Baptism was delivered by God Thus also Moses is said by Stephen to have RECEIVED the lively Oracles to give unto them Act. 7. 38. In this sense also Christ is said to have RECEIVED of the Father the promise of the holy Ghost which he shed forth Act. 2. 33. And if Abraham's RECEIVING Circumcision in this place signified his being circumcised in the flesh it must follow that all his posterity receiving circumcision in this sense as well as he should at least in part all of them be Fathers of them that believe as well as he in as much as this prerogative is manifestly by the Apostles suspended upon that receiving of Circumcision which is here spoken of not upon the end for which he received it 2. By the Faith which Abraham is here said to have had being yet uncircumcised and of the righteousnesse of which he is said to have received Circumcision as a sign and seal is not meant that individuall Faith whether act or habit which was in Abraham but the species or kind of Faith which he had In such a sense as this the Apostle saith that that Faith which was in Timothie dwelt first in his Grandmother Loïs 2 Tim. 1. 5. meaning the same species or kind of Faith i. as himself also expresseth it of Faith Unfeigned When I call to remembrance the unfeigned Faith that is in thee which first dwelt in thy Grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice and I am perswaded that in thee also In like manner by the Faith of Abraham twice in this very chapter Rom. 4. 12 16. is meant that species or kind of Paith which Abraham had 3. For the cleare understanding the Scripture before us it is diligently to be observed that the Apostle doth not say that Abraham received circumcision as either sign or seal of his Faith but of the righteousnesse of the Faith which he had i. of that justification or justified estate wherein by vertue of the counsell will and decree of God in that behalf he was invested or instated by and upon his beleving Circumcision was neither sign nor seal of Abrahams Faith nor of any other mans Faith how like soever unto Abraham's but of the righteousnes of his Faith yet not as his but as true and unfeigned 1. such as unto which God by covenant and promise had annexed the Grace and blessednesse of Justification From whence it follow 's 4. That circumcision could not be a sign or seal of the righteousnesse of Abrahams Faith only individually or personally considered but must needs be this sign and seal of the same righteousnesse of the like Faith in what person or persons soever it should be found Yea it was a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith simply and indefinitely considered i. as promised or covenanted by God unto man-kind So that whether any person among the Jews had been circumcised or not and so whether any circumcised person had beleeved or not yet was Circumcision a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith unto them as well as unto those who were both circumcised and believed i. As God made this covenant with the world or man-kind in generall that whosoever truly believed in him should hereby become righteous or which is the same be justified so likewise upon the same generall and unlimited terms he gave the Ordinance of circumcision by the hand or ministerie of his servant Abraham for a sign and seal of his truth and faithfulnesse in this covenant i. that he would justifie all those without exception who should truly beleeve This is evident from these words in the fall of the verse in their dependance upon the former that righteousness might be imputed unto them also unto them i. unto all that should believe whether circumcised or uncircumcised as if he should have said Therefore Abraham received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousnes of that kind of Faith which he had being yet uncircūcised that so all those without exception who should beleeve as he did might have the same assurance with him that righteousnesse should be imputed unto them also as it had been unto him i. that they should be as certainly justified by God as he had been Mr. Fishers notion denying Circumcision of old and Baptism now to be any sign at all unto children is very childish and unworthy a Considering man Circumcision was the same i. the same sign unto children which it was unto men nor was there any difference change or alteration in it or in the signifying nature or propertie of it when it was actually apprehended and understood by these children being now become men But the present inability or incapacity in children to understand the language or signification of a sign doth not prove that that which is really a sign is no sign unto them it onely proves that it is not apprehended as a sign or in the signifying relation of it by them If signs be no signs unto children because they do not at present understand their signification it will follow that there are none at all in the world unto men whilst they are asleep or whilst thorow any ingagement of their minds or thoughts otherwise they do not actually mind or attend the significations of them A sign is not therefore called a sign because it alwayes actually signifies one thing or other unto any man but because it is apt to signifie such or such a thing unto those that are in a capacitie whether more immediate or more remote to understand it and withall actually mind the signification But the conceit we now speak of is so waterish that there is no tast either of truth or reason in it Sect. 62. 5. By the premises levied in the consideration of the Scripture before us duly considered it clearly appeareth that when Abraham's said to have RECEIVED the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THAT BELIEVE the meaning is that God by casting this peculiar honour upon Abraham to make him from amongst all the men in the world the Receiver of and as it were his Great feoffee in trust for his Great Ordinance of Circumcision which he intended for a sign and seal of that blessed Covenant of Grace made with him and his seed and in them with all the world did characterise and commend him unto the world as the Father of all that should ever after beleeve i. for the most exemplarie and signall Beleever that ever the world had seen the worth and transcendent excellency of whose Faith was enough to replenish the earth with a generation of beleevers The meaning of this expression That he might be the Father of c. according to the frequent use of the verb substantive in the Scripture is that he might be declared or made known to be the Father in the sence mentioned of all that believe That ye may be the
John Deodate commenteth the place thus Of water He seems to intimate two distinct and severall parts of this change and by water he means the expiation and remission of the sin and by the Spirit the whole work of regeneration Hugo Grotius findeth the figure Hendiadis in the clause born again of water and of the Spirit i. saith he of the Spirit who is like unto water in his working b Est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nam sicut in spiritu igne Mat. 3. 11 significat per spiritum igneum ita hic ex spiritu aqua est ex spiritu aqueo Neque obstat quòd vox altera quasi limitans hic praecedat Nam sic Act. 17. 25 Gen. 3. 16. Gen. 2. 7. 11. Col. 2. 8. c. in Joh. 3. 5. 8 c. Grotius Of which interpretation he gives a further account upon the place Concerning the latter place Tit. 3. 5. Calvin indeed conceives that the Apostle in the phrase by the washing of regeneration alludeth unto Baptism in which apprehension I judge it not worth a while for any man to dissent from him Yet neither doth the phrase it self nor the scope of the Context or subject matter in hand enforce any such interpretation much lesse do they either divisim or conjunctim so much as invite us to think the Apostle thereby meaneth Baptism And Marlorat upon the place citeth a Protestant Exposition with whom himself seemeth to accord who by the Laver or washing of Regeneration understandeth the vâ—rtue or power of the holy Ghost because he is the Author of that interraâ—l nâ—wness whereby our hearts are purged from the filth or defilements of sin So that Mr. A. hath sufficient cause for all that tendernesse with which he cites the said Scripture passages for his purpose Sect. 79. But let us in the next place see how like a man he quitteth himself and what strength he produceth in the defence of his golden dream formerly mentioned viz. that men do take up the Ordinance of Baptism about the beginning of their repentance IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS For I confesse that if he be able to make truth of this notion in the sence which his words bear in ordinarie understandings he will gain the prize which he runeth for in the second part of his discourse viz. that necessary it is for persons to be baptized after they believe their Infant-Baptism notwithstanding But what he pleadeth in proof of the said notion the Reader may find p. 18. of his discourse beginning thus Finally Believing and being baptized are conâ—oyned as relative to sâ—lvation Mar. 16. 16. And a little after That both repentance and the declaration of it by Baptism is required on mans paâ—t to interesse him in remission of sins and sanctification of the Spirit the things covenanted or promised on Gods part is too evident to be denied by any BUT THOSE THAT WILL NOT SEE from Act. 2. 38 39. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost for the promise is to you and to your children and to all that c. For answer 1. How insupportable is he in that most heavie Sentence which here he denounceth against many thousands as holy as upright as worthy men as ever the earth bare any since the Apostles days yea in a manner against the whole Christian world viz. that they are persons THAT WILL NOT SEE i. that will fully oppose the light of divine truth shining unto them For how few are they of this generation of men but have denied that the Declaration of repentance by Baptism as well as repentance it self is required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins Or do they not all generally and as it were with one mouth professe and teach and this with the full current of the Scripture that there is nothing essentially requisite on mans part to inâ—eâ—ess him in remission of sins i. to put him into a state of salvation but a true faith in Jesus Christ which includes repentance from dead works unto which also upon this account the said promise of remission of sins is sometimes made Indeed speaking of that full and finall remission of sins which shall in the hearing of Heaven and Earth be awarded by the Great Judge in his day unto all Beleevers to the obtaining of this they require of men over and above either the simple act or habit whether of the truest Faith or soundest Repentance a perseverance in both and in the fruits or actings of both unto the end The truth is that as the notion here maintained by Mr. A. is one of the worst and most dangerous opinions owned by him in his book so is the morall misdemeanour mentioned simply the worst and most unchristian strain therein But 2. To detect the errour of the said notion or Doctrine viz. that Baptism is therefore called the Baptism of Repentance because men are to take it up in order to the remission of sins or in the latter edition of it that the Declaration of repentance by Baptism as well as Repentance it self is required on mans part to interesse him in Remission of sins and Sanctification of the Spirit It is to be considered Sect. 80. 1. That as Remission of sin is no where in Scripture promised unto Baptism apart from Faith or from Repentance but unto these sometimes to the one and sometimes to the other apart from Baptism and without relation hereunto see and consider Joh. 3. 16 18 36. Lu. 24. 47. Act. 5. 3. Act. 3. 19. Ac. 8. 22. Ac. 11. 18. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Rom. 3. 28 30. Rom. 4. 3 5 16 23 24. to omit many other places so is the sanctification of the Spirit promised unto Faith simply and sometimes unto prayer sometimes to the love of God yea and hath frequently been vouchsafed unto men by God upon their believing without Baptism See for this expresse Scripture Joh. 7. 38 39. Act. 10 44 45 c. Act. 11. 17. Gal. 3. 2. Luk. 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 1. 13. 2 Thes 2. 13. Act. 6. 5. Act. 9. 17. Act. 15. 7. compared with ver 8. Therefore certainly Baptism is not required of men at least in a way of necessitie to interesse them either in remission of sin or in sanctification of the spirit For if so how could these be obtained without it 2. If Baptism or a Dâ—claration of mens Repentance by Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in Remission of sins how can men besaid to be justified by faith thorow the blood of Christ or the blood of Christ be said to cleanse men from all their sins Rom. 3. 22 24 25. 1 Joh. 1. 7. besides other places without number Baptism without all question is no part either of Faith or of the blood of Christ Therefore justification or remission of
Governours as he speaketh and Pedagogie of the Law whereas the latter Faith justifieth them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sons i. as persons who have out-grown their Pupillage and received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated the adoption of sons the word here importeth the priviledge or accommodation of Sons permitted unto them by their Fathers when they come to maturitie of years and discretion which accommodation chiefly consisteth in an enlargment of their libertie and exemption from that servile subjection unto Tutours and Governours under which they were whilst children Sect. 106. 5. And lastly for this Nor can I believe that any judicious Expositor either Ancient or Modern was ever tempted with Mr. A's declarative sence of the verb substantive are in the Text before us Calvin upon the place assigns this for a reason why the Law should not alwayes detain Believers in bondage viz. because they ARE the Sons of God And further saith that the Apostle evinceth their libertie by this that they ARE the Sons of God How By faith in Christ For whosoever believe in him this prerogative is conferred upon them that they ARE the sons of God a Probat aliâ ratione iniquum esse ac minimè consentaneum ut lex perpetua servitute astringat fideles quia silicet SVNT filij Dei libertatem inde probat quod SINT filij Dei Quomodo per fideÌ„ these in Christam Nam quicunque in eum credunt datur illis haec prerogativa ut SINT filij Dei Muscâ—lus likewise upon the words is expresse for this substantive sence against the declarative b Omnes enim filij Dei estis per fidem in Christo Jesu Sensus est quotquot in Christo Jesu estis filij Dei ESTIS per fidem Grotius you who have believed in Christ as you ought and continue thus believing are the sons of God viz. adult or come to maturitie of years they who are such begin to enâ—oy their fathers goods And thus ye have received the Spirit of your Father c Vos qui in Christum credidist is ita ut oportet ac sic credere perseveratis estis filij Dei nempe adulti tales qui sunt incipiunt bonis paternis frui Sic vos accepistis Patris Spiritum d Omnes filij Dei estis c. Q d. Etiamsi per Legem sitis vexati humiliati occisi tamen Lex non fecit voâ— justos non fecit vos filios Dei sed fides Luther to name no more commenteth this notion on the words ye are all the sons of God c. As if he should say Although ye are vexed cast down slain by the Law yet hath not the Law made you righteous it hath not made you the Sons of God but Faith hath done these These things considered how importune is Mr. A's deduction from these words ver 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ From hence he concludeth fidenter satis So that the Faith what ever it is by which they were said to be the children of God in ver 26. Must be the same in effect with that which he calls the putting on of Christ in Baptism I cannot but marvell and this not a little upon what basis he should found this consequence or collection or what relation he can apprehend between the two verses ver 26. and ver 27. which should intice a considering man to this belief that Faith in the former should be the same thing in effect with putting on Christ in Baptism in the latter The aspect which the latter verse hath upon the former is plainly this The Apostle in the former having delivered this for truth unto them that they were all viz. who truly believed the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Iesus viz. without any Legall observation as we formerly expounded in the latter gives this for a reason why they should the rather believe it I mean that they were the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Iesus without the help of any legall ceremonie because many of them had submitted unto Baptism had been baptized into Christ by which act of submission they put on Christ i. solemnly professed and engaged themselves totally to conform and adhere to the Discipline of Christ in the Gospell where no Law-ceremonie hath place or is allowed much lesse imposed upon any man So that the strength of the Apostles arguing in the place in hand standeth in this principle or ground in reason what many according to the will of God solemnly and publiquely professe that they believe and ingage themselves to adhere unto must of necessitie be a truth The Apostle here supposeth or taketh for granted as well he might that all those amongst them who had been baptized into Christ had been thus baptized by or according to the will of God This interpretation of his argument in ver 27. to prove what he had affirmed ver 26. viz. that they were all the complete or adult Sons of God by Faith in Christ without the observation of Moses Law makes him to speak and argue like himself and with pregnancie of conviction Whereas Mr. A's comment puts him upon that absurditie in his discourse which Logicians call idem per idem which is when the conclusion to be proved and the medium by which this proof should be made are either formally or materially and to use his own term in effect the same If Mr. Fisher should take any of his Adversaries arguing at such a rate as Mr. A. makes the Apostle to argue here he would tell them that as the wheele-barrow goes rumble to rumble so their conclusions follow from their premises Sect. 107. By the way when the Apostle saith that as many of them as had been baptized had put on Christ he doth not necessarily suppose or imply that such of them who had not been thus baptized had in no sence or upon no account put on Christ For when a thing may be done after severall and different manners they that do it not after one manner may very possibly do it after another The same garment may be put on severall wayes and the same Christ may be put on i. publiquely professed and owned in the world by different forms of profession He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveâ—h God thanks Rom. 14 6. He that came neither eating nor drinking yet came in a way of righteousness as he also did who came both eating and drinking Mat. 11. 18 19. compared with cap. 21. 32. And doubtlesse the Apostle would not have here made those of them who had been baptized the same body or Church with those who had not been baptized which I have elsewhere proved I suppose beyond all reasonable contradiction that he doth a See warer dipping pag. 85 86 if these latter had not made some publique profession of Christ and the
So that they who truely beleeve in case they delay their Baptism not having been already baptized until afterwards commit an error at least or an oversight herein But there was no such Law imposed by God upon that Faith which was in Christ otherwise he must be supposed to have committed an over-sight in that he offered not himself unto Baptism until many yeares after this Faith had been first resident in him Therefore his Faith and the Faith required of other persons are not essentially or specifically the same Whereas Mr. A. pleads the sameness of expressions or denominations to prove both Faiths to be specifically the same and that to beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God is the Faith required of all other persons to render them capable of Baptism and that this Faith was in Christ I answer That the sameness of name expression or denomination doth not alwaies prove the identity or sameness I mean not the specifical sameness of the things expressed or denominated but sometimes an agreement onely between them in some generical property or consideration Their Faith who have power given them hereupon to become the Sons of God is called a beleeving on his name Joh. 1. 12. and their Faith also to whom Christ refused to commit himself is in like manner termed a beleeving on his name Joh. 2. 23 24. Yet these two Faiths were of very different natures and considerations as sufficiently appears by the two passages compared notwithstanding their consent in name So again their Faith who because the Pharisees did not confess him lest they should be cast out of the synagogue and who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God is termed a beleeving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on him i. e. on Christ Joh. 12. 42 43. and their Faith also who beleeve to justification and salvation is expressed after the same manner a beleeving on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 3. 16. and elswhere So again that act or series of actings by which the Saints testifie their approbation of the wisdom of God whether in the Gospel or in his providential actings is termed a justification Mat. 11. 19. as well as that act of God by which he absolveth or dischargeth sinners from the guilt of their sins upon their beleeving in Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 1 and in twenty places besides yet are these two acts of very different natures and specifically at least distinct the one from the other It were easie to levy many other instances upon the same account but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that the Faith of Christ beleeving himself to be the Son of God and the Faith of other men beleeving him to be the Son of God also are not by their agreement in name or expression evinced to be Faiths of the same consideration or kind Sect. 185. Suppose it were granted that the belief which was in Christ of his being the Son of God and the belief of the same truth in other persons were of the same nature and kind yet neither will it follow from hence that Christ was baptized upon the account of this Faith because all other persons are For 1. Other persons are not baptized simply directly or immediately upon the account of this Faith but by the interceding of their profession hereof before those who are to baptize them Whereas Christ made no profession unto Jon of that Faith by which he beleeved himself to be the Son of God neither was it proper or comly for him so to doe From whence by the way this saying of Mr. A. a little after therefore may it well be said indeed that Christ received Baptism upon the same terms as others did is manifestly evicted of untruth unless he think to salve the dishonour by those words at least in several respects of which salvage notwithstanding he bereaves himself by these words following and that in conformity to the same standing Law of righteousnesse to wit the Institution of God common to others as well as to him For doubtless there neither was nor is any such standing Law of righteousnesse nor Institution of God according to which any other person of mankind should be baptized upon the account of his Faith without any profession or declaration made of it unto the Baptizer Therefore Christ being baptized upon these terms was not baptized in conformity to the same standing Law of Righteousness or Institution of God common to others but by a Law in this respect appropriate to himself Sect. 186. 2. If John baptized Christ upon the account of his Faith whereby he beleeved himself to be the Son of God then when at first he refused or declined the baptizing of him Mat. 3. 14. either he was ignorant that such a Faith was in Christ or that this Faith was a legitimate ground of baptizing him or else it must be supposed that when â—e refused to baptize him he did against his conscience and contrary to what he knew his duty to be But all these are unworthy of John and not to be conceived of him Therefore hee did not baptize him upon the account of his Faith 3. If he did baptize him upon the account of his Faith then before his baptizing him he must be conceived to have reasoned thus within himself This man or this person surely beleeves himself to be the Son of God and since I have a compent or sufficient ground to conceive this of him viz. that he thus beleeveth therefore I will baptize him But it is loudly dissonant from all that reason saith to imagine that John reasoned after any such manner as this to strengthen his hand to the Baptizing of Christ Therefore he did not baptize him upon the account of his beleeving himself to be the Son of God The major in this argument shineth sufficiently with its own light The minor is evident from hence viz. because John knew as wel before his prohibiting him his baptism or refusing to baptize him that he beleeved himself to be the Son of God as afterwards when he yeelded to baptize him and yet as we see refused to baptize him notwithstanding the knowledg he had of such a belief in him Therefore certainly he did not baptize him upon the account of his Faith Nor did Christ in the interim I mean between John's refusing to baptize him and his admitting him unto his Baptism any wayes inform John that since he beleeved himself to be the Son of God he lawfully might or of duty ought to baptize him So that on which side soever of the businesse we look there is not so much as the least lineament of a face of probability that Christ was baptized upon the account of his beleeving himself to be the Son of God Sect. 187. If it be objected that John when he refused to admit Christ to hiâ— Baptism did as well know that he was the Son of God as that he beleeved himself to be Son of God and yet did not
are more readily apprehended and conceived then things figuratively and mystically a M. Baxter affirmeth proveth this kind of baptizing to be no Ordinance of God but an heynous sin yea and flat murther and no better and upon this account judgeth that the Civil Magistrate ought to restrain it as being destructive to the lives â—f their people See this and much more tâ— like purpose p. 134. 135. 136. in his Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-membership c. such Therefore if children were capable of a metaphorical or typical baptism much more are they capable of that which is literal and proper So that the Scripture now argued is on the behalf of Infant-Baptisme like Solomons King upon his Throne against whom there is no rising up CONSIDERATION XXX THe ceremony or dore of entrance or admission into the Christian Church is lesse grievous or offensive to the flesh and more accommodate to the weaknesse and tendernesse of children then the ceremony of like import was under the Law Proof The Proof or evidence rather of this Consideration is neer at hand For the entrance into the Jewish Church under the Law was by blood which occasioned Zipporah to tell Moses that he was an Husband of blood to her Then she said A bloody Husband thou art because of the Circumcision which it seems she was necessitated to administer unto her child to save her Husbands life Exod. 4. 26. Whereas the ceremonial entrance into the Christian Church is by water and the washing of the flesh herewith Indeed as some form and obtrude this Ceremony upon the consciences of men the entrance into the Christian Church is made more bloody in many cases I mean more prejudicial unto health and more threatening life then that under the Law For though Circumcision was smarting and painful yet it made no breach upon the health nor endangered the life of any that came under it Whereas Bptizing in Rivers by plunging or dipping the whole body under water in cold climates and seasons must needs threaten not the healths onely but the lives also of many infirm and tender constitutions â— Yea I am all thoughts made that upon the account of this kind of Baptizing many amongst us at this day are sick and weak and many also have fallen asleep Several instances of persons who have suffered in these kinds have been reported unto me and this upon tearms sufficient to secure the truth of the reports Consectary If God admitted Infants into his Church when the entrance hereunto was more grievous and not without blood it is very unreasonable to conceive that he should now exclude them having made the entrance hereinto more accommodations unto them and much better comporting with their weakness CONSIDERATION XXXI IT cannot be proved from the Scriptures that the Baptism of any child born of Christian Parents or Beleâ—vers was deferred to adultness or years of discretion much less can it be provâ—d that the Baptism of all such children was thus deferred Proof If that which in this Consideration is implicitely denyed the deferring of Baptism to the persons specified can or could be proved from the Scriptures the proof must be either first by some example of an Infant one or more of the relation mentioned who was not baptized untill mans estate But evident it is that no such proof as this can be found in the Scriptures Or else 2. the said proof must be made by producing some prohibition of Divine Authority by which Beleeving Parents are restrained from desiring Baptisme for their children untill maturity of years But as certain it is that no proof in this kind neither can be found in the Scriptures Or 3. and lastly the proof we speak of must be made by producing some reason or ground otherwise from the Scriptures by which the necessity of such a Dilation is substantially evinced But neither do the Scriptures afford any proof of the point in question in this kind as our Adversaries themselves upon the matter as far as I understand do confesse in that they never yet produced any If it be objected and said though there be no particular or special prohibition in the Scriptures restraining Christians from desiring Baptisme for their children whilest they are yet children yet are their prohibitions in general laid as well upon them as others to restrain them from will-worship and so from using the Holy things of God in any manner not directed or prescribed by himself and consequently to restrain Beleeving Parents from offering their children whilest such unto Baptisme in as much as Infant-Baptisme is will-worship or an act or kind of worship not prescribed by him to this I answer That every usage of the Holy things of God after a manner not particularly prescribed by him is not will-worship To read a Chapter two or three daily is no will-worship yet is it an using of the Holy Scriptures nor particularly prescribed by God To give the Holy things of God in the Administration of the Supper unto women is an usage of these Holy things not particularly directed or prescribed by God himself yet it is far from Will-worship To pray about a quarter or half or an whole hour every day is an usage of the Holy Ordnance of prayer not particularly prescribed by God yet is it not Will-worship many instances in this kind might be added Therefore neither is the Baptizing of Infants any strein of Will-worship upon any such account as this viz. because it is an usage of an Ordinance not particularly prescribed by God 2. Will-worship properly consists in this when men exhibit or perform that in the name of worship or for worship unto God which he hath not prescribed as any part of his worship As they who conceit they worship God by being baptized men and women having formerly been baptized infants do most properly commit the sin of Will-worship because it is certain that God hath not prescribed any such things especially not in the nature of worship Yea it is a kind of Will-worship if Parents-place worship in offering their children unto Baptism because God doth not require this of them in the nature of worship but of obedience and duty otherwise All duty is not worship neither is every act not warrantable by the Scriptures though supposed such an act of Will-worship 3. And lastly it hath been proved by many arguments and grounds both in this discourse and in several others by other men that the mind and will of God is that Christian Parents should devote and consecrate their children by water unto his service upon the first opportunity from the beginning of their daies Which arguments and grounds have it may be some of them been replied unto instead of answered or had something said to them which emphatically considered amounts to nothing and others of them may probably in time be triumphed over in the same kind However evident it is in the mean time that no Christian Parent is restrained by any
creature which it affirmeth to be the relation specified Son-ship unto God and this in opposition to Faith and Repentance Mr. A's answer discourseth of the originall ground of the dispensation in God which being interpreted is nothing at all to the purpose By the way when the Argument with the Answer whereof Mr. A hath at present both his hands full asserteth the relation of Son-ship unto God to be the originall or first ground or qualification for Baptism it doth not take originall or first in opposition to immediate or next but in opposition to that which is after and subordinate So that it avoucheth Son-ship in children to be every whit as neer as immediate a ground of Baptism as Faith or Repentance or a declaration of either or a desire it self of Baptism are in persons capable of such things Yea and supposeth that neither Faith nor Repentance nor a Declaration of either are any grounds or qvalifications for Baptism at all but only as they make and declare their subjects men and women the children of God But 3. Were the Argument as he propoundeth it owned by his adversaries yet his answer would not reach it For whereas he saith upon the same ground one might as well argue Infants to be strong Christians or fit to be chosen Pastors Teachers or Deacons as to argue them capable of Baptism because persons are in these capacities by vertue of the love of God to them he builds upon the sand For persons are not in the capacities he speaks of by vertue of the love of God to them For then all persons towards whom there is love in God should be in the same capacities which is manifestly untrue Yea some may be in these capacities towards whom there is no love in God at all I suppose Mr. A. speaks of Gods speciall love or that wherewith he loves his Saints Judas was in the capacitie of being an Apostle which is more then of being a Pastor Teacher c. when his Lord and Master bare no such love to him It is rather by vertue of the bounty of God considered as exerting it self in such or such a determinate manner then of the love of God that persons are invested with such capacities So â—â—at Mr. A's Instances besides that they hold no parallel or Proportion with the reasoning or arguing which he pretendeth to oppose proceed upon a groundlesse surmise instead of truth But let us see what work he makes in the further processe of his answer If then saith he we would come to argue steadily so as to conclude persons capability of Baptism from the love of Mr. A. p. 43 44. God to them we must consider the love of God under that particular and precise notion by which persons are put into an immediate not remote capacitie of Baptism For though it is true that the love of God which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that sin that devolved it self on them from Adam doth put them into a remote capacitie both of Baptism and all other consequentiall acts of Grace which are vouchsafed men upon their believing and diligent and faithfull improvement of all means and opportunities of Grace c. yet it doth not put them into an immediate capacitie of these untill they do believe and have improved those means and opportunities upon condition of which such additionall and progressionarie acts of Grace are promised and suspended no more then a childes abilitie to read his horn-book or Primer puts him into a capacitie of understanding his Grammar I answer Sect. 173. 1. That neither have we here the Argument of his Adversaries so much as touch'd but an Onion talk'd of instead of an Apple as we have more then once lately observed 2. It is somewhat an uncouth expression to say that by any notion of the love of God how particular or precise soever persons are put into any capacitie of Baptism whether immediate or remote whatsoever the love of God it self may do in this kind certain it is that the notion of this love hath no operation either way 3. Neither is it so true that the love of God which is vouchsafed InfaÌ„ts in the pardon of the sin devolved on theÌ„ from Adam doth put them into a remote capacity of b 〈…〉 ism c. For they are in this capacity as they are Infants simply or as members of the race of mankind However we have not yet so much as the softest air or gentlest breathing of an answer to that argument for Infant-baptism which bears so hard and heavie upon Mr. A's conceit of Anti-pedo-baptism It may be somewhat will come out at the last in the shape or likenesse of an Answer Therefore let us wait upon his pen a little further That the Dispensation of Gods Grace and love saith he is made to Infants in one respect and to persons of an immediate Mr. A. p. 44. capacitie of Baptism in another and that act of Grace which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that first sin c. doth not put them into animmediate capacitie of Baptism appears upon these grounds 1. Because the act of Grace or dispensation of Gods love unto which Baptism doth appropriately belong is that which is exerted and put forth in the pardon of mens actuall transgressions and this too notwithout their repenting or beleeving whereas that act of Grace of which Infants partake is such as is vouchsafed unto them in the pardon of originall sin only and this too without their repenting and believing meerly upon the account of the death of Christ I answer Sect. 174. 1. Mr. A here undertakes to prove that which none of his Adversaries do denie viz. that that the Dispensation of Gods grace and love is made to Infants in one respect and to persons in an immediate capacitie of Baptism in another if by the persons he speaks of he means persons who have actually sinned which I question not is his meaning 2. By one and the same undertaking he undertakes likewise to refute that which none of his adversaries affirm or hold viz. that that that act of Grace which is vouchsafed infants in the pardon of that first sin puts them into an immediate capacitie of Baptism So that though he should prosper on both hands in this undertaking his prosperitie would be but a successefull beating of the air That which his Antagonists hold about this latter point is that the relation of Son-ship which by the Grace of God working in that redeÌ„ption which is by Christ accrues unto Infants naturally descending from AdaÌ„ partly by or from the pardon of the sin he speaks of partly also from that immunitie from actuall transgression which is found in Infants renders them actually or immediately capable of Baptism Even as it is the same Son-ship in persons of discretion though otherwise in part accruing as viz. from the remission of their sins both originall and actuall thorow believing which being made known or apprehended by the
upon this account baptize him Therefore according to the tenor of your late reasoning neither did he baptize him upon the account of his being in favour with God or of his relation of Sonship unto God To this I answer that although John knew Christ to be the Son of God when he declined the baptizing him as well as afterwards when he baptized him yet it seems he did not at present so wel consider that he being the only begotten Son of God and so a person in dignity infinitely transcending other men it was meet for him being a weak and sinful man to baptize him until the Lord Christ himself admonished or informed him of the meetness of the thing the transcendent dignity of his person notwithstanding Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness Mat. 3. 15. as if he should have said How true soever it be which thou alledgest against thy baptizing me as viz. that thou hast need to be baptized of me and not I of thee yet be content to do what at this time and upon the present occasion I desire of thee because it becometh me notwithstanding the peculiar dignity of my person yet in respect of my mediatory undertaking to condescend to every thing which is righteous or meet for other men to submit unto So then if it be righteous and meet for other persons who are the sons of God and because or as they stand in this relation unto him and not meerly as they are beleevers to be admitted unto Baptism then did Christ desire Baptism and was accordingly baptized as or because he was the Son of God although it be true that he was indeed the first born amongst many brethren as the Apostle speaks and so his relation of Sonship of an higher nature then other mens Sect. 188. Now that other persons are not regularly admittable unto Baptism nor ever were in the Apostles times admitted hereunto simply and meerly as or because Beleevers but as or because their faith thorough the profession of it did declare them to be the Sons of God and so iâ— special favour with him is beyond all controversie evident upon these grounds 1. If beleeving Jesus Christ to be the Son of God gives a regular capacity of Baptism as it is simply beleeving and not as it declares the Beleever to be the Son of God and in special favour with him then is the Devil himselfe or at least may be in a regular capacity of being baptized The reason of this consequence is evident because he beleeves Jesus Christ to be the Son of God or at least is a sufficient capacity to believe it The Apostle saith that he was mightily or with power declared to be the Son of God according to the spirit of holinesse by the resurrection from the dead Now the devil is very capable of any rational demonstration how much more of such which are pregnant and full of power to convince And though he be a lyar and the Father thereof yet being subtile and wise in his generation he is not like to lye to his own disadvantage which yet he must be supposed to have done when he said unto Christ I know thee who thou art the holy one of God Mark 1. 24. â—f he had lyed in so saying So that there is little question of the validity and truth of the consequence in the said major proposition Now that the Devil is or may be in a regular capacity of being baptized is I presume none of Mr. A's thoughts Therefore believing simply as beleeving doth not qualifie for baptisme but as it selfe being professed or declared declareth the Professour of it to be a child of God 2. If believing simply as believing inrights unto baptism then did Philip put the Eunuch upon harder and stricter termes to satisfie himselfe about his meetnesse to be baptized when upon this account he required of him or imposed on him a beleeving with the whole heart Act 8. 37. then his commission in that behalfe allowed him to do And indeed his admonishiâ—g or presting the Eunuch to believe with all his heart plainly intimated that it was such a Faith or beleeving which would render him capable of Baptisme to his own comfort by which he could approve himselfe to be a child of God If so then is it not the simple or absolute nature or act of beleeving but that relative or declarative nature oâ— property of it we speak of by vertue or meanes whereof it gives a capacity of baptisme unto men If so then it readily follows that it is the relation of Son-ship unto God which originally primarily and directly investeth with this capacity and that wheresoever and in whomsoever this may reasonably be presumed to be there is as rich as regular a capacity of baptisme as beleeving by means of the profession of it can give unto any man And that it is the property of Faith to give unto men the relation we speak of I mean of Son-ship unto God is the loud vote of the Scripture from place to place Joh. 1. 12. Gal. 3 26. and elsewhere And if Faith gives the relation of Son-ship the profession or declaration of Faith must needs give knowledge of this relation unto men Sect. 189. If it be here replyed true it is Faith professed declareth a person to be the Son of God but it followeth not from hence that therefore it qualifieth for baptisme in this consideration I answer if this be the noblest and highest consideration in Faith viz. that it gives the relation of Son-ship unto God makes a man or a woman to become a child of God which I suppose is no mans question then must it needs be the highest consideration also in the profession of it that it declares a man or woman to be the childe of God And if these things be so it undeniably followeth that either it is somwhat that it is meaner and lower in Faith and so in the profession of Faith which instates men in a capacity of Baptism or else that it is that relative declarative nature in it of which we speak which thus enstateth them Now then if Baptism be to be looked upon as a matter of favour or priviledge vouchsafed by God unto men or unto his children it is unreasonable to conceive or think that he should conferre it upon the account of that which is meaner and lesse considerable in them passing by that which is more excellent more considerable and worthy 3. If faith giveth not right unto Baptism in that declarative consideration mentioned then giveth it in some consideration relating to it as for example either as it is simply an act or as it is such or such a kind of act or as it relateth to such or such an object or the like But there is no other consideration in Faith by vertue whereof it can so much as tolerably be conceived that it should give a capacity of Baptism Therefore it
must needs be conceived to give this capacity in the consideration specified Nor can it here reasonably be pretended in opposition to what hath been said that it gives the capacity now contended about in consideration of the ordinance or appointment of God that so it should do or that by vertue of such a divine ordinance as this it gives the said capacity For 1. When we affirm that it gives the capacity so oft specified by vertue of the declarative property of it frequently likewise mentioned we do not exclude the ordinance or appointment of God in this behalfe but suppose or include it altogether We believe that faith doth not justifie or make a child of God but by vertue of the will appoyntment or ordination of God in this kind nor do we beleeve that it gives the capacity of Baptism upon any other â—erms I mean without the ordinance or appoyntment of God But Sect. 190. 2. Whensoever God by the counsel of his will or by his appointment settleth any priviledge or benefactory power upon any grace act or service of his creature he doth it stil in consideration of or with an eye unto something that is considerable in or about this Grace act or service which commendeth it unto him as meet and proper for an investiture with such a priviledge He doth not invest every Grace or every service with every priviledge but confers priviledges with an exact proportion to each Grace or service priviledged by him in respect of some thing or other considerable in them in reference to such a collation Now then when we affirm and say that faith gives a right unto Baptism as it is declarative of Son-ship unto God our meaning is that this declarative property is that consideration in it in regard whereof God judged it meet to be invested with such a priviledge as to give a capacity of or a right unto baptism unto all those in whom it should be found and hath invested it accordingly Thus then all things duly weighed and considered it fully appeareth that the device which Mr. A imagined against the argument or objection lately propounded by himselfe is too great for him to perform By the light of all these late discussion it is sufficiently evident that faith in no other considerations intrinsically appertaining to it gives a capacity of Baptism but onely as it is declarative of Sonship and that this is the original and proper qualification for Baptism and that being by any probable much more by any demonstrative argument made known unto those who have a right to baptise baptisme ought not to be denied unto it Whereas Mr. A. very operously and with the quotation of many Scriptures labours to prove the Eunuch's Faith I beleeve Jesus Christ to be the son of God was none other then the Faith of the Gospel and the common form of Beleevers confession and again that Christ had this Faith i. e. that he beleeved himselfe to be the Son of God he might to as much purpose and well nigh with as much pertinence to his cause have spent his paines in proving the Sun to be up at noon day If he could have proved First that Christ's faith was of the same nature and consideration with the Faith of beleevers And secondly that he was baptized by John upon the account of this his Faith simply and absolutely considered he had made the face of his cause to shine at least to a degree but being defective in these his labour and cost otherwise signifie nothing Sect. 191. What he speaks afterward concerning Christ making a dedication of himselfe unto the service of professing and publishing the Gospel by the solemnity of baptisme as others did and ought to do he speaks upon no steady no nor probable account in reason For Christ doubtlesse had made a dedication of himselfe to the service he speaks of long before his receiving the solemnity of Baptism yea and had professed the Gospel and declared himself the Son of God For being yet but twelve years old he was found in the Temple discoursing the things of God amongst the Doctors so called of those times And to his Parents his Mother saying thus unto him Son why hast thou dealt thus with us behold thy Father and I have sought thee sorrowing he returned this answer How is it that ye sought me wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers businesse Luke 2. 46. 49. So that now he both professed himselfe to be the Son of God and declared also that he had dedicated and devoted himselfe to that work of his about which he was sent whereas he was not baptized till about the thirtieth year of his life Luke 3. 21. 23. Or if Mr. A's meaning be that Christ was now comming forth into the world to professe and publish the Gospel openly when he was baptized the expresse letter of the Evangelical History riseth up against him For Christ did not thus profess or publish the Gospel untill Johns casting into prison Matth. 4. 12. 7. Mark 1. 14. which was some considerable time after his baptizing for presently after his baptizing he was led by the spirit into the wilderness and there continued forty days and forty nights amongst the wild beasts Mark 1. 13. Matth. 4. 1 2. which importeth as Theophylact well observeth that all this time he continued in such a part of the wildernesse where men were not wont to come So that all this while he did not professe or publish the Gospel openly unless it were to the wild beasts or the Devil Nor can it be proved that Johns casting into prison immediately followed the abode of Christ in the wilderness indeed the contrary appeareth from the Scriptures yet shal we not argue this at present So that M. A. is out of the way of truth at this turn also Why Christ deferred his baptism to that time when he received it may be shewed in the progress of this answer very speedily But however Paedo-baptists claim countenance to their practice from the baptisme of Christ Mr. A. hath a conceit that from it he can frame an argument against their practise and this as he saith without wresting it as if it were somewhat a singular thing with him to argue against his adversaries without wresting the Scriptures which he manageth against them His argument is a little prolix and encumbred with words yet let us give it a patient hearing as himself layeth it down If Jeâ—us Christ his being baptized at that season and upon that occasion when he began to profess and publish the Gospel and not before was in conformity to a Law oâ— righteousness in this behalf then those that are baptized who yet make no such profession as Infants are are not baptized inconformity to that Law of righteousness But Christ his being baptized at that season and upon that occasion when he began to profess and publish the Gospel and not before was in conformity to a Law of righteousness in
those that brought them 4 If Christ had blessed these children only as emblems or types of Gospel converts in case Lambs or Doves or Sheep had been brought unto him likewise he might upon such an account as well have layd his hands upon these and blessed them and have said Suffer Lambs and Doves and Sheep to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of God But is it meet to make any part of a sober mans faith to beleeve or think that the Lord Christ in the case specified would either have done or spoken according to the tenour of these things 5. And lastly because the conceit we oppose is in it self so uncouth and improbable that it is not like to ride any mans judgement unless he finds it bowed down with prejudice the reason which Christ gives for this his order that Children should be suffered to come unto him and consequently of his gracious intentions towards them upon their coming is this viz. That of such is the Kingdome of heaven This clearly proveth that the blessing wherewith hee now blessed those children that were brought unto him and intended to bless those that should be brought unto him afterwards was a blessing appropriate unto Saints or such who are subjects in the Kingdom of God But the Bread in the Sacrament is no Saint though the Papists dream it to be the King of Saints and therefore no capable subject of such a blessing which the children obtained by their coming to Christ A Table of some Texts of Scripture occasionally handled or touched in the preceding Discourse and to which some light is given besides many others cited only probation-wise GEn. 17. 1. The uncircumcised Man-child shall be cut off from his people page 349 Exod. 3. 6. I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob p. 3 12 Eccles 7. 11. Wisdom is good with an inheritance 230 12. 1. Remember thy Creator in the daies of thy youth 347 348 c. Isa 1. 11 12. To what purpose is the multitude of your Sacrifices unto me c. 103 Mat. 3. 11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance 246 248 328 375 3. 15. Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness 263 390 401 12. 3. Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungry c. 12 12. 8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day 323 18. 6. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones who beleeve in me c. 166 167 19. 13. Then there were brought unto him litle children that he should put his hands upon them and pray c. 132 161 162 344 22. 31. But as touching the resurrection of the dead have ye not read c. page 3 28. 19. Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. 167 168 c. Mar. 1. 4. The Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins p. 246 372 c. 1. 8. I indeed baptize you with water 328 1. 38. For therefore came I forth 247 10. 13 14 c. And they brought young children unto him that he should touch them c. and he layed his hands on them and blessed them 132 159 160 161 162 344 16. 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved 229 230 c. 373 Luke 3. 15. And all men mused in their hearts of John whether he were Christ or no 284 7. 29 30. And all the people that heard him and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptism of John But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves not being baptized of John 182 183 260 261 Joh. 1. 31. But that he should be made manifest unto Israel am I come baptizing with water 175 176 3. 5. Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit c. 216 333 3. 23. And Iohn also was baptizing in Enon neer Salim because much water was there 62 63 3. 32. No man receiveth his testimony 152 5. 31. If I bear witness of my selfe my witness is not true 206 6. 40. And this is the will of him that sent me that he that seeth the Son and beleeveth on him c. 331 7. 39. This he spake of the Spirit which they that beleeve on him should receive pag. 329 13. 7. What I doe thou knowest not now but thou shalt know hereafter 202 20. 29. Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have bleee 8ed 331 Acts 2. 3. Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost 234 235 236 c. 330 376 2. 39. For the promise is unto you and your children c. 145 2. 41. And the same day there was added about three thousand souls 294. 3. 19. Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out c. 235 5. 14. And beleevers were the more added unto the Lord multitudes both of men and women 157 7. 25. For he supposed that his brethren would have understood how God by his hand would deliver them but they understood it not 4 8. 10. To whom they all gave heed c. 157 158 10. 47. They were baptized both men and women 152 158 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised 25 15. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples c. 85 17. 31. Whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the dead 4 21. 5. And they all brought us on our way with Wives and children 155 22. 16. And now why tarriest thou Arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins c. 252 253 c. Rom. 2. 26. Therefore if the uncircumcision shall keep the righteousness of the Law shall not his uncircision be counted for circumcision 294 295 4. 11. And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all men that beleeve 187 188 c. 4. 18. Who against hope beleeved in hope that he might be the Father of many nations 188 189 c. 6. 5. For if ye have been planted together in the likeness of his death ye shall also c. 280 8. 14. As many as are â—â—d by the Spirit of God these are the Sons of God 286 8. 23. Even we do sigh in our selves waiting for the adoption 249 8. 24. For we are saved by hope 303 10. 1. My hearts desire and prayer for Israel is that they may be saved 246 10. 10. For with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousness c. 249 14. 22. Hast thou Faith Have it to thy selfe before God 107 1 Cor. 1. 17. For Christ sent me not to baptize but c. 128 327 3. 8. The ministration of the spirit 326 7. 9. It is