Circumcision therefore cannot be meant God's Ordinance of Baptism but sheweth the great Care God had of his Church that as he fed them miraculously and gave them Water out of a Rock in the Wilderness Baptism signifieth properly plunging in Water or washing by dipping Dr. Taylor 's Rule of Conscience so he did not leave them in the Red Sea but incompass'd them about by his Divine Providence with Water and the Cloud as Persons are encompassed with that Element when Baptized Hence in the 6th place Baptism is explained by the Metaphor of a Garment which the Apostle refers unto when he calls Baptism a putting on Christ Gal. 3.27 As the Servant by his Lord's Livery declares whose he is so the long white Robe of Baptism sheweth us to be the Servants of the Lord Jesus 7. Baptism is not only called a Washing by Ananias and Peter Acts 22.16 1 Pet. 3.21 Tit. 3.5 but the washing of the Soul in Regeneration is held forth in this Symbol and Sign Austin and Paulinus in the 7th Century in England Baptized great Multitudes in the River Trent and Swale Hence saith Mr. Fox there was no use of Fonts then Fox's Acts and Monuments 9 Edit Vol. 1. p. 132. by the Apostle Paul when he speaks of the washing of Regeneration unto Titus Now we know every Faculty of the Soul is washed in the Blood of Christ and every Faculty sanctified by the Holy Spirit not a part of the Faculties but all the Faculties therefore wisely set forth by Baptism wherein not only a part but the whole Body is wash'd and cleansed in Water 8. This is further cleared from the practice of the most pure Apostolick Times 'T is said of our most blessed Lord Jesus That he went up out of the Water Mat. 3.15 16 17. which in common sense signifies He first went down not only to the Water but into the Water and came up out of the Water Of Philip and the Eunuch 't is said Acts 8.36 40. They went down both not only to the Water but into the Water and came up out of the Water if Sprinkling would have done they need only go to and come from it but they knew the Commission could not be answered unless they went down into the Water The Minister is to dip in Water as the meetest Act the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes it Rogers on the Sacrament Thus you see the Places where the Apostles Baptized were in Rivers and where was much Water You see their Act and Posture they went down into the Water you see their End was to exhibit and shew forth Christ's Death Burial and Resurection If any should ask Why Sprinkling will not do as well as Dipping I answer 1. Because that is another thing than Christ hath commanded and 't is high presumption to change God's Ordinances Isa 24.5 Tho there was no more virtue in the Waters of Jordan than of Damascus yet Naaman must keep to God's Appointment 2. In so doing we lose the End of the Ordinance which as aforesaid is to shew forth the Death and Resurrection of Christ 3. We must keep the Ordinances as they were delivered unto us 1 Cor. 11.2 'T is a known Maxim to practise any thing in the Worship of God as an Ordinance of his without an Institution ought to be esteemed Will-worship Idolatry And that there is a necessity for Scripture-Authority to warrant every Ordinance and Practice in Divine Worship is owned by Luther Austin Calvin Basil Theoph. Tertul Mr. Ball and in the 6th Article of the Church of England also Bellarmine as Moses was to make all things according to the Pattern shewed him in the Mount. 4. God is a Jealous God and stands upon small things in Matters of Worship Had Moses and Aaron but lifted up a Tool upon the Altar of ruff Stone to beautify it they would have polluted it because contrary to the Command 5. This hath no likeness to the holy Examples of Christ and his Apostles CHAP. IV. Shewing that professing Believers and them only are the proper Subjects of Baptism Which I demonstrate FIrst From Gospel-Precept Our Text saith He that believeth and is baptized Erasmus saith 'T is no where in the Apostles Writings Infants were baptized The parallel Text Mat. 28. is worthy of consideration by way of Division The Commission is Go the Subjects spoken to are his Apostles the Matter of it is to teach and baptize the Extent of it is into all the World not only in hot Countries but in Cold. The Order in this Commission is first to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then after taught and discipellized to baptize them Therefore to baptize them We meet with no Example in Scripture for baptizing Infants Magd. Hist Cent. 1. L. 2. p. 196. before taught is quite contrary to the Command The words of Institution in whose Name it is to be done is the glorious Trinity in the Name of Father Son and Holy Spirit this must be some great thing which is done by so great Authority Unto this is annexed a glorious Promise of Divine Presence not only to the End of that Age but the End of the World * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to put us out of all doubt about it 't is back'd with an Asseveration Amen so it shall be Finally here is a Note of Observation Lo our Lord would not have so great a Commission and Promise disregarded therefore saith he Lo that is observe what I have said wherever you find the word Lo Mark or Behold you will always find something very considerable it relates unto in the Context Now in pursuance of this Commission Peter exhorted the Murderers of Christ when they were convicted and cried out What shall we do he saith Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost 2ly This appears from Gospel-Precedent and Example the Apostles in pursuance of their Commission baptize none else but such Hence John the Baptist tells the Pharisees and Sadduces which came to his Baptism As Isaac was brought forth by the Word of Promise so must we be born of the Word of God which only makes Baptism powerful and effectual Magd. Cent. 5. p. 363. they must first bring forth Fruit meet for or to amendment of Life and not to think the old Argument for Circumcision that Abraham was their Father would give them a right to Gospel-Ordinances It 's not the Faith of Parents gives Children a right to the Seals of the New Covenant but a personal Faith hence Philip would not baptize the Eunuch but upon profession of Faith In a word all the Primitive Churches were constituted and planted upon this Foundation-Principle Heb. 6.1 2. Acts 2.41 Chap. 8.12 Chap. 16.14 Coloss 2.10 Acts 18.8 Rom. 6.4 Gal. 3.26 Acts 19.1 2 3. Ephes 4.4 as
these Scriptures show in the Margent viz. the Church at Jerusalem Samaria Cesaria Philippi Coloss Corinth Rome Galatia Ephesus c. To conclude If the Churches of Christ were so planted and constituted in the Primitive Times they ought to be so still unless any can shew where Christ hath since that altered the Constitution of his Churches 3ly This Ordinance cannot concern Infants but Believers because it 's a testification of the Remission of Sins and Salvation to the worthy Receiver and Subject of it Acts 2.38 Mark 16.16 else why doth Peter promise remission of Sin and the Gift of the Holy Ghost to such And why did our Lord join Faith Baptism and Salvation all in one Verse Baptism is never enjoined as a Means of Remission of Sins and Eternal Life but something of Duty Choice and Sanctity is joined with it in order to the production of the End so mentioned Dr. Taylor but that the Ordinance should be a Pledg to the Believer of those great things We collect as much from Acts 22.16 where Ananias exhorted Paul to arise and be baptized and wash away his Sins that is put that Duty in practice which will be a Confirmation of thy Justification so we understand Peter The like Figure whereunto Baptism doth now save us viz. As the Ark was the instrumental way of God's saving Noah by his Grace 1 Pet. 3.20 Baptism is our Marriage-Ring Military Press-mony our ingrafting into Christ our Badg and Cognizance our Ship our Ark our Red-Sea our putting on Christ Dan. Rogers so Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection is the way God saves our Souls this being confirmed unto us in the Figure of Baptism as well as at the Lord's Table But what have Infants to do with this who are not capable to take in the Comfort exhibited and held forth in it This is Meat for strong Men not Babes 4ly Believers only must be the Subjects of this Ordinance because it holds forth a Covenant the Subject makes actually with God Hence saith the Apostle Rom. 6.3 Know you not as many as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his Death as if he should say In that Ordinance you did covenant and promise to die unto Sin and live a new Life Therefore saith he how can you that are dead to Sin live any longer therein And this you have profess'd in your Baptism as in the words of the Institution Gossops and Sureties are no where found in Holy Scripture but in the Pope's Decree and Common-Prayer Book Which the Parliament in K. Edward the 6th's time confessed There was no other difference between that and the Mass-Book only a few things left out but that one was in Latin the other in English Fox's Acts Mon. Edit 9. Vol. 2. Book 9. p. 14 15. the whole Trinity gives it self unto the Believer So he dedicates himself voluntarily to the Service of the whole Trinity Father Son and Spirit In all Covenants of this Nature there is required the Information of the Judgment Consent of the Will it must be an Act of Choice As the Eunuch said See here is Water what hinders me to be baptized But none of these things are agreeable to an Infant and as they are not able to enter into Covenant themselves if others do it for them 't is not only Unscriptural but Antiscriptural Can Persons covenant to keep others from Sin when they find it too hard a work to keep themselves 5ly Baptism is a lively representation of Regeneration therefore can only affect Believers The Apostle alludes unto Baptism when he speaks of the washing of Regeneration Titus 3.5 His meaning is that the Ordinance is a lively Badg Symbol and Sign of Regeneration and the New Birth The Apostle to the Colossians Ch. 2.12 tells them That their Baptism did exhibit and shew forth their being dead and risen with Christ through that Faith which was of that Omnipotent Operation which raised Christ from the Dead but no Signs of Regeneration appear in Infants at Baptism that is untruly said Saith the Papist to the Prelat You prove that Sacraments convey Grace in the very Act as we assert for just before Baptism the Child was an Heir of Hell and Child of Wrath but being baptized it is Regenerated and born again as your Common-Prayer Book saith in the Common-Prayer Book after the Child is sprinkled Forasmuch as this Child is regenerated and born again which just before was acknowledged to be a Child of Wrath and an Heir of Hell We say tho God hath promised his Presence in all his Appointments yet we also say Persons are not to be Baptized that they may be Regenerated but to hold forth and signify Regeneration therefore Baptism can no ways affect little Infants CHAP. V. Contains the Answer of Objections Objection 1. FEW Learned Men own this way of Baptizing only a few mechanick poor illiterate Persons I Answer The Apostle saith Not many wise Men after the Flesh are called 1 Cor. 1.24 29. Christ did not ordinarily make use of the learned Rabbies among the Jews to preach the Gospel but rather those who were counted illiterate and ignorant that no Flesh might glory in his Presence God gets the more praise by making use of Babes and Sucklings Christ thanks the Father Psal 8.2 that Divine Things were hid from the Wise and Prudent such as the World so accounted Mat. 11.27 and revealed unto Babes because they would render the Glory unto God while the worldly wise Men would take it to themselves 2. Those who have the most humane Literature are no Rule but God's Word we must follow Paul no further than he follows Christ 3. The Holy Scriptures account no Man truly Wise and Learned but those taught of God and that keep his Commands Psal 111.10 The Learned Pharisees and Expounders of the Law rejected the Counsel of God against themselves in not being Baptized 4. Are there no Learned of this Practice What think you of St. Augustine See Danvers on Baptism p. 60 61 62 63. Many of those born of Christian Parents Basil Gregory Nazianzen Jerom Ambrose Chrysostom Constantine Theodosius Paul and as the Crown of all our Lord Jesus were all these Illiterate and Ignorant Object 2. The Children of Believers are in the Covenant They say the Foederati were to be the Signati therefore ought to have the Seal of the Covenant Baptism I Answer There is but two ways of being in the Covenant Absolutely or Conditionally Let it first be proved the Infant-Seed of Believers are in Covenant then 2ly if so that they ought to be baptized Female Children under the Law had a legal or federal Holiness yet not to be Circumcised No Believer dare say all his Infant-Seed are in the Covenant of Grace absolutely for then they must all be saved but we see Abraham had an Ishmael Isaac an Esau David an Absalom Samuel Sons of Belial c. so that they cannot
be baptized under that Consideration Or 2. Persons are in the Covenant of Grace Conditionally viz. in case they Believe and Repent Now under this Consideration the Children of Unbelievers have the same Interest in the Covenant and Sign of the Covenant And Children of Believers have a right no other way to the one or other the promise of Remission and Gift of the Holy Ghost is made as well to the Gentiles which are afar off as to the natural Seed of Abraham if they have the same Qualifications Acts 2.37 albeit Heathens by Nature and these are oft-times made the Subjects of Grace when Believers Children are left Hence a wicked Ahaz hath a good Hezekiah ungodly Abia a good Asa wicked Ammon a good Josiah idolatrous Jeroboam a good Abijah But were all the Children of Believers in the Covenant of Grace it follows not that therefore they ought to be baptized no more than they may come to the Lord's Supper because they want the Qualification required in that Duty And whereas it is further urged from the 2d of the Acts The word Children there is really the Posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant Children my Child is my Child tho 40 or 50 Years old the Promise is to you and your Children The scope of that place seems to be this When the Jews were pricked at their Heart for their Crucifying Christ upon Peter's Sermon they cry out Men and Brethren what shall we do The Apostle exhorts them what to do viz. Repent and be Baptized and for their Comfort subjoins that the Promise of Remission of Sins also of the Holy Ghost was like to be their Portion and their Childrens also if they did the same tho they once called for Christ's Blood upon their Heads and their Children yet now if you and your Children believe in that Christ you have Crucified those Promises are to the one and to the other yea to all afar off the poor Gentiles for since the partition Wall is broken down Jew Greek Col. 3.11 Barbarian Scythian Bond Free Male Female all one by Faith in Christ For we are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Gal. 3. Object 3. Infant-Baptism neither hath Precept nor Example in God's Word is confess'd by Luther Erasmas Zwinglius Melancthon Bucer Calvin Chochler Stuphilus Rogers Mr. Baxter Dauvers on Baptism p. 90 91. The Infant-Seed of Abraham was Circumcised therefore the Infant-Seed of Believers may be Baptized I Answer Abraham had a plain Injunction and Command for the former Believers have none for the latter In Matters of Worship we must keep to the Institution as Moses did to the Pattern shew'd him in the Mount Tho Lot was a Believer his Children were not to have the sign of Circumcision because limited unto Abraham's Seed and Family also to such a Sex and such a Day So hath God limited Baptism to Penitent Believers Whoever practises an Institution otherwise than was appointed by the great Law-giver does not honour the Ordinance but an Idol of his own making therefore let us keep to the Institution and not be wise above what is written and take not up with a dark Consequence in the rejection of a plain Command being not so satisfying to the true Reason of a Man nor his Conscience Those that argue for their Infant-Seeds Baptism from Circumcision being entail'd unto Abraham's Seed may as well argue and say the Priesthood was by a Covenant entail'd on the Tribe of Levi and his Seed therefore the Ministry is entail'd upon Gospel-Preachers and their Seed As this cannot be warranted no more can the other Object 4. Whole Families were Baptized Ergo Infants I Answer It 's said indeed Acts 16.33 Whereas some say No doubt but the Jailor had Children It may be very much questioned seeing it hath been observed some Years ago that for very many Years together not one Child was born to the Jayl-keepers in all the County of Essex The Jaylor and all his were baptized well they might seeing they all believed vers 34. So Crispus the chief Ruler believed in God with all his House Act. 18.8 And many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized And for Lydia and her Houshold those they Baptized those they comforted ver 40. But Infants could not take in that nor the comfort of that spiritual Appellation or Relation of Brethren as the Apostle calls them in Lydia's Houshold 2. The word all doth not always intend every Individual in a Family In 1 Sam. 1.21 't is said Elkanah and all his House went up to the yearly Sacrifice to Jerusalem Yet in the 22d it is said Hannah and the Child Samuel stay'd at Home So Augustus Cesar is said to Tax all the Word Luke 2.1 which was no more of the World than that little part where the Roman Empire stretched Should there be Infants in any of these Families To carry a poor ignorant Infant to the Ordinance of Baptism is as much as if you should carry it to hear a Sermon and no more significant than to instruct a Stock or Stone or shew some godly thing to a blind Man no charitable Person can think the Apostle would act contrary to his Commission to baptize ignorant Infants instead of understanding Believers Object 5. Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel I Answer This Objection is grounded upon Rom. 4.11 where 't is said Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision Some unto whom the Covenant of Grace did not belong received the Sign of Circumcision as Ishmael God said the Covenant should not be established with him but Isaac So Esau and all the Strangers in Abraham's House or bought with Mony in Israel that were Circumcised of whom it may as well be doubted whether the New Covenant-Promise did belong to them therefore they mistake to say Circumcision was a Seal of the New-Covenant to Abraham's Seed seeing some of them had it that were out of the Covenant by the express Word of God Gen. 4.19 20 21 25. Gal. 4.29 a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith First Consider it 's not said Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Abraham and his Seed that is begg'd in the Objection the Text saith It was a Token of the Righteousness of Abraham 's Faith But it could not be a Seal of Faith to an Infant which had none The scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is to shew that Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised The reason of his Circumcision was to be a Seal and Confirmation to him that he by his Faith should be a Father of many Nations and that the poor Gentiles should be accepted of God by Faith without the Works of the Law though not circumcised seeing Abraham's Faith
Christians 'T is most likely those who baptize Infants baptize Heathens for we are all the Children of Wrath by Nature Eph. 2.3 It is you plead for Baptizing Heathens we plead for Baptizing Believers and Christians Object 11. There is no express Command for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper yet there may be good Consequences to prove it lawful so of Infant-Baptism I Answer Who will say there 's no Command for Women's communicating so long as that stands upon Record 1 Cor. 11.28 But let a Man examine himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Common Gender and so let him eat The Learned do know the original word signifieth Man or Woman The Apostle saith There 's one Mediator between God and Man 1 Tim. 2.5 the word signifieth Man or Woman Gal. 3.28 Male or Female all one in Christ it is the same word with the former in the Original Moreover we read of Women who believed and were Baptized Acts 8.12 so are fitly qualified for the Lord's Table We have also an Example of Women's communicating in Act. 1.13 14. we read Mary and other Women with the rest of the Disciples were altogether And in Act. 2.44 it 's said all that believed were together and in ver 42. these continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and in Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayer So that here is a Command and an Example for Womens communicating tho none for Infants Baptism therefore the Objection is false and weak Object 12. Infants are Disciples therefore they may be Baptized I Answer This Objection being grounded on Act. 15.10 11. we shall shew the Occasion and Scope of it and see whether it can prove Infants Disciples or that they ought to be Baptized Some having asserted who came from Judea Vnless a Man was Circumcised he could not be saved Then the Church of Antioch determined that Paul and Barnabas with certain of the Church should go to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders concerning this Question which when they came together to consider this Matter Peter rose up and said Why tempt you God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples Acts 15.10 This proves not Infants Disciples neither that they ought to be baptized which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear The Meaning of the Apostle is Why should we impose the Yoke of Circumcision upon the Necks of the Disciples viz. Believing Gentiles which are by no Law obliged unto it this is to bring us unto that Bondage God hath delivered us from Now how this doth prove Infants Disciples and so ought to be Baptized I leave to all judicious Considerers Object 13. Circumcision nor Vncircumcision avails any thing but a New Creature We fear Persons lay too much stress upon Circumstantials not minding the Power of Godliness I Answer Those who lay too much stress upon Circumstantials 't is doubtless their Evil But can any lay more stress upon it than our Saviour who though unspotted yet would not live without it Tho Circumcision be nothing which is abolished is Baptism nothing which is called Righteousness and the Counsel of God and calls it Righteousness The laying the stress of our Happiness upon Christ should not hinder but further Obedience and always doth where the Faith is of the right Kind And whereas the Apostle saith Circumcision avails not any thing it did avail something when God threatned Moses with Death for not circumcising his Son Exod. 4. And when God said Whoever was not Circumcised should be cut off from among the People Gen. 17.14 The Apostle never intended to undermine Gospel-Commands by saying Circumcision nor Vncircumcision avails any thing for in 1 Cor. 7.19 he adds but the keeping the Commands of God What tho Circumcision is nothing because abolished is Believers Baptism nothing which is a standing Ordinance What tho some Jews might lay more stress upon Circumcision than upon the Lord Jesus for Salvation which might be the principal Cause of the Apostle's thus speaking I hope Persons have more charity than to conclude we lay more stress upon Baptism than our Lord's Merits Object 14. If Children may not be Baptized under the Gospel their Priviledg is less than under the Law I Answer The Priviledg under the Law and under the Gospel is the same to Infants as to the Covenant of Grace and as for Circumcision it was indeed a Priviledg to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens but called a Yoke in comparison of them under the Gospel We grant Why should this be esteemed the loss of a Priviledg more than not enjoying literally a holy Land a holy City Temple or Succession of a High Priest and Priesthood by Generation it 's a great Mercy for Children to have Godly Parents having the advantage of a good Education Prayer and good Examples But what benefit can Infants have from Baptism when God never appointed it for them nor made any Promise to them in it but most glorious ones are made to such as believe and are baptized namely Remission of Sins the Gift of the Holy Ghost and Eternal Salvation Mark 16.16 Object 15. The Children of Believers are Holy therefore they ought to be Baptized I Answer By explaining the Scripture upon which the Objection is grounded 1 Cor. 7.14 The Apostle is here giving an answer to a Case of Conscience that is Whether it were lawful for the believing Husband or Wife to leave or depart from the unbelieving Wife or Husband The Apostle in the Negative answers By no means for these Reasons First Now your Children are Holy viz. lawfully begotten in Wedlock but if the Husband leaves the Wife The Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well translated to by the Geneva or Wife the Husband every one will count your Children unclean that is Bastards therefore don't part but live together because the unbelieving Husband is sanctified or set apart by God's Ordinance to the use of the Wife and the Wife to the use of the Husband in a matrimonial way 1 Cor. 7.14 This is not an inherent spiritual nor a federal Holiness as some would beg and therefore argue for Baptism this Holiness is a legitimate Holiness And there can be no more concluded because these Children are said to be Holy therefore to be baptized than the Baptizing Zacharias's Bells or Pots in the Lord's House because they are said to be Holy Zach. 14.20 Object 16. All Nations are to be Baptized Infants are a part of the Nation Ergo Infants may be baptized I Answer The Lord Jesus Christ saith Mat. 28.19 20. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple all Nations but that must be first by Preaching and Instructing them in the Principles of the Christian Faith And addeth I cannot be of their mind who think that Persons may be baptized before taught Pool's Synopsis on Mat. 28. Baptizing them c. Never intending any should be baptized but what
in the late Persecution the Churches of Christ some of them did find it very convenient to break Bread upon a Week-Day yet we alway think it best on the First when it may be And as for Baptism we do not find the Apostles tarried for the Revolution of the First Day but as occasion offered they did it upon any Day Page 69. he insists upon the order of words Mat. 3. I baptize to Repentance See this answered in my Book p. 54 55 56. That is a false Argument he so largely insisted on pag. 44. If Persons have a right to Remission of Sin they have a right to the Sign Baptism This Argument I have handled in p. 36. Infants are not called Disciples as he supposeth pag. 43. from Acts 15.10 and upon his Request we will shew him a Command and Example for Womens communicating at the Lord's Table p. 42 43. For answer to pag. 21. where it 's asserted That many of the 3000 whom the Apostles batized in Acts 2.39 were Children seing the Pardon of Sin was by the Apostle Peter applied to their Children O horrible perverter of the Word of God! these Children whom he speaks of were no more as yet baptized than the Gentiles which were afar off uncalled 2. Suppose some of their Children were baptized it must be believing Children not Infants my Child is my Child though thirty or forty Years old for you cannot think the Apostle would go beyond his Commission to baptize an ignorant Infant in the room of an understanding Believer O how sophistically doth this Man reason see pag. 29 30 31. of this Book Lastly I refer you to Mr. Cary's Solemn Call which clears up the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 19.20 and that in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. as also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. are plainly proved to be three several Editions of the Covenant of Works Though Mr. Wall will have it to be a Covenant of Grace in Christ And though he spends many Leaves of his Book about it 't is as far from being proved as Believers-Baptism is a Sign to the Infant of the Remission of Sins and being in the Covenant of Grace which yet is confest a few Years after he is neither in the Covenant of Grace nor yet one Sin pardoned These are some of this poor Man's Self-contradictions is he not Felo de se a Self-destroyer Whereas he saith pag. 117. Mr. Ainsworth's Book called A Censure upon a Dialogue of the Anabaptists was never answered That in Abraham 's Seed all Nations should be blessed This Grace Abraham 's Infant-Seed had this Grace Christ gave to little Children See your self and Mr. Ainsworth both answered in pag. 37 38. and p. 34 35. CHAP. XII A brief Answer to a part of Mr. Daniel Williams's Catechism in his Book of the Vanity of Childhood and Youth IN pag. 131. he propounds these Questions What if a Child will not agree but refuse to agree to the Covenant to which his Infant-Baptism engaged him Himself makes this astonishing Answer 1. It 's a rejecting Christ our Saviour and a renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 2. It 's the Damning Sin 3. It 's the Heart of all Sin 4. It 's Rebellion continued against my Maker 5. It 's Ingratitude and Perjury to my Redeemer 6. It 's gross Injustice to my Parents 7. It 's an Affront to all the Godly 8. It 's self-killing Cruelty to my own Soul Here are hard and dreadful Words to make up the defect of weak Arguments for â—hen some Persons want Arguments 〈…〉 to perswade into an Error they do use some terrible Words and Ways to fright People thereinto Pray Sir shew your Hearers where you have Divine Authority for your Assertions or else there is no ground to be concerned at all about it though laid down in a formidable way Though I know 't is the Duty of Parents to pray for their Children give them moderate Correction good Education and good Examples yet God never made it the Duty of any Parent to dedicate their Child in Baptism nor the Duty of any Child to Engage and Covenant with God in their Infant-State being altogether uncapable therefore the not heeding it cannot be any Sin much less a damning Sin and if so be Persons do then ingage against the Custom of this World as you say they do then they must engage against Infant-Baptism being a worldly Custom I shall speak briefly to all these Particulars 1. Not to agree or to refuse to agree to the Covenant made in Infant-Baptism is no Sin because Where there is no Law saith the Apostle John there is no Transgression Now if this Gentleman can shew us any Law of God for Parents to dedicatâ— their Children in Baptism or Children to covenant with God in Baptism I will give him the Cause but if this cannot be done I think he can do no less than make a publick Recantation of his Assertions to undeceive those whom he in ignorant Zeal may have deceived 2. It 's no Rebellion against our Maker because Rebellion is interpreted in the holy Writ to be a wilful breach of God's Law and Command as you may see in Numb 20.24 Ye rebelled against my Word Chap. 27.14 Ye rebelled against the Command of the Lord so Deut. 1.26 Now then let this never be more called Rebellion except it can be proved to be against the Command of the Lord. 3. It can be no Ingratitude nor Perjury to my Redeemer 1. No Ingratitude because to own a thing he never appointed and is the ready way to thrust out his own Appointment will never be accounted by Christ Ingratitude 2. Neither can it be Perjury Mr. Pool on 1 Tim. 1. saith Perjury is a false Swearing or swearing to an untrue thing Now I suppose this is not Mr. Williams's meaning by Perjury for the Propositions were true if any which were promised in Infant-Baptism But I suppose he means the Covenant the Child made in Baptism against being governed by Satan and the Flesh taking up this World's Goods as my Portion and against the Customs of the Men of the World as my Guide when grown up and found walking in the Ways of the Devil the Flesh and the World contrary to God's Command and his own Vow This I supose he calls Perjury to the Redeemer But let it be considered a Man must first make a Vow or take an Oath before he can be said to break it and be perjur'd Now if the Child never made any Vow or Covenant in Baptism it being impossible how then can he be said to break Covenant and be guilty of Perjury to his Redeemer 4. It cannot be Injustice much less gross Injustice to my Parents because what is accounted Injustice to my Parents the Word of God makes it appear to be so some-where or other but the Word of God doth not any where call that Child an unjust Child that doth not own its dedicating
was imputed to him for Righteousness not when Circumcised but Uncircumcised This being the scope of this Place a Man had need have a great deal of skill to prove Pedo-Baptism from it Object 6. Christ said Suffer little Children to come unto me c. I Answer Yet Christ may be said to baptize when his Servants do it by his Commission For what were those Children brought to Christ not to be Baptized for he Baptized none 't is enough for the Lord to command his Servants to do it These Children were brought to Christ probably to be touch'd by him to the healing some Diseases Consider here is not one word of Baptism in this Scripture Also the Greek word signifieth a Child capable of teaching for 't is the same word where 't is said Timothy knew from a Child the Holy Scriptures that is since he was a Boy not an Infant So Piscator maintains it Luke 18. and he put his Hands upon them and prayed Mat. 19.13 Not to Baptize them for we cannot imagine our Lord would act contrary to his own Commission which was to Baptize them who were first taught and did believe Again because Christ saith Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Some infer they may be baptized having a right unto the greater much more to the lesser We say this is a non sequitur It does not follow Persons may by Election have a right to the Kingdom of Glory yet no right to Gospel-Ordinances because under no Obligation to it by any Precept or Promise and wanting those Qualifications which the Gospel requires By the same Argument Infants may be brought to the Eucharist or Table of the Lord because what fits them for the one fits them for the other Object 7. If the first Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy if the Root be Holy so are the Branches Hence some would infer a Derivative-Holiness from the Parent to the Children therefore to be baptized I Answer This Objection is raised from Rom. 11.16 The scope of the Apostle in this place is to shew That Abraham Father of the Faithful is the Root not as a Natural but Spiritual Father And if we boast our selves of being Branches of this Root we must have the Faith of our Father Abraham for the grafting in here does not consist in outward Ordinances but in saving Grace not in the Visible but Invisible Church by Faith Mark ☜ none can be called Father of the Faithful but Abraham only No particular Believer which is but a Branch of this Root can infer they are a Holy Root to their Posterity See Mr. Cary of Baptism because Abraham is called the Father of the Faithful for Abraham is a Spiritual Father but we are accounted Natural In this Chapter the whole Body of Believers are compared unto the Olive-tree each Believer to a Branch which partakes of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree which Root and Fatness is Christ the grafting in is by Faith into the Invisible Church which was first among the Jews therfore called the Olive Tree out of Abraham the Root who is here said to bear them for Abraham stood in a double Capacity God was a God unto Abraham and his natural Seed in giving them a literal Canaan unto his Spiritual Seed a God in giving them a Spiritual Canaan one as a Natural Father to the Jews the other as a Spiritual Father to the Gentiles According to the former Capacity some are called Branches according to Nature but in the latter the Gentiles are called wild Olive-Trees by Nature yet grafted in by Faith this being the Scope He must be a Man of great Learning that will undertake to prove Infant-Baptism from this Scripture Must the Child be necessarily Holy and in Covenant because the Father is Must the Child be Baptized because the Father is Good this hath no Warrant from God's Word which is our Rule Object 8. Many godly learned Men are for Pedo or Infant-Baptism Many Learned Men are against Infant-Baptism the Donatists Novations Waldenses Albigenses Ancient Britains Christ and his Apostles Humanum est errare I Answer With Sir Walter Rawleigh from Vadianus we pass over many gross Errors by the Authority of great Men. Are there not many in the Roman Communion who are very Learned The Pharisees and Lawyers were Learned Men who rejected the Counsel of God against themselves in not being Baptized Luke 7.30 Say not as they once said Have any of the Rulers believed on him Godly Men are not to be imitated in their Errors but their Vertues Elias was a good Man yet called for Fire from Heaven Luke 9. We must not do so Luther was sound in Justification by Faith in Christ yet was not to be imitated in Consubstantiation c. Asa and Jehoshaphat were good Men yet both out in not removing the High Places 1 King 15.4 That which is called the Reformed Religion had better deserved that Name had they shut out that Relique of Antichrist Infant-Baptism Object 9. Infant-Baptism is no where forbidden I Answer Is it lawful because not forbidden It is therefore not lawful because the Scripture doth not command it Every Affirmative Command of Christ includes a Negative Tertullian Where-ever Christ commands the Baptizing Believers there is an implicit prohibition of all others not so qualified Nadab and Abihu had no prohibition from using strange Fire yet destroyed for not using that Fire upon the Altar which was commanded and using that which the Lord commanded not By this way of arguing we may bring in the Baptizing of Bells as the Book of Martyrs tells us of them that did it and an hundred more Ceremonies of Rome Object 10. Those the Apostles Baptized were converted from Paganism Heathenism whose Parents never believed in Christ as ours but were Heathens I Answer There is no more reason to baptize the Child of a Believer Christianity is not hereditary as the Son of a Freeman is free for Isaac had an Esau and Samuel Sons of Belial than the Child of an Unbeliever as such and there 's the same reason to baptize the Child of an Infidel if it believes as the Child of a Believer upon his or her personal Faith The worthiness or unworthiness of the Parent does not affect the Children so as to make them fitter or unfitter for Gospel-Ordinances if they bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance tho their Parents were Idolaters they are proper Subjects of Gospel-Ordinances and if the Parents are never so Holy unless the Children have personal actual Faith they are not to meddle with God's most holy Things Whereas you say they were Heathens the Apostles baptized we say they were Christians Believers Was the Lord Jesus an Heathen The Ennuch a Worshipper of the true God and Cornelius's Prayers and Alms came up before God for a Memorial but whatever they were before Faith Heathens or Infidels the Apostles baptized them not until they believed and became
a secret Design to decry the Holy Scriptures crying up the Power of Godliness in Word to undermine the Form of Godliness cry up Faith and Justification by Faith to lessen Repentance and a holy Life crying out against the Error of all Churches and under that pretence leave the true Church and the Communion of Saints until at last they have lost the Church in the Wilderness the ready way to lose themselves too if Grace prevent not which I desire may CHAP. VI. Contains the Vse 1. IF it be their Duty who believe to be Baptized then I infer those who are not capable of this Grace of Faith are under no Divine Obligation nor their Parents neither to Baptize them 't is only a piece of Will-worship which God never required Col. 2.23 If any reckon themselves obliged to Baptize or be Baptized from Mens Authority let such baptize in their Name of whom they have this Authority and not join the Name of Christ with humane Inventions Baptism of Infants was not practised for near 300 Years after Christ nor enjoined as necessary till 400 Years after Christ. Magdeburgh Hist Cent. 5. p. 835. Danvers on Baptim p. 105 106 107 108 109. Infant-Baptism was hardly heard of till about three hundred Years after Christ Augustine was the first that preached it necessary in his heat against Pelagius Bishop of Rome who denied Original Sin which Augustine supposed to be taken away in Baptism about the 5th Century it was confirmed and decreed by the Pope and his Council in the Milevetan Council a Province in Africa 2. Is Faith to precede Baptism Then how irregular do they act who baptize first before the Subject hath any Grace and know not whether ever they will Our Lord knew how he placed his words when he said Believe and be baptized and for Persons to act contrary reflects upon the Wisdom of Christ as though they knew it were better to Baptize first whatever the Lord said to the contrary 3. Is Faith to precede Baptism Then we infer those who are in this practice are very unjustly called Anabaptists Persons Baptized in Infancy are to be Baptized after they believe which is not to be esteemed Rebaptization but right Baptism as Peter Bruce the great Waldensian Martyr Rebaptizers We know but of one Baptism Ephes 4. and that is Believers having the Broad-Seal and Stamp of Divine Authority upon it how in derision are such called Catabaptists as if they were against Baptism because they plead for Christ's Institution against Mens Inventions 4. Is Faith to precede Baptism Then we infer they are greatly Heterodox who assert that Baptism works Regeneration by the very * Some call it Opus operatum Act altho we doubt not of the concurrence of the Holy Spirit to strengthen and comfort God's People in the Way of their Duty But to say the very Act works it is not allowable forasmuch as Regeneration is required before it and this Sacrament is a Sign and Signification of Regeneration therefore called by the Apostle the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3.5 Death to Sin and Sanctification is figured out in this Ordinance when Persons are buried with Christ in Baptism Rom. 6.4 Grotius saith in his Annotations upon Matth. 19. The Synod of Neocesarea decreed a Woman with Child might be Baptized because it reached not the Fruit of the Womb forasmuch as in Baptism each one 's free choice is shewed 5. Are Persons to believe before Baptism Then an actual personal Faith is to precede this Ordinance 't is not the Faith of the Church nor an imputative Faith of the Parents in Covenant nor the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties can be a sufficient Argument for any Minister to Baptize but a profession of their own Faith as Philip required of the Eunuch Act. 8.37 And whereas some assert Infants have Faith what they may have is not known by any Sign appears in them See Dr. Duveil on Acts 8. And for personal and actual Faith they have none which the Commission requires as prerequisite to Baptism And for any to assert Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit may we not say with Dr. Taylor such are constrained to answer this without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World no greater Advantage can be desired against such a Position 6. Is Faith to be professed before we are Baptized Then we infer those that have suffered in defence of this Doctrine had a good Foundation for what they did The Waldensian Christians suffered Imprisonment Danvers on Baptism p. 113 114. confiscation of Goods and some Death Many in Germany Holland Flanders Vienna Mentz the Palatinate for their opposing Pedo-Baptism and asserting Believers II. Let all Believers be exhorted to obey Christ who yet lie short of their Duty the King or Subject Pastor or People Learned or Illiterate for the King of Kings hath done it the great Shepheard of the Sheep and he who is only wise If any Object I was Baptized in my Infancy I Answer As one saith of Marriage It 's not the Bed that maketh Marriage for then Fornication is Marriage but it 's a lawful Consent by Covenant So I say of Baptism It 's not a little Water sprinkled upon the Face makes Baptism but also Consent and Subjection to Christ's Command When thou wast an Infant Mr. Baxter saith Entring Covenant with God is the essential point of Baptism without it it is not Baptism Children cannot Covenant Sureties neither by the Law of God nor Nature ought not Parents by the Canon Law must not thou gavest no Consent but rather Dissent by crying when the Water was scatter'd upon thy Face thou hadst no Faith no Love no active Obedience thy Judgment not informed thy Will and Affections not inclined but wholly passive in the thing Dr. Barlow saith In the Primitive Times Persons were first Catecumini then Illuminati or Baptizati If Matter and Form be wanting the Essence of the Oâ—â—inance is 〈…〉 like a Stock or Stone so that thou art not yet Baptized because there wanted then the very Essence of the Ordinance which is right Matter and Form as for Matter an ignorant Infant was the Subject in the room of an understanding Believer For the Form Sprinkling instead of Dipping so that thy Infant-Baptism is a meer non entity and nothing The Church of the Rome confesseth she changed Dipping into Sprinkling Cyprian is the first who pleads for Baptizing the Sick by Sprinkling and for Sprinkling new Converts in the Prison-House Danvers p. 204 205 206. Magd. Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 126. By degrees they brought it in for Sick Children then for all Children Rome's first and great Argument Novatians and Donatists against Infant-Baptism by which Infant-Baptism was brought in was their imagining it took away Original-Sin Upon which they made this Canon in the Milevetan Council It is our Will Too many are very tenacious of this
the Unity of the Faith and of the Knowledg of the Son of God unto a perfect Man unto the measure of the Stature of the Fulness of God Ephes 3.21 Chap. 4.11 12. Infant-Baptism GOD hath not promised all Infants that are Baptized shall be saved But there is no Similitude between Christ's Death Burial Resurrection and Infants sprinkled on the Face But Infants Baptized are not converted and may come into Condemnation But Infants Baptized do not love God and keep his Commandments Therefore Infant-Baptism must be of Men because it 's before Teaching Repenting and Believing But those who baptize Infants baptize Heathens because all are Children of Wrath by Nature before born again Ephes 3.2 But Infant-Baptism hath manifold Contradictions by asserting that Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration yet apply it to an ignorant Infant Also that it figures out Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection yet do nothing but sprinkle or pour Water on the Face They separate from Rome as the false Church yet own their Baptism the Foundation-Stone They own the Doctrine of Perseverance in Grace and no falling from it baptizing the Children of Believers as in the Covenant of Grace yet afterwards teach their Conversion and in case of Vnbelief reject them as Reprobates But Infants Baptized come not to the Lord's Supper immediately nor lawfully But the Baptism of Infants cannot be a sign of Regeneration to them Infant-Baptism hath no Command But Infants have none of those confirmed to them in their Baptism But we have not one Example for the baptizing an Infant But Infant-Baptism is no part of God's Counsel appears because Christ nor his Apostles never delivered any such thing Infant Baptism never was sealed by God But in Infant-Baptism the Infant acts no Faith But Infants have no answer of a good Conscience in Baptism But how can any die for Infant-Baptism when it wants the Broad Seal of God's Word for the Authority But God is not glorified in Infants Baptism because none of God's Counsel But to reject Infant-Baptism cannot be against any Person because it is none of the Counsel of God But there is no harmony with the Commission in Infant-Baptism nor with their own Profession which is that Faith and Repentance is required in Persons to be baptized yet confess that Children unto whom they apply it have neither Again that it is a demonstration of a Spiritual Marriage between God and the Believer yet assign it unto Subjects as uncapable of it as a Stock or Stone Moreover that the Baptismal Covenant enters into the Visible Church yet deny Church-Members the Lord's Supper But Infant-Baptism needs but a little therefore it is not according to God's Word But the baptizing Infants at the best is doubtful But it was never delivered as an Ordinance of Christ to sprinkle Infants But to baptize Infants is to change God's Ordinance in the Subject and Manner But such as are baptized on anothers Faith may perish Infants cannot worship God in that Act in Spirit and Truth because not an Act of Judgment and Choice Will and Affection But all who baptize Believers do deny that Infants were baptized Infants know not remember not any thing of their Baptism All Infants baptized are not in the Covenant of Grace Infants Baptism is from Earth and the Counsel of Men. But Infants baptized may be Children of Wrath. But to baptize Infants is to act without a Pattern or Command But all Infants baptized do not receive Remission of Sins But in Infants Baptism the Infant puts forth no Act of Obedience But Infants Baptism hath many namely that Persons may have Regeneration Grace before Vocation and that Persons may be visible Church-Members before Conversion Moreover that Persons may be baptized by another's Faith Also making a National Gospel-Church instead of a Congregational and bringing in a carnal fleshly Seed into Christ's Church in the room of a Spiritual Seed But Infants weep when baptized as if they did dissent Infant-Baptism hath nothing but humane Consequence But all the World cannot affirm any Infants were baptized by the Apostles But all Infants baptized are not living Stones fit for God's House But you cannot repel Satan saying It is written Infants were baptized for it is not written But God may say to those who baptize Infants Who hath required these things at your Hands because God commanded it not But Infant-Baptism must fall because it hath not the Word of God to support it But to baptize Infants without a Divine Command is the way to be made ashamed because no respect to God's Command But the most Holy the most Wise the most Learned never was subjected unto Infant-Baptism But Infants baptized cannot repent or believe examine themselves make no Judgment of things nor take up Christ's Cross Watch nor Pray love not nor watch not over one another cannot be Members of a Gospel-Church Infant-Baptism hath started up several hundred Years since Christ and his Apostles But Infants ought not to be baptized who are only legitimately Holy as all born in Wedlock are and is the Holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14 Infant-Baptism hath not one Promise But in Infant-Baptism all these are frustrated and being applied to an Infant are but Mock-shows and altogether insignificant But Infant-Sprinkling is an inverting the Order and Manner and contrary to the Vsage of the Apostolick Times and End of the Ordinance and is a telling a Lie in the Name of the Lord saying I Baptize when he doth but Rantize But Infant-Baptisme doth introduce many Errors in that it was to take away Original Sin work Grace and Regeneration effect Salvation by the Work done that it was an Apostolical Tradition that Children have Faith and are Disciples of Christ that all Children of Believers are in the Covenant defiling and polluting the Church with false Matter and confounding the Church and the World together introducing many hainous Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist together with it as Gossips or Sureties Bishoping or Confirmation Chrism Exorcism Consignation Lastly It hath made a great deal of Contention in the Church of Christ and stirred up much Hatred Infants baptized are not taught of God nor made Disciples of Christ Then such are greatly Heterodox and unsound who slight and contemn Water-Baptism under pretence of being baptized with the Holy Ghost Then that Argument is of Flesh and not Spirit of Man and not God that rejects Water-Baptism and the Supper as carnal under an ungrounded imagination of the Baptism of the Spirit Then for any to neglect those Ordinances under an imagination those Commands ceased at the end of the Apostles Age are under a delusion If so then the Church-State did not end with the Apostles neither can Ordinances cease for want of Administrators CHAP. X. Contains an Enquiry into the Carriages of the German Anabaptists falsly so called in Luther's Time and the Reproach from thence reflected upon that Way removed THE Matter of Fact which hath caused such a Noise in the
the Parties Reputation but their Principle also And one thing which caused this People called Anabaptists to be misrepresented was their Community of Goods which they alway had at Munster which was no other than the old Waldenses did and their Disciples do to this day in Poland Hungary Transylvania and many parts of Germany living in Colledges casting all into one Common Stock done by them both from Conveniency and having respect unto the Example of the Apostles and Primitive Christians as it is written in Acts 4.32 34 35. And though we do not believe Christians are now under that Obligation yet I cannot have a hard thought of any that should so do acting from the same Primitive Spirit And it would be very unchristian to conclude that such allow a Community of Women because they had their Stock and Goods in common as I fear some have uncharitably asserted from this innocent Apostolical Primitive Practice To conclude Suppose it should be granted there were some foolish Virgins in Germany under this Denomination of Anabaptists it is no more than what Christ hath told us will be Have not the Churches in all Ages had their Achan's Corah's Dathan's Abiram's their Diotrephaes But is it good Logick to say Judas had a Devil therefore all the Apostles had Devils Hath there not been always some bad in the most pure Churches of Christ For any to say there are no good Men nor good Principles in the Communion of the Church of England because some of that Communion are Executed almost every Sessions as they confess themselves to be at Tiburn this would be unjust and uncharitable And it argueth weakness for any to run upon Extreams because of others Errors As some of the Ministers in Holland the Followers of Meno Symonis and Theodoricus upon the Munster Report have refused the bearing Arms Offensive or Defensive or taking any Oaths or bearing any Rule Office or Government in the Common-Wealth lest they should seem to abet such Principles It is good to keep the golden Mean between both Extreams Now let us all labour to put on Charity the Bond of Perfection think no Evil nor speak Evil of no Man Judg not that ye be not judged Why dost thou judg thy Brother or set at naught thy Brother We shall all stand before the Judgment-Seat of Christ Let that great Instance of Despair in John Child never be forgotten that which lay with the most weight upon his Conscience before he hang'd himself was the Sin for his Writing and Speaking against this very People as may be seen in that Book of his Despair And those Scriptures were of great weight upon his Soul He that offends one of these little Ones which believe in me it were better a Mill-stone were hanged about his Neck and he cast into the midst of the Sea O said he I have touched the Apple of God's Eye and says he this deserves a tearing in pieces to sit and speak against thy Brother and slander thy own Mother's Son Psal 50. Let all the People of God have such Thoughts speak such Words use such Carriages one toward another and one of another as we may have no occasion to repent of when every secret Thing shall be brought into Judgment CHAP. XI Containing a brief but sufficient Answer to John Wall 's Book called Baptism Anatomized that he may never more boast as formerly that none have answered him I Query 1. Whether this Man doth not act against the Light of Conscience Experience and Holy Scripture when he asserts indefinitely The Infants of Believers have by the free Gift of God in the Covenant of Grace a right to Remission of Sins and so a right to Baptism Come and stand before the Bar of God's Word and make answer Had Cain Ishmael Esau Absolom Samuel's Sons of Belial all Children of Believers a right to Remission of Sins Query 2. Whether there is not good ground given unto Persons to believe in reading a great part of this Book from pag. 25 to 41 168. that he is of Origen's Opinion The whole World may be saved at last and then why not the Devils too For saith he pag. 168. if all Infants sinned in Adam 's Loins when Adam was restored they were restored in his Loins and when born they were born in a Gospel-Covenant In Pag. 26. God freely forgave Adam and his Posterity in him their Sin Now we know the whole World is Adam 's Children then the whole World is in the Covenant of Grace and so the whole must be baptized and if in the Covenant of Grace for any thing I see the whole World may be saved Abundance of these Assertions he hath in his Book But behold it is a Babel a Book of Confusion for though he tells us when the Parents believe pag. 27 28. their Baptism is a sign of the Remission of Sin to their Infants as to themselves and that their Infants are in the Covenant of Grace with them it being made to Adam and his Posterity Yet Cain Ishmael Esau he asserts were cast out of this Covenant of Grace when grown up and have no Remission of Sins What have Believers Infants Remission sealed unto them yet no Remission Will Men tell a Lie in the Name of the Lord to tell us that Baptism is a sign of Remission of Sin and yet to tell us this very Person may be damned Are not these Self-contradictions and holy Scripture-contradictions which saith Whom God justifieth and pardoneth them he glorifieth Rom. 8.30 In my Book this is more fully answered pag. 29. Query 3. Whether his Language favours not more of Ashdod than Canaan and whether it be not full of hard Speeches against those which John Child paid dearly for and of whom Christ saith It were better a Mill-stone were tied about his Neck and he cast into the midst of the Sea For in his Preface he accounts the Ministers of Christ Ministers of Satan transform'd to deceive the Souls of the Simple And in pag. 3. falsly saith if not maliciously The Anabaptists deny Infants to be redeemed with Christ's Blood p. 31. And p. 55. he saith The Anabaptists hold Christ hath no Lambs in his Fold but all Sheep because we will not own Pedobaptism And pag. 65. What a wicked Principle are those Men of that deny Infants the sign of Remission of Sins and that we make an Idol of Baptism is his Assertion And because we assert Christ was baptized about thirty Years of Age as our Example Behold saith he what windings and turnings by any cover of vain deceit Men lie in wait to deceive by turning away from the Truth and turning unto Fables And further saith pag. 10. We hypocritically plead for that we practise not Whether this Man's Discourse favours as being under the Power of a divine or diabolical Spirit is left to the Godly to judg and whether any heed ought to be taken of such a Person 's Writing In pag. 139. he asserts We damn
by its Parents in Baptism or that they made any Covenant with God then 5. It cannot be an Affront to all the Godly because there are thousands that deny the thing and I am bold to say it were the Holy Apostles alive now they would not have been affronted for any to deny their Parents dedicating Children in Baptism or Children denying they made any Covenant then because it 's a thing God never revealed 6. It cannot be a rejecting of Christ as he saith because there are thousands which own Christ and accept him for King Priest and Prophet who deny Infants Baptism and look upon it as nothing but an Invention of Men. And it 's very severe to say that those many thousands who now deny and disown their Parents baptizing them in Infancy that they do reject Christ their Saviour or the Blessings of the Gospel 7. It cannot be a Self-killing Cruelty to my own Soul nor a damning Sin not to agree to or refuse the Covenant made in Infant-Baptism though I do not refuse to be the Lord's and in sincerity care to know love believe obey and worship him and serve him all my Days and depend upon him through Christ for all Happiness yet this I do not because my Parents or Sureties did covenant or promise I should do it nor because I my self made any such Covenant in my Infancy for as much as it is all unscriptural and without a Divine Rule therefore cannot be Self-killing nor Cruelty to my own Soul nor a damning Sin as this Gentleman saith for the damning Sin is final Impenitence and Unbelief Mark 16.16 He that believeth not shall be damned Persons may believe the Covenant God hath made and be saved and though they deny the Covenant in Infant-Baptism they cannot be damned I do not believe in time in Christ because either I my self did in Infancy covenant so to do or because my Parents or Sureties covenanted for me but I deny it because an human Invention Yet I believe and obey from more solid Considerations 1. Because I am commanded to it by God 1 John 3.23 2. Because his great Love constrains me 2 Cor. 5.14 3. Because of those glorious Promises made to believing and obedient Souls 2 Cor. 6.17 18. Chap. 7.1 4. I am obliged unto it from the Law of Creation Psal 95.6 5. Without Faith and Obedience I am in danger of losing my Soul Therefore for Mr. Williams to tell the World It is a damning Sin not to agree to or refuse the Covenant made in Infancy is a new Doctrine which hath no footing in the unerring Rule of the Word of God If you will see the damning Sin read Mr. Pool's Synopsis on John 3.18 He that believes not the Doctrine of Christ and doth not upon the Terms of the Gospel receive him for his Saviour is already condemned for his obstinate Infidelity which is the certain Cause of Damnation And further The not believing in the only Son of God who is able to save to the utmost all that regularly trust in him is such a contempt of the merciful alsufficient sole Means of Salvation that 't is absolutely necessary and most just that all those who refuse to be saved by him should perish by themselves Thus you see what the damning Sin is Therefore Mr. Williams's Gospel and Doctrine is to be looked upon as New in this Thing and not agreeing to the old Gospel to assert That it is a damning Sin the Heart of all Sin a rejecting Christ our Saviour a renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel Rebellion against my Maker Ingratitude and Perjury to my Redeemer gross Injustice to my Parents an Affront to all the Godly and a self-killing Cruelty to my own Soul not to agree or refuse to agree to that Covenant made in Baptism in Infancy though there be not one word in all the Holy Scripture to warrant that Practice or Principle 8. If refusing to agree to the Covenant to which my Baby-Baptism engaged me be the Heart of all Sin then I for my part and many thousands more must be guilty of all Sin for it is the Heart of all Sin saith this Gentleman For my own part I do profess that I do not observe any Gospel-Duty neither believe nor repent by virtue of any Covenant my Parents made or was made by my self in my Baby-Sprinkling because God did never require such a Covenant of my Parents nor of my Self who was wholly uncapable of such a thing in Infancy But the Reason why I desire to observe the Terms of the Gospel is because it 's God's Requirements and Command That we believe on the Name of the only begotten Son of God 1 John 3.23 And since I believed I have made that Covenant with God in Baptism which you say pag. 131. was made in Infancy which I never remember nor can I believe it is true viz. I have engaged against being governed by Satan or the Flesh as my Rulers and against taking up this World's Goods as my Portion and against the Customs of the Men of the World as my Guide therefore I reject that Baptism because a Custom of the World Now should I refuse to agree to this Covenant which I made after I believed then I were a great Sinner indeed because one of my own making But if I keep this Covenant tho I refuse to agree to that Covenant made in my Infant-Baptism I am a great Sinner saith Mr. Williams for it 's the Heart of all Sin If the Heart of all Sin then of Murder Adultery Sabbath-breaking Incest Heresy Drunkenness Idolatry Sorcery Lying Covetousness Railing Robbery Buggery Extortion Envy Witchcraft Contention Gluttony Rebellion Perjury Ingratitude Injustice an Affront to the Godly Self-killing In a word saith Mr. Williams it 's a damning Sin Now it 's high time for the poor Baptists to cry Lord have Mercy upon us for this Gentleman damns us all at once But this is our Comfort he shall not be our Judg nor that Doctrine he hath delivered but both he and we must be tried by another Gospel and another Doctrine than he preacheth upon this Subject And whereas he calls Baptism in Infancy a Seal of the Covenant pag. 130. Pray Sir what did it seal to the Infant then did it seal the Love of God pardon of Sin Reconciliation or Adoption Justification or Remission If so as you grant by referring to Acts 2.39 then Sir if they are justified and their Sins remitted then they must be glorified saith the Apostle Rom. 8.30 Whom he justified them he glorified I suppose you may be for final Perseverance if so then not an Infant of these can miscarry But if you say these things may be sealed in Infancy and yet be never enjoyed for want of actual Faith How then is a Person pardoned and not pardoned justified and not justified in Covenant and not in Covenant these are Contradictions with a witness What! is the Covenant sealed and nothing in the Covenant enjoyed doth God seal to a Blank Men are more wise than so to do for there is always something antecedent to the Seal When a Covenant is sealed among Men something is sealed unto them so when God seals 't is not to a Blank but it 's his Covenant of Grace sealed After you believed you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise Ephes 1.13 Mark 't is not before they believed but after they believed they were sealed Therefore Infant-Baptism is no Seal of the Covenant of Grace for they do not believe But after Persons believe then the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Seals of the Covenant of Grace but not before And whereas Mr. Williams asserts pag. 130. Believers and their Infant-Seed are in the Covenant We reply This Word Covenant is an unintelligible word for not one in an Hundred if one in a Thousand knows what is meant by it I know but two ways of being in the Covenant of Grace either Absolutely or Conditionally 1. No Believers dare say all their Children are Absolutely in the Covenant of Grace because there is no falling away from it But behold how many of God's People have their Children die of whom they have little hope Or 2. they are in the Covenant of Grace conditionally that is to say If they repent and believe Upon this Condition and on these Terms the Children of Unbelievers are in the Covenant of Grace also and have the same right to the Seals of the Covenant as the Children of Believers have and there are none to have the Seals or Signs of the Covenant but those whom God hath ordained and appointed should have them which are those who repent and actually believe For mark though Lot was a holy Man yet he had no such priviledg to Circumcise his Infant-Seed because it was limited unto Abraham and his Seed and the Male Sex and the eighth Day appointed by a special Command Even so Baptism is limited by a special Command of God to Actual Believers FINIS ERRATA PReface Page 3. line 3 4. read two or three hours In the Book PAg. 35. Marg. r. Gen. 17. P. 41. l. 14. r. fit or unfit P. 55. Marg. l. 6. for Christ r. John P. 69. l. 4. r. Church of Rome P. 90. Col. 1. l. 1. f. Persons r. Believers P. 95. l. 15. r. Bishop of Munster P. 100. l. 2. f. bave r. bad P. 118. l. 25 26. r. the word Baptist