than evidence on our fide,&c.

In the Volume of the Drs. Polemical Difcourfes be breaks off a little fooner.

Thus Dr. Feremy Taylor, late Lord Bifhop of Down and Connor, Now pray obferve, That tho' the "Dr. will needs have Truth ftand on his own fide, (and who can blame him for that,) yet he Ingenuoufly confeffeth, that Evidence is on the Anabaptifts fide. And if evidence be on our fide, what will become of his Truth think you?

Dr. Barlow, late Lord Bifhop of Lincoln, fpeaks his mind about these things in a Letter which he wrote to Mr. John Tombs, B. D. Which is Verbatim as followeth.ort

"I am a Friend to your Perfon (whom I have known " (tho' unknown to you) this 31 Years,) and to your "Opinion too (as to the main of it); for I believe and "know, that there is neither Precept nor Pracce in "Scripture for Pedebaptifm, nor any juft evidence for it,

for about 200 Years after Chrift. The first who bears "Witnefs to Infant Baptifm practifed in the Church, is "Tertullian, but fo,as he exprefly diflikes and Condemns it as an unwarrantable and irrational Cuftom. And Nazianzen a good while after him (in this OratiOn, eis ao Bánya, diflikes it too, and "would not have Infants brought to Baptifm till they

་་

were of fome age, and able to answer for themselves. "Sure I am that in the Primitive times they were first to "be Catechumeni, and then goierles, Illuminati, or "Baptizati, and this not only Children of Pagans,or Pagans Converted,but Children of Chriftian Parents,Na. zianzen (tho' a Bifhops Son) being not Baptized till "She was about 30 Years of Age, as appears in his life "and the like is evident of fome others. The Truth is, "Infant Baptifm did (how or by what means I know not) come in, in the Second Century, and in the 3d and 4th. began to be practifed, tho' not Generally,

66

and

600 Years.

*

"and defended as Lawful from that Text grofsly mifun. derftood) John 3.5. Upon the like grofs mistake of John 6.53. They did for many Centuries (both in the Greek and Latin "Church) Communicate Infants, and "give them the Lords-Supper, and I confefs they might "do both as well as either: But altho' they Baptized "fome Infants, and thought it Lawful fo to do, yet Aur

ftin was the First that ever faid it was neceffary,inde duແ rus Pater Infantum. I have feen what my learned and "Worthy Friend Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter and others, "fay in defence of it, and I confess I wonder not a little "that men of fuch great parts fhould say so much to fo "little purpose, for I have not yet feen any thing like "an Argument for it.

This Letter was Published above 40 Years ago, by Mr. Tombs, and never contradicted by Dr. Barlow. I fhall Comment no further upon it, than only to observe unto you, that this Learned and Reverend Perfon did wonder Not a little that Dr. Hammond, Mr. Bax ter, and other men of great parts, fhould fay fo much to fo little purpose, in the defence of Infants Baptifm. And it is our cafe as well as his, we wonder alío. By all his Learning and Sagacity, he could not find any thing like an Argument for Infants Baptifm, in the Learned Labours of Dr. Hammond and Mr. Baxter; and if he could not find their Arguments to be concluding, how fhould fuch Mechanick men as we? And if convincing Arguments be not to be found in the Labours of those men, for my part I cannot tell where they will be found in the Labours of any other. For they have faid fo much, that it will be hard for any to fay more, tho' all that they have faid is but to little purpose, as Bp. Barlow thought, and fo think we.

And tho' Mr. Eratt, Mr. Welly, and fome other active men, have made a flourish again, lately; yet it is but with the old Weapons, as we obferved in the Begin ning,and they must not expect to do more, or to fare bet ter than the Learned that wrote on this Subject before them.

For