the Ranters that abominable rotten blasphemous and hellish Rout. Warwickshire and the Counties adjacent know whom I speak of and the truth at large of what I briefly touch Yea this wretched man is notoriously known in the chief City of the Land so true is that of the Apostle speaking of hypocriticall flagitious Deceivers 2 Tim. 3.5 6 7 That have a form of godlinesse but deny the power thereof Which creep into houses leading captive silly women laden with lusts ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth But saith he 9 13. their folly shall be made manifest to all men And again Wicked men and seducers wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived It might seem strange that they who so much depend on the answers of providence in outward successe as irrefragable arguments to demonstrate the goodnesse or badnesse of causes and persons should not acknowledge and tremble at Divine providence by this and many thousand such like spirituall plagues warning all men that have any care of their souls to beware those waies that lead thereto But it is not strange that they thus preposterously judge for those whom God hath given up to a sensual judgement a reprobate minde and hard heart do alike cry down those waies that are attended with outward disgrace and misery in a course of strictnesse and conscientiousnesse though accompanied with riches of spirituall graces which usually is the lot of the godly and admire and greedily embrace the waies of sin and licentiousnesse which for a time visibly prosper in the world though accursed from heaven with invisible and spirituall plagues which is the common condition of the wicked It is a sad and shamefull thing that evil men should be more industrious active and bold to study plead for and promote errour and falshood then Gods servants are for the maintaining of the truth and particularly that these men should do more to cast themselves and their children others and their posterity out of Covenant then the godly will do to clear to themselves and others theirs and their childrens interest in the Covenant but it is so The best see know beleeve and love but in part Whereas corruption lust and errour wholly reign in every unsanctified man and have too strong a party in the most sanctified Divine truths and Evangelicall mysteries are strangers to our corrupt mindes and receive but cold entertainment there Errours and lies are connaturall to mankinde and soon closed with when men speak lies they speak of their own Honours pleasures and filthy lucre fleshly liberty and ease have a mighty influence upon carnall hearts to carry them on in promoting and receiving falshood and resisting and rejecting truth Nothing out pure zeal for God love of Christ and his truth care of our own and brethrens souls can stir up earnestly and sincerely to contend for the truth especially when it lies under outward discouragements disgraces and frowns from the world and alas how rare are those graces amongst men and how weak in the strongest Christians Yet surely in other respects Holinesse and truth though as a spark of fire in the midst of a sea of corruption or as a Pearl in the bottom of a dunghill or as a little glimpse of light under a dark chaos of naturall and acquired sinne and ignorance have the advantage for being of a divine originall they are of prevailing invincible power and therefore beleevers that have this unconquerable truth in them and on their side cannot be excused if they do not stirre up the grace of God in them and take care and pains that they may be able to contend for and maintain the truth that was once delivered to the Saints especially in these times of so great light wherein besides the Scriptures in a known Language and plentifull publike Preaching in Catachismâ—s and larger Treatises the Truth is so fully cleared It may be that God hath as for other causes so for the correction of our sloth and carelesnesse suffered these Controversies to break out that he may quicken us to the more diligent use of all holy means to grow in grace and knowledge If for this use dear brethren this my poor labour may be serviceable to you or others to whom at your desire upon the consent and approbation of my brethren in the Ministry it may be made common I have my desire But before I leave you let me intreat you and others that may make use of it that you will not content your selves with a slightly looking on it but be serious as the matter handled concerning yours and your childrens interest in the Covenant of Grace requireth deserves howsoever in the manner you may finde sundry imperfections in the instrument yet let not that be any prejudice to the truth whereof God is the author Because I was forced at the first to quote Scriptures briefly for speed which their importunity called for and since I have not writ them out at large to prevent bulkinesse which might deter many from looking on it let me intreat you to turn over to every proof in your Bibles and read and observe the same carefully and if you would write them out in the margin or some paper it might be time well spent without pains and diligence no profiting can be expected he that deals with a slack hand will come to poverty but the hand of the diligent maketh rich Thus committing this service and your use thereof to the blessing of God desiring that he may have the praise if you shall receive hereby any increase in the knowledge of the truth and stability therein and that I may have the help of your prayers who remain Yours in Christ for the service of your souls to my power WILLIAM COOK AN ANSWER to two PAPERS subscribed by Henry Huggar and James Brown Wherein they endeavour to maintain their own Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism and oppose the Practice of Baptizing INFANTS They begin their first Paper thus Gentlemen YOu having avoided publick dispute by your selves so much prest for at first H.H. and J. Br. and since rather paper conference We to gratifie your desire herein have written these few lines hoping thereby to beget some discussion of the truth Wherein we affirm That the Baptism or sprinkling of Infants whereby the National Churches of Spain England France and Rome c. are constituted and from thence called Christians and Christendom is not the Baptism or dipping of Beleevers which Christ Jesus ordained and his Disciples practised for the right constituting of Churches under the Gospel whereby they rightly became and were truly called Christians Answer IN this your stating of the Question Ans divers things must be animadverted that you deceive not your selves and others through darkning the truth by words without knowledge 1. Here you take it for granted that we hold That by the Baptizing or sprinkling Infants Churches are constituted This we deny For 1. As faith or
nor diping is essential to the constitution of a true Church Seventhly You say or imply This baptizing or dipping is that whereby they became and were truly called Christians Ans This is false that men cannot be right Christians without your dipping Yea though we understand it of true Baptism for faith or interest in Christ properly maketh Christians Being interested in Christ though we should be hindered by death or other providence from Baptisme yet we are true Christians as the thief on the Crosse Those three thousand mentioned in the Acts when they had beleeved Act. 2 19 40. were Christians even before they were baptized so Philip before he came to the water Baptism is rather an effect or consequent then a cause or antecedent of our Christianity People are rightly baptized because Christians not Christians because baptized 2. Neither were men hence at first called Christians because baptized for many thousands had been baptized a long time before they were called Christians For whereas great multitudes had been baptized by John the Baptist Mat. 3.5 6. Ioh 4 5 6. See Act 2. 3. to the 7 chap. and more by the Disciples of Christ before his death and many thousands also after his ascension at Jerusalem Samaria and elsewhere Beleevers were not called Christians untill a good time after the Persecution and dispersion at Jerusalem For the faithfull were first called Christians at Antioch Act. 11. â—6 where Paul and Barnabas had taught an whole year and the number of Disciples was mightily increased there is not the least intimation that Baptism or dipping gave them the name of Christians but rather their famous profession of Christ Thus much for particulars observable in the main proposition Eightly From the whole proposition in respect of the matter let it be noted that besides your implicit fastning on us some things which we own not and asserting as your own some things which you neither have nor can prove The whole state of the Question is mistaken by you You speak of Baptism which is for the constitution of Churches whereas the Question is What Baptism is to be used amongst us who are a Church or Churches constituted already We grant that to the first constituting of Churches amongst Jews or Infidels which were never a Christian people a Profession of repentance faith or obedience must be made by men upon the preaching of the Gospel that they and their children may be accepted into Covenant and baptized As Abraham professed his faith before that he and his family were circumcised but after that his children were circumcised without requiring of actual faith and repentance from them as precedaneous to Circumcision They that will constitute new Churches amongst Infidels ought as we judge first to require actual faith and repentance of that people before they admit them and their seed as members of the Church But whatsoever you think of us we Christians in England know that we were through Gods grace a Church constituted long ago whose defects and corruptions though many yet have not been inconsistent with the being of a Church neither such hath been the indulgence of our Lord Jesus Christ the head and King of the Church were we ever unchurched If you will go and preach among Jews Turks and infidels and make it appear that you have a commission for it we will not gainsay your constituting of Churches amongst them and baptizing Professors of faith But in the mean space let me advise you to take heed lest whiles you talk of constituting Churches amongst Gods people Act. 1â— 3 2 Tim. 3.6 Tit 1. 11. Satan use you as his instrument to overthrow Churches by subverting souls and whole houses through speaking things you ought not for filthy lucre sake as he did those noted in the margin Ninthly Let it be also observed in the form of your propounding the whole state of the Question that you which would be accounted great disputers and discussers of the truth laying down a negative Proposition as is evident to any that can discern a negation from an affirmation in propounding it say we affirm when indeed you deny Will not these so grosse mistakes in the parts and the whole the matter and manner of this main question stated by you give just cause to judge that you are such men as those of whom the Apostle speaks in these words 1 Tim 1.5 6 7. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart a good conscience and faith unfeined from which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling desiring to be teachers of the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm Whereas you say H. H J.B. If it be we desire you to prove it by plain Scriptures Ans We have nothing to do to prove that which we never affirmed but you falsly father upon us as it may seem that you may fight with your own shadow But we shall by Gods assistance prove upon solid Scripture grounds That the Infants of Christians which are members of a constituted Church or Churches have right to the Covenant of grace and so to Baptism the seal of entrance into the Covenant and that it is agreeable to Gods word that constituted Churches should be continued by baptizing of children that are members thereof But first let us hear what you say for your way You proceed thus That the Baptisme of beleeving men and women by us practised H.H. J.B. is the Baptism of Christ we prove by these Scriptures Ans For the answering of your Scripture-proofs taken from Christs command and the Apostles practice I will first propound some things in general to be considered secondly make answer to the several Scriptures 1. I answer therefore That neither any nor all these Scriptures do prove plainly positively immediatly and directly without consequence or syllogism which I take to be your meaning when you call for plain and positive Scripture which I have heard that some of your way abhor and protest against that the Baptism practised by you is the Baptism of Jesus Christ In none of these Scriptures it is expressely said The dipping of beleeving men and women practised by Henry Huggar and James Brown is the Baptism of Jesus Christ Nor do we reade in the Evangelists Go Henry Huggar and Ja. Brown teach all Nations and baptize c. Nor do we reade that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel to every creature Nor do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles that H.H. and J.B. said to the Jews Repent and be baptized or that the Samaritans heard you two preaching or that the Eunuch went down with you to the water or that the Jaylour or Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue were baptized by you or either of you If you have any plain positive Scriptures mentioning your selves you may produce them Neither have you cause to take it ill to be urged thus Seeing
are so sacred that they cannot without high offence to his Majesty Deut. 4.1 great wrong to Gods people and extream danger to their own souls be denied by any to those to whom they belong God no lesse forbidding detracting from then adding to his word and so much the more dangerous is diminution in this case as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Gospel which times he hath reserved for the more full illustration thereof above former times 2. That those main priviledges which God granted ordinarily to persons in Covenant before Christ as That their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal of entrance thereinto should cease in the time of the Gospel is so unagreeable unto the wisdom and goodnesse of God which reserves his greatest and choicest blessings for the last times to be bestowed on his people so contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace which under Evangelical dispensation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithfull then under legall so contrary to the end of Christs coming which was to multiply increase and ratifie not cut off diminish or abolish blessings and priviledges to his Church and so contrary to the promises and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Gospel that he deserves to be abhorred of all that know God and Christ and his Covenant that should tell us of a great fall and diminution of priviledges in Evangelicall times compared with legall and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture to prove a repeal of those priviledges 3. I grant that where God hath repealed priviledges of the Old Testament which whiles they continued unrepealed were priviledges yet cease to be so when greater answerable thereto yet more sutable to the Gospel-dispensation are vouchsafed in their place in the New Testament they in respect of that old administration are not to be accounted priviledges neither are priviledges in this case properly revoked but altered and inlarged when the old administration indeed is abrogated but the same spiritual blessing is given in a more comfortable manner under a new dispensation As when Christians 1 In stead of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue which was the Jews priviledge have both Old and New Testament Scriptures translated into a known tongue 2 In stead of the Jews seventh-day-Sabbath Ioh. 19.36 2 Cor. 5.7 have the first day or Lords-day-Sabbath 3 In stead of the Passeover which to the Jews was a Type of Christ to come have Christ exhibited and now represented in the blessed Communion And 4 in stead of Circumcision have Baptism And 5 generally when Christians in stead of the old Legal dispensation of the Covenant of grace which the Jews had have the new Evangelical dispensation of the Covenant Here the same priviledges are continued with inlargement under a new and different garb or dresse 4. It 's granted also that when men have wilfully rejected priviledges and therefore God hath cast them off neither they nor theirs lying under that obstinacy may lay claim to obstinatly rejected priviledges as in the case of the body of the Jews and their seed at this day To the Minor 1. Gen 17.7 Exod 12.48 Ezek. 16.10 21. Mat. 2.15 Act. 3.25 It 's plain that from Abrahams time and so forward to the last of the Prophets yea to the time of our Saviour Christ unto which time Circumcision of children was in force the faithfull had interest in this priviledge that their children were in Covenant and had the seal of admission 2. It 's plain also Gen. 17 10 11 12 13. Rom. 4.11 Rom 3.1 2. Phil. 3.5 that this was a great priviledge or prerogative to the people of God and their children that they were in Covenant and had Circumcision which is called the sign of the Covenant yea the Covenant and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith As to be an Hebrew and Israelite was a great priviledge before Christs coming so to be circumcised 3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Beleevers children having right to the Covenant and seal of entrance it is evident for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Testament speak any such thing but rather the contrary heightning the priviledges of the Gospel above those of the Law but never depressing them Obj. But Circumcision is repealed and abrogated Ans 1. True Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony Ans 1 so the former dispensation of the Covenant of grace in regard of the Legal manner of administration Doth the Covenant it self therefore and duties and priviledges therefore which are essential and perpetual cease Womens going up to Jerusalem to the sacrifices and Passeover ceaseth Must not they therefore come to and partake of the Lords Supper The Church of the Jews which understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament without translation is cast off Must not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by translation because there is no direct expresse Scripture for that purpose The Jews Sabbath being the seventh day of the week with us called Saturday is abolished Must we not therefore have a Christian Sabbath or Lords day Nay rather we may well gather from the Jewish-beleeving womens priviledge to partake of the Passeover and sacrifices in the Old Testament the priviledge of Christian women to come to the Lords Table and from Jewish Beleevers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue we may gather against the Papists the priviledge of Christian common people of the like nature though in a different way they by the Originall writing we by Translation and from the Jews Sabbath of the seventh day that being appointed by the moral Law we may gather our Christian Sabbath and so from the Jewish infants priviledge to have the seal of initiation into the Covenant and Church we may gather the like priviledge to belong to Christians Infants though in a different ceremony if we compare those priviledges of the Jews in the Old Testament with what is spoken in the New Testament concerning Gospel-priviledges that are analogicall and succedaneous to these legal priviledges and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them these priviledges though there be no expresse immediate particular command for womens partaking at the Lords Table nor for the common peoples enjoying vernaculous translations of the Scripture nor for the Christian Sabbath nor for the baptizing of Infants 2. I answer to this objection If it had been the pleasure of God and Christ that children should in the time of the Gospel lose their former interest in the Covenant and seal thereof and their priviledge of Church-membership as well as he would have Circumcision abolished he would have no lesse revealed that in the Scripture then this But he hath no where revealed either expressely or to be gathered by consequence that whereas untill Christs time Infants of Beleevers were in Covenant Gods children Church-members
will Christ take it that his people and Churches are thus compared with the slaves and Synagogues of Antichrist 2. Yet we are not ashamed to own that which is of God amongst the Italians Spaniards and French Shall we reject the Scriptures of the old Testament or be equalled with the Jews because we embrace them as Gods word which the Jews also professe to do Or must we cast off the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and many precious truths gathered out of them because professed by the Papists who yet overthrow by many false doctrines and superstitions what truths they professe no sure Neither are we to think the worse of Infant-baptism because it is used amongst them 3. Yea we make no doubt but that if in Italy Spain and France they would hold only that in doctrine worship and practice which is agreeable to Gods word even the holy Scripture which they professe to imbrace with us and cast away superstitious idolatry and impieties contrary thereunto reforming according to the word God would own them for his Churches neither should they need a new constitution or new Baptisme any more then new Scripture They have added indeed to Scripture and Baptism of their own but let them repent of and cast away their additions and keep that which is of God in judgement practice and worship according to the Scriptures which are amongst them and they become forthwith true and good Churches The Church of Judah after it had fallen to idolatry by casting away that idolatry in the time of Asa Jehosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah was acknowledged a true and good Church without new constitution Nay more if backsliding Israel after her many abominations had returned to God when they had lien long in idolatry Ier. 3.1 2. 4.1 God would have received them as his people without new Circumcision Fourthly Whereas you say From this infant-Infant-Baptism they are called Christians or Christendom You do not prove it We deny it and assert That we are called Christians or Christendom from our faith in Jesus Christ and the profession thereof and from our interest in the Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us in Christ the Mediatour exhibited yet granting that Baptism is the badge of our Christianity but not that which constitutes Christians What they of Rome or Spain say we passe not Fifthly Whereas you say or imply Baptism is dipping in your sense and call it sprinkling by way of scorn in our sense and would imply that Christ ordained and his Apostles practised dipping or as others expresse it dousing over the head not infusion or sprinkling We wish you to prove it if you can either from the proper signification of the word Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the accomplishment of this Prophecie Act. ◠v. 3. 17 18. Act 10.44 11 15 16. Luk. 12.50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa 63 1 3. or from the nature of the Ordinance or from the historical relation of the Apostles practice or otherwise We finde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash or bedew or imbrew lightly whether by infusion of or dipping into any liquid thing with a light touch but that it should signifie only dipping or dousing the use of the word will not allow 1. It is used to signifie the ceremonial washing of cups pots brazen vessels or tables which may be as well done by infusion or pouring water upon them as by immersion or diping into the water yea in some of them much better 2. The same word is also used to signifie Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire This cannot be so understood that Christ should dip or douse men into the holy Ghost and fire but that in the Primitive times the holy Ghost should be poured upon them as the texts in the margin shew and that Christ would in after times pour his Spirit ordinarily on his people which Spirit in respect of operation is compared to fire as giving light heat c. 3. This word is used to signifie Christs death wherein his bloud was poured forth and sprinkled on himself and he washed in his own bloud I have saith he a Baptism to be baptized with and again Are you able to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with 4. This word is also used to signifie Christs execution of Justice on his enemies he being compared to a mighty warriour which with wounding and slaying his enemies is besprinkled with their bloud which spouts out of their body when they are gashed and pierced by him Our Translators render that in the Revelation having his garments dipped in bloud Rev. 19 13. But it may be well read as that in Isaiah sprinkled with bloud For warriours do not use to dip or douse their garments in their enemies bloud lying on the ground but well may they have their garments besprinkled therewith as it gusheth out of their bodies being wounded by them 2. As for the nature use and end of Baptism it is to signifie the pouring of the bloud and spirit of Christ on our souls for regeneration remission of sins and sanctification wherein we are not said to be dipped or doused into Christs bloud or spirit but to be sprinkled therewith or to have them poured upon us Heb. 9.13 14. chap. 12.24 1 Pet. 1.2 Isa 44.3 Act. 2.18 So that Prophecie of Christs besprinkling many Nations Isa 52.15 may be understood of his sprinkling them with his bloud which having spilled he was so deformed more then any man ver 14. for justification and his Spirit which by his truth he purchased for sanctification The scope of the text and coherence speaking of Christs sufferings and the fruits thereof confirm the interpretation as most natural and proper 3. As for the relation which the Scripture makes of the manner of baptizing Iosh 3.17 Sometimes indeed it speaks of baptizing at the river Jordan but how improbable is it that they should go into that mighty stream 2 King 2.8 14. Act. 2.41 which could not be passed over safely on foot without a miracle and there be dipped with extream danger of drowning 2. We reade of baptizing in a City divers thousands in one day without any mention of their going forth to any great water to be dipped 3. We reade of baptizing a whole houshold in a City in the deep night without the least intimation of their going forth to a river or any great water to be dipped which if you consider well it may be you will not be so confident in calling baptizing dipping Sixtly You say that This baptizing or dipping of Beleevers was ordained of Christ and practised by the Disciples for the right constitution of true Churches This you speak as your own sense Ans This opinion was confuted before and by that which follows it shall further appear that neither Baptism
Idolatry The assumption which would by us be denied you back thus It hath no command from Christ Therefore it is without an institution Ans In answer to this I desire you to take notice of two distinctions necessary to remove mistakes 1. We must distinguish between the essentials of an Ordinance and the accidentals and circumstantials in respect of the application of it to such or such persons in such a time place or manner This is necessary to be observed Christ instituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and bloud of Christ but never expresly commanded that it should be administred to women It 's sufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture He hath instituted Baptiâ—â— but nâ—ver expresly commanded that it should be administred to or by Ta 〈…〉 Wâ—avâ—rs Jersey-combers or Coblers If from general rules of Scriptuâ—◠〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by such persons thâ—â— being found to have such qualifications as the Scripture requires in these cases it is sufficient It is an Ordinance of Christ that his people should reade the Scripture but it 's no where expresly commanded that such as understand not the original should reade it in a translated printed English Bible it sufficeth that this may be proved out of Scripture by good consequence The second distinction is this An Ordinance in respect of circumstantials or applications may be said to be instituted by Christ either expresly and immediatly or so as that the institution is to be gathered by consequence of this later kinde is a beleeving womans receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ and meer English-mens and English-womens reading the Scripture for spiritual instruction and edification in a printed English Bible distinguished into Chapters and Verses There is no expresse command for admitting women to the Lords Table nor for the translating and printing of Scripture for the help of ignorant people yet these are not Will-worship and Idolatry It may be sufficiently proved from Scripture that these are good and warrantable and that Gods people should be greatly wronged if women should be driven from the Communion and those that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek should be debarred from reading the Scripture I answer therefore 1. By granting the proposition taken in a right sense viz. That whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance and worship of Christ without an institution from him at least in respect of the essentials yea whose essentials and circumstantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture either expresly or by good consequence is at least Will-worship if not Idolatry and therefore unlawfull to be maintained or practised But I deny the assumption for the essentials and substantials of Baptism are expresly commanded in Scripture Mat. 28.19 20. Mar. 16.15 16 c. The particular application of Baptism to Infants though not expresly in so many words in Scripture yet may be gathered therefrom by good consequence as shall appear hereafter God assisting Therefore the assumption being false in that sense wherein the proposition is true nothing can be concluded I come now to your second argument which is this It cannot be proved that Christ or his Apostles practised Infant-Baptism Which reason stands in its whole strength thus What cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised that is unlawfull in Gods worship But it cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised Infant-baptism Therefore it is unlawfull Ans The proposition is not universally â—rue we may not argue from the practice of Christ and his Apostles universally either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively for they might do some things as such eminent persons which it is not the duty of nor possible for all Ministers or Christians ordinarily to do so Nor negatively for there may be some things which are the duties of inferiour men which yet were below Christ and his Apostles We reade not that they practised or submitted to the Office of Pastors Elders or Deacâ—â—â— properly so called will it follow therefore that these are Will-worshiâ— They never as can be proved translated Bibles or read the Scripture 〈…〉 â—â—unded the text of a Sermon out of a translated printed Bible nor took thâ— notes of Sermons Are these therefore Will-worship If they being busied in laying the foundation of Churches practised not some things which are agreeable to our work which is for the superstruction we need not to be troubled having warrant or institution either immediate or to be gathered by consequence Neither is the assumption so clear as to be easily granted and though it might suffice for the present to deny the main proposition yet take also this answer to the assumption Though Christ did not baptize Infants nor any at all in his own person and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Ministers Ioh. 4.2 or those that may be conceived to have authority to baptize none at all must be baptized by them Yet he did that for Infants which is at least equivalent to baptizing or layeth sufficient ground to warrant their baptizing he laid his hands on them blesseth them pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Gospel and gives command to his Apostles to disciple all Nations and baptize them The Apostles acted according to this Commission held forth the promise whereof Baptism is a seal or pledge as belonging to the faithfull and their children and baptized Beleevers and their whole families of which more largely partly before partly hereafter Your third Argument is this Because they are uncapable subjects having neither understanding reason nor faith and whatever is not of faith is sin Being put into form it stands thus Subjects uncapable of Baptism are not to be baptized But Infants are subjects uncapable of Baptism Therefore not to be baptized The proposition is granted the assumption denied you endeavour to prove it thus They that have neither understanding reason nor faith are subjects uncapable of Baptism But Infants have neither understanding reason nor faith Therefore subjects uncapable of Baptism 1. I answer to the proposition by denying it if by understanding reason and faith you mean ripe actual and visibly exercised and professed understanding reason and faith such as is in persons of ripe years and I give these two reasons of my denial 1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual use of understanding which belongs to persons of age were not uncapable of Circumcision which was of the same use to Jews Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4 1â— Deut. 30.6 as Baptism is to us Christians viz. to be a seal of the Covenant and of the righteousnesse of faith and a sign of renewing and sanctifying the heart 2. That they are capable I prove it by the parts Reason and even sense and experience shews that they are capable of the outward sign there being required a meer passion of them in the Ministers application
his love to little children which is doubtlesse to shew what is his affection to the Infants of the faithfull at all times otherwise what profit or comfort were it for Christians to know that Christ was indeed so loving to those Infants at that time but would never shew afterwards when in glory any more respect to Infants of Christians whiles such then to the Infants of Infidels 2. But the reason given by Christ puts the matter out of question that this expression of his affection to Infants is not to be restrained to those particular Infants that manner of coming and that time of his visible abode on the earth For of such saith he is the Kingdom of God or of heaven implying that so long as God hath a Kingdom of grace on earth in the administration of the Gospel and affords ordinary means of bringing people to the Kingdom of glory so long the children of the faithfull are to come or be brought to Christ in such a way as they may be acknowledged subjects of this Kingdom which is by admission to the sign or seal of entrance thereinto 5. That it is the will and pleasure of Christ that little children in the time of the Gospel should be brought to him appears in the text in three particulars worthy to be distinctly observed 1. In that he was much displeased and moved with high indignation against his disciples which rebuked and discouraged the bringers of the children Mat. 11.29 Maâ— 12.29 Now Christ which was so admirably meek and gentle would not have been so much moved if it had not been a great fault in his disciples to hinder Infants from coming to him It is doubtless a wrong to poor Infants that cannot plead for themselves and to pious parents to be checked in so good a work and to the Church of God to have these young members cut therefrom and especially to God and Christ and the Gospel to seek to cast out Infants from the priviledge of the Covenant of grace wherein they had been interested in the time of the Law Though in the disciples it was more excusable by ignorance because likely before this time they had heard nothing expressely from Christs mouth to hold forth the priviledges of Infants in the time of the Gospel howbeit they might have gathered enough out of the Old Testament if they would have heeded it to have prevented this miscarriage else Christ would not have been so angry with them if it had been out of invincible ignorance Now if Christ was so offended with this first failing of his disciples through ignorance what may they expect that after this warning continue clamouring against and reproaching the bringing of Infants to Christ 2. Christ gives an express command to suffer little children to come to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let not any that professe obedience to Christ and acknowledge his soveraignty over them dare to violate this command in not suffering children to come to Christ 3. Christ adds Forbid them not which charge by way of addition doth not only shew our Lord Christs earnestnesse in this point and confirm the former precept But also sufficiently warns all under pain of his displeasure that neither by word nor action policy nor power they dare to do any thing to hinder the Infants of Beleevers from Christ My third argument I will draw from the same Scripture which is this Arg. 3. Arg. 3 To whom the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the Gospel to them also Baptism which is the seal of entrance thereinto belongs But to the children of beleeving parents the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the Gâ—spel Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10 14. Luk. 18.16 Therefore Baptism which now in the times of the Gospel is the seal of entrance into this Kingdom belongs to the children of beleeving parents For the clearing and confirming of the proposition let these things be noted 1. That whether by the Kingdom of God or heaven be meant a state of grace and professed subjection to Christ the King of the Church in this life and the state of the Church Militant under Christ already exhibited in the flesh as the word is very frequently a Mat. 3.2 Mat 14.17 Mat 1â— 24 32 24 47. Mat. 21.41 Mat. 25. â— 14. used or the Kingdom of glory and state of the Church Triumphant as it is sometime b 2 Tim. 4.18 used It is all one for our purpose and that argument holds most clearly in the former and most strongly in the later sense 2. That Baptism is the sign pledge or seal of entrance into a Gospel state or Christian Church is I think out of question on all sides and if need were might easily be proved by these and such like Scriptures Mat. 3.2.6 Mat. 28.18 19. Act. 2.38.40 Act. 8. 9. c. 3. Though some may have right to this Kingdom and yet want Baptism as the penitent thief and some may have Baptism that have no internal right to the Kingdom of God and spiritual blessing signified yet those that have right to the Kingdom of God holden forth in the Gospel have right to Baptism and those that are acknowledged according to the rules of Gods word to have right to this Kingdom must also be acknowledged to have right to the seal of entrance thereinto 4. Though only internal right to Gods Kingdom and the priviledges thereof argue right to or possession of the inward seal of the spirit yet external professed or known right to this Kingdom and the outward priviledges thereof so as that persons are according to the Scriptures acknowledged members and subjects thereof is sufficient to give Ecclesiastical and external right to the seal of entrance thereinto as the Jews whiles they were not actually discovenanted were the children of the Kingdom though so wicked as that they were shortly cut off Therefore let none object If all the children of Beleevers have right to the Kingdom of God they shall be all saved But they are not all saved Therefore all have not right This is answered by distinction of external right which gives interest to the external priviledges of the visible Kingdom and internal right which gives interest in or implies possession of internal spiritual and eternal priviledges The former right all Infants of Beleevers have and of this we speak now the later only some peculiar sanctified ones according to the election of grace as it is in the case of visible professours and sincere Beleevers 5. That to whom the Kingdom belongs to them the seal or sign of entrance belongs right reason will yield from the nature of correlatives there being a clear relation between the thing signified or sealed and the sign or seal and the whole current of Scripture speaking of Baptism historically or doctrinally sheweth that so soon as any were acknowledged to have right to the benefit signified or sealed they had right to the
Nation and capable of being made disciples as was shewed in answer to the former Paper But all Nations were to be made disciples and baptized by the Apostles according to the command of Jesus Christ Mat. 28.19 20. Therefore the children of beleeving parents in those Nations were and still are to be baptized For the clearing of this ARgument I might suffice my self in referring the Reader to what I have written heretofore In Answer to A. R. In Answer to the first Paper for the vindicating of this Scripture Mat. 28.19 which is the ground of this Argument Yet briefly for the strengthening and clearing of the antecedent or Assumption contained in the text I shall propound these considerations to be remembred though some of them were touched before 1. That children are a very considerable part of Nations therefore comprehended under this command of discipling and baptizing Nations Especially considering 2. That no acception is made of them neither doth this or any other Scripture shew that they must be excluded out of this Commission Did ever Christ say or intimate thus much Though the children of Beleevers have heretofore been in Covenant and admitted to the sign of entrance thereto yet now in the time of the Gospel they are to be left out of Covenant and kept from the seals thereof as Infidels and Pagans till they professe their faith 3. They are not uncapable of being made disciples and baptized as hath been said 4. That one Nation of the Jews which unto the time of Christs giving this Commission to his Disciples Gen. 17.7 Exod. 12.42 had been in Covenant and enjoyed the seals thereof as his peculiar people had their children taken into Covenant with them and admitted to the seal of entrance which priviledge also Proselytes of other Nations had in common with the Jews 5. Not only among the Jews but also in all Nations Infant-children were alwaies devoted to the same God and religion as their parents and often if not alwaies by some solemn sign of initiation the devil not unfitly called Gods ape would have children with their parents dedicated to him Lev. 18.21 compared with 24 25 26. and it is so universal that children while Infants are still reputed to belong to the same religion and God with their parents as that the children of Papists Jews Turks and Indians c. are accounted from their mothers womb Papist Jews Turks and Indians c. untill by the use of reason and free-will they make defection from their fathers religion so that it seems to be of the very dictate of reason and law of nature that Infants should be esteemed to belong to the same God and religion as their parents whether true or false 6. The children of subjects and bondslaves are accounted the subjects and bondslaves to their Parents Sovereigns and Masters untill by some act of their own they cast off their yoke Now all Christians are subjects and servants to Christ their King and Lord therefore their children also are subjects and servants to God and Christ whiles Infants Lev. 25.41 42. Psal 116.16 7. Hence it cannot be rationally conceived that the Apostles did understand the Commission of discipling all Nations otherwise then so as to take in the children with their beleeving parents Arg. 6. Arg. 6 If all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed by Christ the seed of Abraham after his coming in the flesh as much or more then the Nation of the Jews were before the coming of Christ then surely the children of converted Nations must be in Covenant and have right to the seal of entrance thereinto for this was a great priviledge of the Jewish Nation before Christs coming It would be an hortible eclipsing of the blessednesse of the converted Gentiles and of the Jews when they shall be converted to have their children cut off from the Covenant and the seal thereof But the Nations of beleeving Gentiles shall be blessed as much or more in the time of the Gospel by Christ then the Jews were before his coming Gen. 22.18 Gal. 3.8 2 Cor. 3.7 8 9. Heb. 8.6 7. Therefore the children of beleeving Gentiles have right to the Covenant and seal of admittance thereinto which is Baptism For the fuller discovery of the strength of this Argument consider 4 things 1. What is said on the foregoing Argument is of use here also for the clearing of the extent and comprehensivenesse of the word Nation 2. Consider the several confirmations of the Proposition tending to clear the consequence 1. The Jews as hath been said had interest in the Covenant and seal of admission for their children in the Old Testament before Christs coming and this was in it self and their account doubtlesse a glorious priviledge Therefore Christians after Christs coming must have the same priviledge seeing no lesse but rather greater priviledges are promised to the beleeving Gentiles then the Jews had 2. Especially considering that now in the time of the Gospel this would be in it self and in the apprehension and desire of all godly parents accounted a most glorious priviledge now that their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal thereof and the contrary a fearfull losse I appeal to all that esteem the Covenant of God whether next to their own salvation they would not esteem their childrens being admitted to the Covenant of God and its seal an eminent priviledge what those that through the spirit of errour have cast off God his Covenant and truth judge we weigh not considering they are given over to a reprobate judgement It being unconceivable how those that ever tasted the goodnesse of God the priviledges of the Covenant and made right improvement of the seal thereof should not earnestly desire the same for their children whom nature and grace teacheth dearly to love Neither can any reason be given why this should be so great a priviledge before Christ and not remain a most desirable priviledge since Christs coming for parents to have their children in Gods Covenant and under his seal 3. Hence follows that it would be a sad eclipsing of the blessednessâ— comfort and glory of beleeving Gentiles if their children should be dashed oâ—â— from the priviledges of the Covenant which the Jews children had How could that of the Apostle be true Rom. 3.29 Is he the God of Jews only is he not also of the Gentiles yea of the Gentiles also if God have not as well taken the Gentiles with their children into Covenant as well as heretofore the Jews with their children How should the converted Gentiles rejoice with Gods people and praise him as well as the Jews according to the Prophecie cited by the Apostle Rom. 15.10 15. if they should be deprived of so grand a priviledge of Gods people which had been so long possessed by them and their Infants left out of Covenant and debarred the seal 4. What a lamentable fall and abatement of the beleeving Jews comfort and glory would befall
them by the coming of Christ contrary to the Propheticall predictions Evangelical Proclamations and all the faithfuls expectation if whereas before Christs coming their little ones were in Covenant had God for their God and were sealed with the sign of the Covenant now upon this imbracing of Christ whether on the first offer of the Gospel to them by the Apostles as in Act. Act. 2.37 38 39 40 c. Rom. 7 26 27 2. or at their conversion in the latter end of the world Rom. 11. their Infant-children should be left out of the Covenant in Satans Kingdome 3. I will answer one Objection once for all which may seem to have some force to take away those untheological and unevangelical absurdities that these men fall into which here and elsewhere it 's shewed their opinion leads them to it 's this Obj. In the Old Testament indeed the Church had many external visible priviledges consisting in Rites and Ceremonies and therefore they were circumcised and their children but now in the Gospel the priviledges are more spiritual and invisible and therefore it will not follow If some of those visible priviledges be withdrawn that the Gospel-dispensation is not more excellent then the Legal and so if Baptism be denied to Christians children that their state is worse then the state of the Jews Ans This Objection which would seem to take off the former absurdities will appear anon to bring in other absurdities as great or greater or leave the force of the former Arguments untouched For though it be true that amongst the Jews was a worldly Sanctuary and carnal ordinances Heb. 9.1.10 which are now abolished and no visible ordinance left to Christians in the place thereof Yet generally to say that Jews priviledges consisted in Rites and Ceremonies and Christians are spiritual and invisible is to deny spiritual priviledges to the Jews and the outward profession of religion to Christians which is equally to overthrow the power of godlinesse and truth of religion in both then which what more dangerous or absurd 2. But if they will leave generals and come to the point in hand they must either deny that there is any such outward ordinance as Baptism left to the Church of the New Testament being of the same use for the main and in the place of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. which to do were to contradict plain Scripture or if they grant it their shifting distinction of visible and spiritual priviledges cannot help them for here by their own concession it cannot take place seeing that they yield that in this case a visible priviledge is afforded alike to both Churches Jewish and Christian 3. This Objection should be acknowledged to say something to the purpose if it could be proved 1. That the Jews were only under an external Covenant without spiritual graces 2. That their priviledges were only external 3. That Christians have now only spiritual blessings bestowed on them 4. That ordinarily God now gives his Covenant and spiritual blessings thereof without any visible means or external way of dispensing the same All or any of which to assert were very false and wicked But when it is acknowledged or at least may by plentifull Scripture be proved 1. That the Jews and their children had interest in spiritual blessings of the Covenant as truly as we though in a different manner and measure 2. That we Christians are under a visible dispensation as well as they 3. That both dispensations have had alike each a visible sign seal or pledge of admission into Covenant 4. That to enjoy these signs and seals have been and still are a great benefit to them that have them according to Gods appointment 5. That now Beleevers have need of the seals of the Covenant to them and their children to confirm their faith in Gods mercy to them and theirs and ingage and incite them to obedience as well as the beleeving Jews That for themselves Beleevers need a seal or pledge is granted by all parties that acknowledge that God who institutes nothing needlesse or superstuous in his Church hath instituted Baptisme as a standing Ordinance for Christians And that for their children they need a seal as well as the Jews for their children or Christian Professours for themselves may appear thus 1. Have not Christians children souls capable of salvation as well as the Jews 2. Is it not for Gods glory to be visibly known the God of Christians children as well as of the Jews 3. Aâ—e Christian parents better able to beleeve Gods fatherly federall love to their children and devote them to his worship without his applying a seal unto them then they can beleeve his love to themselves and devote themselves to God without a seal or pledge If they can sufficiently beleeve in God for their children and devote them to Christ without the seal for a pledge or ingagement surely they might as well have beleeved and obeyed without a seal for themselves if so no seal had been instituted at all for God will make no superâ—â—uous institutions But a seal is instituted therefore they needed it if for themselves then for their children 4. Are Christian parents more carelesse of their childrens salvation or Gods being glorified by their children then the Jews were that none may say Then sure they no lesse need to see them sealed into the Covenant wherein they may be ingaged to glorifie God and God to save their souls Or 5. have Christians more obscure and sparing discovery by promise and precept concerning their own priviledges and duties that they should need the seal and pledge of Baptism for themselves but more full and clearer promises and commands concerning their childrens priviledges and duties then either the Jews had for their children or Christian Professours have for themselves that in the case of Christians children there should be no use of a seal and pledge though the Jews children did and Christian Professours do need a seal I think none will say this 6. That no Scripture or reason can be given to prove that Beleevers children in the time of the Gospel are debarred from the Covenant and seal thereof of which the beleeving Jews children had been long in possession and some more eminent priviledge bestowed on Christians children which the Jews children never had to compensate that losse of being driven from the Covenant and seal when I say these six things are at the least for the greater part acknowledged and the other may be easily proved at least so many as are necessary for this purpose it must needs be a very contradictory thing to say That the Gospel-dispensation is more glorious and comfortable then the Legal and beleeving Gentiles as much or more blessed then the Jews and yet Christians children driven from the Covenant of grace and seal thereof which the Jews children were under 4. Having first propounded something in general for the clearing of the whole Argument secondly confirmed the Proposition by some
whereupon they have right to the seal of entrance Arg. Arg. 13 13. That doctrine and practice is to be abhorred which puts the Infants of Christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels leaves them in the visible kingdom of the devil as no visible members of the Church denies to them reasonable souls and cuts them off from all hopes of salvation whiles they are Infants This doctrine and practice I say is to be abhorred as most contrary to the Covenant of God set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contrary to the hopes prayers and comforts of Christian parents concerning their children while Infants and contrary to reasons and natures light which shews that Infants are reasonable creatures But the doctrine and practice of these Anabaptists leaves Christians children in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels as casting them out of Gods Covenant and Christs Kingdom which is the Church and denying to them the seal of admittance thereto and so leaving them in the visible kingdom of the devil denying to them faith without which they must certainly perish and reason without which they are bruits and so cut off from all hopes of salvation Therefore their doctrine and practice is to be abhorred Thus you have seen our Arguments or at least some of them Now before I conclude I will Answer two or three Questions or Objections Obj. 1. But if children of Beleevers have right to the Covenant Christ the promises and gift of the holy Ghost How can we know this Men of years if they beleeve and repent can make profession but how can children make profession in the Covenant that we may have sufficient warrant to baptize them Ans It 's true they cannot make profession of their interest in the Covenant and promises but that is done sufficiently for them by God the Father Son and holy Ghost speaking in Scripture as Gen. 17.7 Exod. 20.6 Psal 102.28 and 103.17 18. Psal 112.2 and 127.3 4 5. Es 44.3 Mar. 10.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 2.14 c. These and many other Testimonies are given in Scripture by God himself concerning the right of the faithfuls children to the Covenant promise and Kingdom of God which I wish the Reader to turn over unto and observe Surely this testimony of God for children is not lesse then the testimony of men of years for themselves So that if parents when they bring their children to Baptism make a due profession of their repentance faith and resolution to walk with God in Covenant and both to accept Gods Covenant for themselves and their children and give up themselves and theirs to God in Covenant the Ministers and Congregations may have satisfaction concerning their childrens right to the Covenant and promise by vertue of these Scriptures and so to Baptism Obj. 2. If children of beleeving parents have title to the Covenant and promises either all have this title or some only If some only how will you distinguish them that those only may be baptized If all how is it that many prove wicked which were baptized in infancy Do you hold falling away from grace Ans The promises and Covenant belong to all the faithfuls children in regard of outward station in Covenant and right to the seal of entrance which is the thing now in question the inward efficacy we leave to the good pleasure of God The whole body of Israelites aged and children 1 Cor. 10.5 were Gods people by Covenant and under the promise Yet with many of them God was not well pleased The Churches of the New Testament are called Saints said to be in Christ and yet many persons therein proved wicked and eâ—roneous as may appear in those Epistles that are written to them giving them the title of Saints The Covenant and promises as they are outwardly dispensed are conditional neither doth God therein any further binde himself to his people then as the condition of regeneration holinesse repentance faith or obedience are found in them or performed by them Indeed the inward working of regeneration drawing to and giving Communion with Christ giving a new heart and spirit faith c. are absolutely bestowed according to Gods good pleasure upon what number of these persons externally in Covenant he seeth good according to the election of grace agreeably to those Scriptures Rom. 9.15 16 18. 2. Here is no more necessity then possibility of distinguishing between Elect and non-elect Infants their being members of the visible Church gives them right to the priviledge of new admitted members 3. Neither do we hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace Ioh. 13. â— 2 Per. 2.1 Rev. 3.1 7. Heb. 6.4.5 6. as from true solid Sanctification Justification and Adoption though we grant men may fall from the outward dispensation of the Covenant of grace and turn Apostates or continue under the outward dispensation and yet fall short of the saving efficacy of grace Mat 25.29 Yea moreover that those which have seemed to themselves and others to be Justified Sanctified and Adopted may fall from what they seemed to have and utterly perish 4. The Objection will hold as strongly against the baptizing of the professours of faith for not all those whom the Apostles or any others baptized upon their profession have held our many proved wicked and reprobate none can certainly distinguish among professours which are elect and which not Must they not therefore be baptized To conclude therefore They that by their own profession or Gods profession for them are discovered to have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant let them enjoy it without gainsaying and let us leave the inward efficacy of the Covenant to God to whom alone it belongs Obj. 3. But what need you write so much in answering so little It seems your cause is not good you take so much pains about it Why did not you Answer as briefly as the other party Propounded Ans 1. The truth oft lies deeep and will not easily be found out as it is more precious then gold and silver Pro. 3 13 14. so it requires more diligent search Gold Mines are not obvious to every eye much skill and labour are requisite to finde them out and bring the gold to light 2. Though the other party have but briefly propounded their judgement and grounds thereof in their now-Answered Papers yet it is known what large discourses they have made amongst the people and how many Treatises are written on this subject 3. It is not an argument of a bad cause to be somewhat large in clearing it the better the cause is the more it deserves diligence in handling of it least we should wrong God his people and truth by sleightinesse A cup of poison may be prepared drunk down and dispersed into the body in an hour which the wisest Physitian can hardly expell out of the body with all his skill and pains in many moneths A desperate