They are said to have justified God in or by submitting unto Iohns Baptism in asmuch as by this submission they did acknowledge his ministerie and Baptism to be from heaven i. from God and withall that the tenour and substance of his ministerie which was that upon the Repentance of those who had sinned their sins should be forgiven them was very gracious and good 2. Nor doth it follow that though they justified God in these respects by being Baptized by John that therefore they justified him in the sight of the world there being little or perhaps nothing of the world present when they were baptized They rather justified God I mean did that which was proper to justifie God in the sight of the world by their publique owning and professing this their Baptism afterwards then simply by their receiving it Therefore Sect. 101. 6. Whereas he assumes that Infants being only passive in Baptism and not voluntarie cannot contribute any thing to the justification of God c. he alters the state of the Question between him and his adversaries which is not whether Infants but whether Infant-Baptism contributes any thing to the justification of God although neither is this indeed the state of the Question no nor yet of any considerable connexion with it For many things may be lawfull which do not contribute any thing to the justification of God in the sight of the world Yet 2. that Infant-Baptism contributes every whit as much or rather more to the justification of God as to the truth of his sayings in the Gospell in the sight of the world as the baptizing of men and women is evident from hence The Parents who offer their children unto Baptism are for the most part and should be alwaies experienced Christians and of long acquaintance with the Gospell and consequently cannot reasonably but be presumed to have better knowledge and assurance both of the truth and likewise of the goodnesse of the sayings of God in the Gospell then men and women who are newly converted to the Gospell who notwithstanding according to Gospell rule in case of a non-pre-non-pre-baptism yea and according to Mr. A's principles themselves whether in such a case or otherwise are the only men and women that ought to be baptized excepting the case of oversight Now 1. it cannot be thought that Parents being long experienced Christians would offer their childrē to be baptized unlesse themselves were verily perswaded both of the truth and goodnesse of the sayings of God in the Gospell And 2. the testimonie of those concerning the truth and goodnesse of things or sayings who have best known and had the most experience of them amounts to a richer and fuller justification of them and so of him who hath spoken them then the testimonie of such persons who are at least comparatively strangers to them Therefore though Infants themselves cannot contribute to the justification of God in the case before us yet Infant-baptism may and doth contribute altogether as much or rather more as the Baptizing of men and women especially if baptized in these years when and as soon as by rule they ought Sect. 102. 3. That which Mr. A's most regular actives and voluntaries in their Baptism contribute to the justifying of God in the truth of his sayings in the Gospell and sight of the world is not so much as hath been already observed by their being baptized as by their publique owning and professing this their Baptism afterwards in the face of the world If so then may Infants themselves living unto the age and years of men by a like publique owning of their baptism with the other contribute as much to the justifying of God in the sight of the world as they 4. And lastly for this The Infants of the Jews were no whit more active or voluntarie in their circumcision then the Infants of Christians are in their Baptism Yet God judged himself as much or more justified in the sight of the world by the circumcision of those Infants as he did by the circumcision of men otherwise he would rather have enjoyned the circumcision of men only and not of children at all 5. Whereas Mr. A. calleth Baptism a part of the Gospell he might more properly and truly if we respect either the institution or first practise and administrations of it in which consideration Mr. A. discourseth of it call it a part of the Law For Iohns Doctrine was not that the kingdom of heaven by which all understand the state of the Gospell it self or else the state of the Church under the Gospell was already come but only that it was nigh at hand Mat. 3. 2. Nor were the Legall or Mosaicall administrations abolished so much as to the precept or necessitie of them in John's dayes and consequently there was no opportunitie for the introducing or erecting of any Evangelicall Ordinance whil'st his ministerie continued Besides we read Gal. 4. 4. that Christ was made under the law but no where that he was made under the Gospell And himself saith that he came to fulfill the law Mat. 5. 17. which he had in other words expressed before Mat. 3. 15. saying that it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse giving this unto Iohn for a reason why it was meet for him to subject himself unto Baptism as well as he had done unto circumcision and other legall observations Or however if we notion Baptism as a Gospell Ordinance it is very improperly yea untruly term'd a part of the Gospell The Gospell is the Covenant Baptism the Seal of this Covenant as Mr. A. and the Generalitie of Rebaptizers with him do acknowledge for in hoc as it seems non tenetur Magister Fisher and therefore can be no part of it as the seal annexed to a writing is no part of the writing But finis unius mali gradus est futuri and Mr. A. proceedeth Mr. A. p. 19. 20. Sect. 103. 5. Lastly Another great end of Baptism when taken up by persons under due qualifications is to distinguish and difference them from the world to characterise them as peculiarly relating unto God in which respect amongst others al those that are baptized into Christ are said to put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. they thereby declare themselves to belong to him as the servants of great men are known to belong to them by their badg and livery which they put on when they enter themselves servants to them After a little lesse pertinent discourse about the distinguishing use of the Law he assumse thus But now this way the differencing men lasted but till such time as Faith came as the Apostle notes But after Faith is come saith he we are no longer under a Shoolmaster v. 25. i. no longer known to be Disciples or Scholars as formerly we were by our keeping of the Law The Mosaicall dispensation continued till faith came i. e. untill the time of the gospel dispensatiō then faith became of the same use to denominate
that authoritie which they had from God otherwâ—se for the confirmation or avouchment of such things Especially considering that the Jews with whom they had either only or chiefly to do in these reasonings subscribed to the Authoritie of the Scriptures but rejected the Authoritie of the persons who argued from them and did not own them as teachers sent from God And however the Apostle Peter maketh the word of Prophesie i. the Scriptures of the old Testament more sure i. of greater and of a more rationall authoritie for a mans satisfaction and conviction touching the truth of what they deliver then a voice from heaven 2 Pet. 1. 18 19. when things taught are of a ready perception and deduction from the Scriptures and the Divine Authoritie of the Scriptures acknowledged by the persons to whom these things are delivered it is very unreasonable for the Teachers to bear themselves with a strong hand upon their extraordinarie Commission or Authoritie from God to teach especially towards such hearers who are hard to be convinced hereof Nor are the scripture-instances produced by Mr. A. to shew the contrary any wayes pertinent to such a purpose And that he is mistaken in that wherein he placeth his greatest trust Mat. 12. 8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day I have shewed elsewhere a Water-dipping Consider 1. pag. 6. directing the Reader where he may find a very sufficient account given that by the Son of man in that saying is not meant the Lord Christ himself but any person of mankind as the the phrase oft signifieth in scripture Job 25. 6. 35. 8. Esa 51. 12. 56. 2. Psal 8. 4. 144. 3. 146. 3. to omit others 2. If neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made the Scriptures or those scripture-examples upon which they argued and avouched their Doctrine the sole ground and foundation hereof by what Authoritie can we do it Upon what account can we raise Doctrines from and build conclusions upon any scripture-examples yea though the Doctrines we raise and build in this kind be but of a morall consideration and of the easiest and readiest perception and deduction from these examples Or are they who do raise any Doctrinall conclusion from any Scripture example worthy reproof for so doing Or if Mr. A. teacheth this doth he not make a rod for his own back Sect. 144. 3. Whereas he pleads that the things which Christ and the apostles in the cases objected plead for examples out of the Law were not meerly and barely institutive but of a morall consideration and so of a more ready perception c. pretending that Infant-baptism hath no morall equity in and of it self discernable to commend it I clearly answer that though Baptism it self be institutive and positive yet Baptism with the severall gracious ends intended by God in it supposed which is nothing but what Mr. A. himself as well as his adversaries supposeth the baptizing of Infants is of a morall consideration and hath equitie in and of it self to commend it If God intended good by Infant-circumcision either to the Jewish Church in generall or to the children themselves who were to be circumcised the administration of circumcision unto children was of a morall consideration and had a morall equitie in it self to commend it and they upon whom the duty of the said administration at any time and in reference to any person lay should have sinned against the Law of charitie to neglect it Now there being the same or as much reason to judge as hath been formerly argued and may be further in due time that God by Infant baptism intendeth spirituall good either unto the Infants themselves who are or should be baptized or to the Christan Churches respectively as that he did intend the like good either to the circumcised Infants or Church of the Jews by Infant circumcision it roundly follows that Infant Baptism notwithstanding Mr. A's opinion to the contrary is of a morall consideration and in this respect of a readie perception and deduction from the example of Infant-circumcision yea and that they who do deprive their children of it walk uncharitably towards them and deserve reproof according to the saying of Beza a Baptismus sine impietatis scelere contemni nequit gravissimam reprehensionem coram Deo hominibus merentur qui tantum beneficium differunt vel sibi vel suis liberis accipere Beza Opnsc. p. 334. Baptism cannot without the great sin of impietie be despised and they deserve a most severe reproof both before God and men who delay the reception of so great a benefit either for themselves or THEIR CHILDREN So that things duly and unpartially considered Mr. A's Objection is too hard for his Answer the spirit of the former is the greater spirit And thus we see that his minor Proposition which he hath been all this while labouring in the fire to make straight remains as yet crooked His two former probations have afforded no Protection at all to it But it may he hath kept his best wine to the last and his third Answer will recover the credit which his two former have lost Let us therefore with patience and without partialitie hear and consider what this hath to say unto us Another thing by which it may appear that Infant-baptism is not agreeable to the Gospell-ministration is in that it M. A. p. 34. differs from it in this propertie of it viz. as it is a ministration of the spirit for so it is called 2 Cor. 3. 8. It 's the ministration of the spirit in two respects 1. because in and by this ministration the spirit is given unto men 2. Because the worship and service which God receives from men under it is or ought to be more spirituall then that was under the Law in both which respects Infant-Baptism will be found disagreeable to it I answer Sect. 145. 1. This argument or probat is to be commended in this before either of the former it promiseth full and undertakes home in the cause of the Proposition to be secured the Proposition as we heard being this Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the ministration of the New Testament Now his first proof undertook for no more but to prove Infant-Baptism not simply disagreeable but only lesse agreeable to this ministration His second that Infant-Baptism as he might well fuppose savors strongly of the Legall ministration But this proof it be as good as its word will prove Infant-Baptism simply and right-down disagreeable to the said ministration But 2. Whereas he attempts to prove this disagreeablenesse by this argument viz. that it differs from it in one particular propâ—rtie his attempt amounts to no more then the beating of the ayr For what though it should differ from it in two properties which are more then one yet if it agree with it in others especially in more why should it not be judged rather or more agreeable with it then disagreeable yea one
have produced there is a ground or foundation laid of answering all contrary reasonings and which is of easie application this way and partly because some of the chiefest arguments on that side have been produced already objection-wise and received their answer and partly likewise because this hath been sufficiently done by other hands and lastly for brevities sake as perceiving copious discourses hereabouts to be burthensome I answer Sect. 167. 1. That copious discourses about any Subject whatsoever when they want light and strength to make good their undertakings are for the most part burthensome No marvell then if such discourses written against the Doctrine and practise of Infant-baptism be burthensome Never yet did I meet with any Argument of one kind or other much considerable in that warfare or of any pregnant import to disable I do not say the lawfulness but the expediencie and consequently the necessity of Infant-Baptism 2. Neither do I know any one ground or foundation laid by M. A. in his discourse in any degree competēt for the answering all contrary reasonings All his foundatians so called have been cast down or else evicted of the crime of irrelativenesse to his buildings If he be able to nominate any one of them in which one stone hath been left upon another or which is not guilty of the sin of impertinencie I will acknowledge his cunning to be beyond my expectation 3. Neither have any the chiefest Arguments on the Paedobaptists side been produced by him Objection-wise Neither hath he given the due weight to those produced by him neither hath he given sufficient and due answers unto them as produced by him 4. And lastly Neither hath the task or thing he speaks of been sufficiently done by other hands unless he confines his meaning in the word sufficiently to the inconsiderate partie of men and women who have gone wondering after his own judgement whose fancies and consciences being a little disturbd the shadows of mountains may very possibly seem men unto them or else unto such who through injudiciousnesse and weaknesse of apprehension some other occasions haply concurring are prepared to take the impressions of any light pretences for a new way To persons of this character what almost is not sufficient Mr. A. having super-sufficiently cōmended his preceding discourse against Infant-baptism in those supernumerarie passages lately rehearsed prepares to incounter his last enemie which he purporteth as such an objection over which if his pen be but able to magnifie it self he seems to suppose the doctrine of Infant-baptism will suddenly give up the ghost But because saith he there is one Argument which Mr. A. p. 40. seems to be much taking with some which as it is of a later invention the◠others so perhaps hath not received such answer and refutation as others have therefore as to this I shall give in somewhat by way of Answer Sect. 168. By the way the Reader may please to take knowledg and consider that all that Mr. A. hath pleaded for his opinion and practise against Infant-baptism being clearly disabled and refuted the credit of his cause is no◠recoverable by the Answer of an Objection though he should do it never so commendably and effectually For the goodnesse of a cause practise or opinion is not proved by the insufficiencie or weaknesse of an argument one or more that may be brought against them no nor yet by the weaknesse of all the Arguments and Reasons for the contrary which possibly have seen the light of the Sun hitherto but by Reasons and Grounds positively and pregnantly demonstrative of this goodnesse and such which with reason and truth cannot be gainsaid So that though Mr. A. should slay the Argument which opposeth him in his incounter with it yet can he not hereby raise his dead nor cause his Arguments again to live which are now as so many dead Corpses Notwithstanding let us go forward with him and first hear what the said Argument or Objection is as he hath pleased to propound it and then weigh and consider the substance and pertinencie of what he gives in by the way of answer unto it The Argument saith he is this If the love of God to persons be the first and originall ground of their being capable of Baptism then Infants are capable of Baptism But the love of God to persons is the originall or first ground of their being capable of Baptism Mr. Ap. 41. What he is pleased to subjoyn in the name of those whom he makes thus to argue by way of confirmation and proof of either Proposition respectively we shall understand when we come to hear and consider what he answereth unto it But before we are admitted to hear this we are desired to observe two things by the way 1. That this Argument contradicts another that is wont to be employed in this service to wit that the promise of God belongs to children of beleeving Parents and therefore Mr. A. p. 41 42. Baptism by which Baptism is restrained to such Infants only as are the children of believing Parents But by this Argument Baptism is made to appertain to all Infants whatsoever whether they be children of believing or unbelieving Parents because it supposeth all Infants to be in the love of God in the forementioned respect And therefore if this be true the other must be false in its restrained sence and contrarily if the other true this false So that you see the witnesses do no better agree in their evidence in this behalf then the false witnesses did that came against Christ in their testimonie 2. This Argument if it were good would render not only all Infants capable of Baptism but all men likewise whether Christian or Pagan because they are beloved of God in such a sence as its said Infants are viz. in having that sin of which they were guilty in Adam remitted unto them c. Sect. 169. Before I come to speak to these two by the ways I must desire also that one thing be observed by the way on the other side This is that I have ground in abundance to believe that he never heard any Paedo-baptist plead the cause of Infant-baptism by that Argument which here he undertakes to answer in those terms or tenour of words wherein he exhibiteth it and that he cunningly changed their terms that he might gain an advantage for his two by the waies especially the latter and withall be supposed to answer their Argument whilst indeed he only answers a mock argument of his own The Argument which I suppose he pretends to answer or would be thought to answer I acknowledg to have been sometimes urged by my self nor do I remember that I have met with it from either the pen or lips of any other In which respect I am able to speak with the more confidence what I have said The true tenour then of the Argument which Mr. A. should have answered had he quitted himself ingenuously is this
believers are capable hereof do not necessarily contradict the one the other in these sayings there being a sence wherein they may be yea and are both true For all children as such may be capable of Baptism and yet many of them yea all the children of believers only excepted in other respects uncapable There is a double capacitie of Baptism at least as the word capacitie may signifie the one in respect of the subject simply considered the other in respect of circumstance All children in case they should be regularly offered unto Baptism that is 1. freely and by those that have the right of their education as Parents if living or Guardians or Foster-parents in case the naturall be dead and 2. unto persons or baptists regularly authorized to Baptize them they might all be baptized But because Infidell Parents cannot be free in offering their children unto Baptism nor can they being under no Pastour or christian Church-officer offer or bring them to a person regularly authorized to baptize them it being irregular for any Churh to authorise their Pastor or other Officer to baptize the children of unbelievers in this repect these children of theirs are not capable of being baptized That poor Cripple who waited 38 years together for healing at the pool of Bethesda was all this while in respect of his person or as he was an impotent man as capable of healing as any of those who were healed yea had he at any time found such a friend as would upon the Angels stirring of the water have cast him in before some other had prevented him he had been actually healed But being helplesse in himself and friendlesse he was under these circumstances in no capacitie of being healed by those waters A Virgin in respect of her years and person every wayes may be capable of marying such or such a man yet in respect of the charge and command of her Parents under whose power she yet remains to the contrary she may be uncapable of so marrying Yea the man himself with whom in the respect mentioned and in many others she is capable of marrying may notwithstanding be a person so or so conditioned as for example may be an Idolater or son of a strange God or the like that she is not in a regular actuall capacitie of marrying with him Many cases of a like exemplification might be proposed It were easy to produce many sayings out of the Scriptures themselves which do every whit as much contradict the one the other as those catched at and compared by Mr. A. whose consistencie notwithstanding is readily enough salveable by distinguishing partly between positives and respectives partly between respectives and respectives The three particulars now propounded duly considered it appears that Mr. A. hath made no bargain at all either for his credit or for his cause by the way but it may be matters will succeed better with him at his journeys end And I confesse that if he can come off with credit from his incounter with the argument now before him he will do more for the cause of Ana-baptism then hath been done for it as far as I can understand these many years although neither is the goodnesse of that cause sufficiently evinced by never so sufficient Mr. A. p. 41 42. an answer given to one argument bent against it But let us now hear how he quitteth himself in his answer hereunto But to come closer to the Argument I do deny the consequence of the Major Proposition I doe deny that it therefore Mr. Ap. 42. 43. follows that Infants are capable of Baptism though it should be granted that the love of God is the originall ground of rendring persons capable thereof And the reason of this deniall is taken from that difference which is between the originall ground of persons capabilitie of Baptism and the next immediate ground hereof For howsoever the love of God be the ground of all dispensations of good to the creature yet it is not so from the self same respect but as it exhibits it self in one dispensation of it in one respect so in another Dispensation thereof it exhibits it self upon other terms and respects And thereforce we must distinguish between the love of God as it is the ground of Baptism The love of God then is to be considered either 1. in the whole entire summe or body of it generally and indefinitely considered as comprehending and inclosing in it all particular dispensations of Grace towards the creature or else 2. as it excites or puts forth it self in those particular dispensations themselves The love of God in the former sence though it be the the ground of all particular acts of Grace and so that also which appertains to Baptism yet is it no sound way of reasoning to conclude persons to be in an immediate capacitie of Baptism because they are in the love of God under this generall consideration For upon the same ground men might as well argue infants to be strong Christians or fit to be chosen Pastors Teachers or Deacons as to argue them capable of Baptism because persons are in these capacities by vertue of the love of God to them And yet who sees not how absurd it would be to reason thus If the love of God to persons be the originall ground which renders them capable of being chosen into the office of Pastor Teacher or Deacon then Infants are capable of being chosen into these Offices because they are in the love of God c. If the love of God to persons be the originall ground of rendring them capable of the denomination of strong Christians then Infants are capable of the denomination of strong Christians Because they are in that love and favour of God But c. By the light then of these Instances the invaliditie indeed absurdity of concluding Infants to be capable of Baptism because they are in that love and favour of God may you see be sufficiently discerned Sect. 172. Never did there a more impertinent piece of discourse shew it self on paper then this and yet what joy doth Mr. A. make in the winding of it up For 1. It runs all along upon a palpable and wide mistake of the Argument unto which it pretends the relation of an Answer as was lately observed Infant baptizers argue Infants capable of Baptism from their relation of Son-ship unto God Mr. A. answers and labours to prove though very unhandsomely too that the love of God to them doth not render them capable thereof as if the relation in men of Son-ship unto God and the love which is in God towards men were one the same thing May not a man as well suppose that the silver which is in my purse and the gold which in his is one and the same thing 2. The Argument which Mr. A. should answer buildeth a baptismal capacity in Infants upon that which it calleth the originall or first gound or qualification for Baptism in the
is sufficient for the eviction of a truth 16 12. That way of worshipping God wherein a mans soul hath prospered and prospereth yet daily is not lightly to be forsaken or exchanged 17 18 13. To make any thing necessary which God hath not made such is to Lord it over the consciences of men and to usurp divine Authority pag. 19 14. The subject of an Ordinance is no part of this Ordinance 19 20 15. The Law of Nature and personal accommodation is to super-intend and over-rule Ordinances and Institutions 20 21 16. Some things being exâ—ra-essential to the nature and end of an Institution though observed in the first administration may be lawfully yea and commendably in some cases omitted in after administrations 21 22 17. Every defect in the administration of an Ordinance doth not voyd the effect of it 23 24 18. The same ground which giveth right to an Ordinance unto any one person or persons giveth the same right unto all in whom it is found 24 25 26 19. It is not necessary that Signs Seals or Sacraments should correspond in any natural similitude 26 27 28 20. Institutions may be regularly used and observed without the observation of any circumstance not enjoyned 28 29 21. He is superstitious and a wil-worshipper who placeth Religion in any circumstance or observationont prescribed by God 29 30 22. Sacramental engagements the more early imposed or taken up are so much the more improveable binding also 30 31 23. Adult Baptism a seminary of contentions in constituted Churches 31 32 24. Infant-baptism more edifying both to the Church and to the baptised themselves when come to years of discretion 32 33 25. Children admitted unto Baptism in the daies of Christ and of the Apostles 33 26. Baptism a Seal under the Gospel of the righteousnesse of Faith as Circumcision was under the Law 33 34 27. Church-membership a gracious priviledge vouchsafed by God unto Children under the Law 35 28. The Children of the Jews were involved together with their Parents in their rejection from God 36 37 29. The Jewish children were baptized into Moses as well as their Parents 37 38 39 30. The door of entrance into the Christan Church is more easie and accommodate for children then it was into the Jewish Church pag. 39 31. The Baptism of Children born of Christian Parents was not deferred until adultness of yeares in the Apostles daies 40 41 32. Infant-church-membership was no Levitical ceremony nor abolished by Christ 42 43 44 33. infant-Infant-baptism was practised by such Christians who conversed if not with the Apostles yet with their disciples 46 47 34. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptize frequently signifieth any kind of washing or rinseing even where no dipping is 47 35. The derivative verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never in the New Testament used to signifie the act of dipping but the primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only pag 47 48. As on the other hand the Sacramental act of baptizing is never expressed by the primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by the frequentative or derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 36. The administration of water-baptism is very frequently expressed by a baptism with water seldom or not at all by a baptizing into water 48 49 37. No Baptismal administration can regularly be performed either in whole or in part by the person who is baptized 50 51 38. The water wherein the Eunuch was baptized was not deep enough for dipping 51 52 39. Baptizing with the Holy Ghost and baptizing with Water expressed in the Scriptures by one and the same preposition 52 53 40. To pour water on the body of the person baptized doth more significantly resemble burial then the dâ—pping into water doth 53 54 41. The nature of Baptism representeth the gracious act of Christ applying himself unto us 54 55 42. No kind of washing is performed or made onely by the application of the thing to be washed unto the water but of the water unto it 55 56 43. Dipping either naked or cloathed inconvenient 56 44. To dip or wash all over was the practice of Idolatrous nations 58 45. It cannot be proved that any Baptismal Administration recorded in the Scripture was performed by dipping but is exceeding probable that many were performed without it 59 60 c. 46. The baptizing children of Christians ordinarily at years of discretion is inconsistent with the Gospel rule for baptizing 70 71 47. The custom of adult Baptism amongst thâ—se born in the Church first entered into the Church by unhallowed door and was entertained when practised upon unwarrantable and Popish grounds 73 74 48. The generation of men commonly known by the name of Ana-baptists have alwaies been injurious to the Gospel 75 76 c. 49. The wrath of God hath been from time to time revealed from heauen against the way of Ana-baptism and those who unrepentingly have walked in it 80 81 c. 50 It hath very seldom been known that any opinion or practise though never so wicked uncouth or absurd was ever set on foot amongst Christian Professors but that it gathered a considerable number of Proselytes to it 89 51. By-opinions and practises which bear or seem to bear hard upon the flesh are apt to take with four sorts of persons 90 91 52. No kind of Sect have more generally been more hardened in the way of their errour or more un-perswasible out of it then those who have been able to pretend the plain Letter of the Scripture though misunderstood for their opinion or practise especially when a letter of like plainess cannot be produced against them 91 92 53. When men and women are inordinate in valuing or prizing an erroneous whether opinion or practise there is the less hope of reclaiming them from either 92 93 54. Aâ— the Scripture sometimes under the word MEN comprehendeth Women as well as Men yea and sometimes Children also so under the expression MEN AND WOMEN it more frequently comprehendeth Children 94 55. It is lawful yea commendable for beleevers to devote separate and design their children whilst it is yet early with them even from the conception and the womb to the service of God and Jesus Christ pag. 95 96 56. The truth of an Ordinance or Gods approving or allowing of an Ordinance as his cannot better be estimated or known then when he blesseth it unto those who receive it 96 97 57. Baptism received in Infancy and this without dâ—ppiâ—gâ— is neither a nullity nor device or institution of man 97 98 58. Baptism as all types and typical Ordinances is one of those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. which are instituted and given for some greater things sake than themselves 98 99. The Contents of the latter part of the ensuing Discourse according to the respective Sections thereof 1. STicklers about Baptism now and about Circumcision of old compared Sect. 2 2. The present controversie not properly
about Bapâ—ism it self sect 3 5 3. The present contest relating unto Baptism better laid aside by the party 's contesting then weak consciences disturb'd with it 5 4. Mr. A. doth nâ—t state his question clearly so much as to his own sence 6 5. Mr. A. and his Scripture-proofs divided about the way to satisfaction 7. 9 6. God hath authorized the Lâ—w of Nature to over-rule administrations of Institutions 8 7. Persons not truly repentant may be duly baptized 10 8. Primitive practises may be lawfully varyed from upon exigencie of circumstances 11 9. 〈…〉 eer matter of fact no good foundation to prove eithâ—r the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a practise about an instituted Ordinance in all cases 13 10. Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem 14. 48 11. No particular Administration of an Ordinance can answâ—r the whole mind or counsel of God in or about the said ordinance 14 12. Wâ—y the Apostles might omit though not neglect the baptizing of children notwithstanding they might lawfully have done it 15 13. How the reasons upon which the Apostles might forbear Infant-baptism may and may not be binding to the like forbearance now 16 14. Two reasons why the Pastors of Churches now may be in a better capacity of baptizing Infants then the Apostles or their Assistants were 18 19 20 15. How Christ and the Apostles to be imitated in what they did and did not sect 21 16. The total silence of the Scriptures about baptizing Infants what kind of proof and how it may be construed 22 23 17. How the baptizing of Housholds in the Scripture proveth Infant-baptism 24 18. How Christ's laying on hands on Children c. proveth Infant-baptism 25 40 132 157 158 19. Augustin a frequent and constant assertor of Infant-baptism from the Apostles 26 20. The testimony of Antient Writers for the practise of Infant-baptism by the Apostles upon what grounds authentique 27 21. No History recordeth the original of Infant-baptism 28 22. Auxentius an Arrian the first opposer of Infant baptism and Ludovicus Hetzer another Arrian and somwhat worse the first reviver of the opposition in Germany 29 23. Mr. A's Baptism a nullitie according to his own principles 29 24. No contests heard of from the Jews against the Apostles for excluding their Children from Baptism an argument that they were baptized 30 31 25. No reason imaginable why the Precept or Ordinance of Christ about the subject of Baptism should be changed by the Primitive Fathers 32 26. Practise of Ana-baptism standeth â—onely upon foundations that are either loose or irrelative 33 27. A submission unto Baptism no argument of the great successe of the Gospel 35 36 38 39 28. The Holy Ghost at libâ—rty in drawing up his own records 36 29. Vnder the expression of Men and Women in the Scriptures children also are sometimes comprehended 37 30. Baptizing of Men and Women no proof of the success of the Gospel 38 39 31. Suffer little children to come unto me how proveth that Infants were baptized in the Apostles daies 40 41 158 32. A non-scriptum proveth not a non-factum 42 33. Neither the qualifications nor the persons described of all that were baptised 42 34. No firm arguing from order of expressing 43 35. To teach and to make Disciples how widely differ 44 36. When a mans grounds for his opinions are insufficient and so evicted answering of some objections though never so substanâ—ially will not relieve them 45 168 37. Mr. A's second argument as much against the counsel of God in circumcision as against the opinion of his Adversaries in the point of Baptism 46 49 38. The greater serviceableness of a thing in one case proveth not the unlawfulness of it in all others 47 48 53 118 39. The manifestation of Christ to the world no end of Baptism 50. 51. nor yet to the baptised themselves 53 40. When Baptizing is customary and in fashion it is no sign or proof of any mans Faith or Repentance 54 41. Infant-baptizing as much or rather more instructing edifying quickning c. unto spectators as men-baptizing 56 73 159 160 42. How the Priests and Elders rejected the counsel of God against themselves not hauing been baptized of John 57 58 43. Persons duly baptized do not alwaies take up the Ordinance out of a principle of Repeâ—tance 60 44. Remission of sins to be looked for upon Repentance without or before Baptism 61 131 175 45. Circumcision not a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith unto Abraham only 61 46. The Verb substantive oft used in a declarative sence 62 47. What it was that properly constituted Abraham the father of all that beleeve 62 48. Rom. 4. 11. thoroughly understood gives a great light into the Question about Baptism 64 49. Children in a capacity of engaging to the practise of Repentance as wel as men 64 65 68 69 182 50. One end of Baptism better answered or provided for by mens-baptism doth neither prove the baptizing of children unlawful nor yet that another end thereof may not be better provided for hereby 67 98 51. The end of planting not made frustrate by the non-fructifiâ—ation of the tree immediately upon the planting of it 69 152 52. Baptism how needfull for children Sect. 71. 53. No profession or declaration made unto the world by Mr. A's Baptizing 72. 75. 73. 54. Profession made by Parents at their childrens baptizing aâ— available unto others as by other men at their Baptism 73. 55. A person duly baptized is not an Agent but a patient in his Baptism 76. 56. Whâ—ther a man be to sign and seal the Articles of his Covenant with God at the time of his entring hereunto before witnesses c. 75. 76. 98. 57. Baptism not to be taken up in order to râ—mission of sins 77. 61 58. Mr. A most unchristianly taxeth the whole Christian world 79. 59. Arguments proving that a Declaration of a mans Repentance by Baptism is not required on his part to interess him in remission of sins 80. 81. 82 c. 60. Faith and repâ—â—tance according to Mr. A but dead works until Baptism quickeneth them 81. 89 61. Submission to a carnal commandment is not of more accepration with God then unto a spiritual 80. 62. Mr. A. adjudgeth the whole generation of Christians a very fâ—w only excepted both ancient and modern as well Fathers Martyrs and Reformers as others unto eternal condemnation 81. 63. Baptism can be no Declaration of any mans Repentance 82. 52 64. The Apostle Paul no where interesseth Baptism in justification or in the obtaining of remission of sins 83. 65. The remission of his sins who truly repenteth or beleevâ—th is not suspended upâ—n what another man may possibly refuse to do unto him § 83. 18. much less upon what would be sinful in himself to yeeld unto 84. 88. 66. Abrahams spiritual children are justified after the same manner â—ith him 85. 67. Baptism may relate unto salvation as some other of the Commandments of God may do and yet
Administration The reason is because God hath not subjected the Law of nature to the Law of any â—eremony or institution whatsoever but on the contrary hath subjected the respective laws of all ceremonies and institutions unto this a See §. 8. of the secâ—nd part of â—hâ— discourse and Watâ—r-dipping p. 5 6 7 CONSIDERATION XLV â—T was the manner and practise of Heathen Nations and Pagan Idolaters before Christs time to dip or wash all over the bodiâ—s of those who desired to be initiated into the superstitious and Idolatrous services of their Idolâ—â—ods Proof The truth of this Assertion is asserted by several Authors as well of the Pagan as Christian perswasion They who desire a more particular information hereof may please to consult the Commentaries of Hugo Grotius upon these words Mat. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizing them where having himself first affirmed that the custome we speak of was practised among the Jews when any person turned from the worship of false Gods unto the true and again that it was used among prophane Nations likewise of old b S 〈…〉 Ostendiâ—â—us apud Judaeos moris â—isse ut Baptiâ—â—renâ—uâ— qâ—i se à falsorum Deorum cultu ad cultum unius Dâ—i convertebant Sed apud Gentes etiam prophanâ—s usurpatum antiquitùs fuit ut qui iâ—itiari vellâ—nt toto corpore prius ablueâ—entur c. he subjoins the testimony of sundry Authors for the confirmation of this latter Consectary If Dipping Religion-wise was by the Jews practised upon their own account and without direction and command from God and much more if it were practised by Pagan Idolaters and those who worshipped the Divel and this before Baptism was practised among Christians then is it at no hand probable that God should prescribe or enjoin the same practise unto those that should worship him and beleeve in his Son Jesus Christ The reason of this consequence is because God hath never been wont to learn of men much lesse of Sathan or his followers how to be worshipped himself or what services to prescribe unto his worshippers It hath indeed been observed long since that the Divel is Gods Ape and borroweth many things from him for the regulating adorning and compleating of his own worship but it never entred I suppose into any Christian mans heart to think that God should borrow any rite or ceremony from Sathan wherewith to accomplish his worship Yea we read in the Law that God expressely forbad his people the use of several rites and practises used by Idolaters and this for this very reason because they were used by them Lâ—vit 18. 3. Deut. 12. 30 31. Deut. 18. 14. Herewith compare Mat. 6. 31. 32. CONSIDERATION XLVI IT cannot be proved from the Scriptures that any Baptismal Administration recorded there was performed by dipping but it is exceeding probable that many of these Administrations were performed without it Proof Concerning the first part of this consideration I freely acknowledge that it is the sence and opinion of many learned men both of ancient and modern times that in Christs and the Apostles days the Administration we speak of was ordinarily in Judea and the hot countries neighbouring thereunto performed by dipping the whole body under water Yet I am all thoughts made that whatever ground they have or may have otherwise for this opinion they have nothing demonstrative or firmly concluding from the Scriptures to evince it That those metaphorical expressions of the Apostle Buried with him by Baptisme Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. amount to no such proof hath in two of our preceding Consideratâ—ons been argued That neither of these expressions about the baptizing of the Eunuch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated they went down both INTO the Water And when they were come up OVT of the Water Act. 8. 38 39. prove the Eunuch to have been dipt under water in his baptizing hath been in part if not sufficiently proved already where by the testimony of more then two competent witnesses as likewise by Scripture insinuation it self we found the water wherein he was baptized to have been too shallow to entertain him upon such terms But besides when it is said they both went down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always or necessarily in this place signifie into but sometimes unto which signification is as proper here as the other so that the clause may be rendred and they both went down to or VNTO the water i.e. to the waters side The preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oft signifieth to or unto and is accordingly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. I am not sent but TO or VNTO the sheep c. Mat. 15. 24. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VNTO himself Colos 1. 20. So also That you may be filled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with or rather unto as Beza rendreth it a Vt impleamini A D omnem usque plenitudinem illam Dei all the fulnesse of God Eph. 3. 19. Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They went unto Lydia as Beza again translateth b Introierunt A D Lydiam Act. 16. 40. Once more every Scribe which is instructed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VNTO the Kingdome of Heâ—ven Mat. 13. 52. to omit many other places Again for the latter clause And when they were come up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OVT OF the Water the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be as as well translated FROM as out of For this signification of it is most frequent and obvious in the New Testament and our English Translation accordingly owneth it in very many places They who doubt hereof may consult the original in these Texts with many others for their satisfaction Luk. 1. 71 and again v. 7 8. Luk. 20. 4. twice Joh. 19. 12. Joh. 21. 14. Act. 14. 8. Act. 15. 21 as Beza rendreth and v. 29. Act. 17. 3. and 31. Act. 22. 6. and v. 17 Act. 27. 34. Rom. 1. 17. Rom. 4. 24. Rom. 6. 4. and v. 9. and v. 13. and v. 17. c. It would be tedious and needlesse so much as to point at all those places where the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are found in the signification import of our English particle from And being so translated in the clause in hand as very commodiously and without any hardnesse at all of construction it might be for it is as proper to say when they came up from the Water as when they came up out of the Water here would be no footing nor colour of footing whereon to argue the Eunuchs diping when he was baptized Yea own we the two English translations of both the clauses now under consideration yet can there no convincing argument be drawn from them either divisim or conjunctim to prove that Philip dipped the Eunuch when he baptized him For supposing the water to have been very shallow for the proof whereof more I beleeve hath been said then
into drie before they spread a Table and set meat before Paul and Silas or else that they performed this Christian service with their garments full of water and dropping To suppose this latter requires zeal without knowledge to suppose the former requires the faith of those that can beleeve what they please without asking any question for conscience sake For the context will hardly allow them so much time between their being baptized and the performance of this service as was necessary for their shifting However we clearly see what a long story of uncertainties yea of improbabilities must be compiled and beleeved before we can reasonably come to beleeve that the Jaylor and all his were dipped when baptized Nor is it easie to conceive where so much water should be in or about Hierusalem which might suffice for the baptizing of 3000 persons within the space of about half a day probably in a lesser time if this be a true saying no dipping no baptizing How slender and faint the appearance of truth is in that Doctrine which teacheth the dipping of the Eunuch by Philip when he baptized him was lately under consideration The amount of the whole is that it is by many degrees more probable that no Baptismal Administration mentioned in the New Testament was performed with dipping then that all the said Administrations here recorded were performed after such a manner Consectary If this be the fairer probability of the two then can there no firm argument no nor yet any competently probable be The fifth Head of Considerations rising up agaiâ—st adult Baptism ordinarily administred re-baptizing drawn from the Scriptures to prove dipping essential to baptizing CONSIDERATION XLVII THe Baptizing of the children of CHRISTIANS ordinarily at years of discretion is utterly inconsistent with the rule of the Gospel for baptizing Proof The rule of the Gospel concerning the time and season of Baptizing is that Baptism be administred without delay unto persons when they are first made Disciples This to be the Gospel rule for the regulation of the time of baptizing is so evident from many expresse and clear passages of the Gospel it self that it is I presume owned in this capacity and subscribed by Ana-Baptists themselves Or however it is abundantly evinced by others to be such a Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Churchmembership p. 126. 127. Now that that practice of baptizing which the Consideration specifieth is utterly inconsistent with this rule is above all reasonable contradiction made good by this argument viz. because it cannot ordinarily be known or however is not ordinarily known when or at what time the children of Beleevers are first made Disciples unlesse that they will grant that they are Disciples from the womb which will altogether as much and as manifestly endamage their cause That the children we speak of do ordinarily professe a beleeving in God and so in Christ long before they come to any adultnesse of years many of them at 3 4 or 5 years of age yea and some sooner is generally known to us but when or at what time a principle of Grace or Faith is first wrought in them is altogether as unknown Therefore if the children we speak of ordinarily be not baptized untill years of discretion it is impossible that the Gospel rule concerning the time of baptizing should be observed or obeyed in their Baptism The Scripture it self gives large and frequent testimony unto this argument yea and experience it self super-sufficiently ratifieth it If any man yet questioneth the truth of it he may please to repair for satisfaction to pag. 127 128 c. of the Discourse lately mentioned where there is plenty of it to be found Consectary If the Baptizing of Beleevers children ordinarily at years of discretion be utterly inconsistent with the observation of the Gospel rule concerning the time and season for Baptizing then is the practise unquestionable sinfull and displeasing unto God CONSIDERATION XLVIII THe way and practice of Re-baptizing or of baptizing upon those terms on which those who are best known amongst us by the name of ANABAPTISTS do baptize and are baptized and do most importunately injoin others to be baptized also cannot be justified or evinced so much as lawfull much lesse necessary by the word of God Proof It neither yet hath been proved nor is there in the Scriptures whereof to make any competent proof that persons once initiated or consecrated by water unto the obedience and service of Jesus Christ ought to be by water consecrated to the same service the second time That passage Act. 19. 3. 4. 5. which some would draw to such a sence as this is of quite another interpretation as hath been substantially argued and evinced by many a M. Rogers Treatise of Sacraments Part. 1. p. 13 Franciscus Junius ad Act. 19. 5. Georgius Konig Vindiciae Sâ—â—rae Disput 30. p. 534 535. Those words v. 5. And when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus are part of Paul's speech to the Ephesine Disciples in which v. 4. he openeth unto them the purport of John's Baptism which it seems they understood not although they had been baptized by him And that which he declareth to them in these 2 verses is this that John before he baptized those who came unto him for that end admonished them that his Baptism was the Baptism of repentance i. e. a baptism or washing instituted by God to ingage or oblige men to repentance and that they should beleeve not in him but in another who was immediately to follow or come after him viz. Christ And saith Paul when they i. e. the people who came to John to be baptized heard this i. e. had been instructed by John concerning the nature and intent of his Baptism they were baptized by him in the name of the Lord Jesus This to be the unquestionable sence of the passage is by sundry arguments from the context it self proved by several learned men who have laboured in the interpretation of it whose discussions are too large to be here inserted and are extant in their respective Authors And if it should be supposed that the Disciples here said to have been baptized by John or with the Baptism of John were now by Paul or by his appointment baptized it would rather have been said that they were re-baptized baptized again or the like then simply that they were baptized as the Galathians returning to Judaisme from which they had been delivered by the Gospel are said to return AGAIN to those weak and beggarly Elements and to desire to be AGAIN in bondage unto them a Gal. 4. 9. So those Professors spoken of 2 Pet. 2. 20. relapsing to the pollutions of the world which they had escaped thorough the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are said to be AGAIN intangled therein To pretend or say that a consecration of Infants to the service of Christ especially
by sprinkling or pouring water upon it is a nullity or that a person is never the more consecrated unto this service for his being sprinkled or washed with water in his infancy and that in this respect a person comming to maturity of years and beleeving ought to be consecrated to this service as if nothing at all had been done unto him upon this account formerly thus I say to pretend or plead is to dictate a mans own notion and conceit not to speak the words of sobernesse and truth or any thing that can be proved from the Scriptures These no where determine Inâ—ant-Baptism to be a nullity neither in respect of any incapacity in the person baptized nor in respect of any mis-application of the element whether applied by sprinkling or affusion Yea it hath been proved elsewhere I suppose above all reasonable contradiction that infant-baptism whether administred by sprinkling or affusion although for my part I never knew any administration in this kind made by sprinkling is for all Baptismal ends and purposes as efficacious and valid as the baptizing of men after what manner soever b See Water-dipping c. Consideration 16. p. 24. 25. c. Consectary If the practise of Re-baptizing cannot be justified by the word of God then must it needs be either an humane device or delusion of Sathan CONSIDERATION XLXIX. THe custome or practise of adult Baptism or of deferring Baptism unto maturity of years amongst those who were born in the Church and amongst whom Baptism was used as in the case of Constantine Austin and some others mentioned in Church History first entred into the Church by an unhallowed dore and was entertained upon unwarrantable and Popish grounds Proof The truth of this Assertion sufficiently appeareth by the light of the records of Antiquity So that whereas some of the Anti-pedo-Baptistical party ridiculously and contrary to the main current of all sound Ecclesiastical Records of primitive date bear poor ignorant people in hand that I know not who what or which Pope Innocent should be the first who commanded children to be baptized the truth is that they were Popish grounds haply in conjunction with some others no whit better which made the first breach upon infant-Baptism formerly practised and this generally in the Christian Churches as is elsewhere proved and prevailed with some to put off the baptâ—ing of their children and with others their own baptizing untill maturity of years yea with some untill the apprehended approaches of death Much might be gathered and cited from the writings of the fathers upon this account Tertullian seems to have been the first who perswaded Christians to delay Baptism especially the Baptism of their children until afterwards a Itaque pro cujusque conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Bapâ—ismi utilior est praecipue tamen circà parvulos Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissi nem peccatorum Tertul. de Baptismo c. 18. which by the way clearly proveth that Infant-Baptisme was ordinarily practised in his times But the grounds upon which he perswadeth to such a practise are very sandie and loose and the principal of them viz. that Remission of sins whereof children being innocent have no need is obtained by or at least conferred in Baptism is at this day by those at least the generality of those who are reputed Orthodox amongst Protestants adjudged Popish and erroneous and besides seemeth to suppose that there is no other end of Baptism but onely the obtaining forgivenesse of sins or that Baptisme ought not to be administred except onely in such cases where all the ends thereof may presently be obtained Besides this motion of Tertullian for the delay of Baptism was in all likelihood much promoted amongst Christians by means of some impressions which the consciences of some had taken of the Novatian error fearing lest in case of sin after Baptism they should be uncapable of Repentance and consequently of salvation it self The opinion also which many Professors about these times had drank in that all their sins should be remitted in their Baptism in conjunction with a corrupt desire to injoy the pleasures of sin as long as they could without danger as they supposed together with a perswasion that they were onely once to be baptized contributed much towards the entertainment of Tertullians Doctrinal advice with many as may be plainly gathered from several passages in Basil's Exhortation unto Baptism But whatsoever his grounds or reasons were for this his Doctrine of Baptismal delaies the pious and learned fathers after him especially Basil and Nazienzen adjudged them altogether insufficient zealously exhorting to a contrary practise Hast thou an Infant saith Nazienzen let nâ—t impiety be gratified with an opportunity let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be consecrated unto the Holy Ghost from the very first sprouting of the nails of it a Infans tibi est ne occasionem improbitas arripipiat ab infantia sanctificetur ab ipsis unguiculis spiritui consecretur Greg. Nazienzen Orat. 40. in Sanctum Baptisma with much more to the same purpose And Basil expresly taught his hearers that the whole life of a man was a time for Baptism b Baptismi verò tempus vita horinis tota Basil in Exhort ad Baptismum meaning that it might be administred and received at any time from the womb to the grave Yea Tertullian himself clearly approveth of the Baptizing of infants in case of necessity Consectary If the custome of adult Baptism where children were born of Christian Parents was first brought into the Church and entertained upon Popish and unwarrantable grounds then was it not practised by Christ or his Apostles but is rather Popish and Anti Christian CONSIDERATION L. THat Generation of men best known amongst us by the name of ANA-BAPTISTS have alwaies been injurious to the Gospel and obstructive to the course and free passage of it in the world Proof Peter speaking of Christ saith To him give all the Prophets witnesse Act. 10. 43. As all the ancient Prophets give testimony unto Christ so do all or very many of the latter Prophets I mean those worthy instruments by whom God hath inlightned the world in and since the Reformation began by Luther given testimony against that generation of men we speak of as men by whose unworthinesse in several kinds the interest of the Gospel hath deeply suffered in the world The course of the Gospel saith Scultetus Decad. 1. Anno. 1525. was this year hindered and obstructed in Zuitzerland and Moravia by the Anabaptistical sect Elsewhere speaking of the Church of Saintgal he saith it was variously exercised or disturbed by the Anabaptists Elsewhere he writes that these Anabaptists were extreamly troublesome to the Christians in the two Cities of Ulme and Augusta or Auspurg in the lower Suevia Again writing of the year 1527. he saith this year the Anabaptistical and Sacramentary wars or quarrels were very hot to thâ— great damage
the sence of them all in this point are not positive but that the said administration may be made and this with as much agreeablenesse unto the mind of God as unto infants to such Beleevers though formerly baptized whose consciences cannot be satisfied without it according to the saying of the Apostle in a like case It is better to marry then burn though if the burning could be healed without marrying it were better then either But that which they generally hold in the Question about the subject of Baptismal administration is that this administration may with good agreeablenesse to the mind of God be made unto infants And this indeed is that against which Mr. A's discourse is directly bent in the first part of it and if his reasons and arguments by which he opposeth this be disabled by a fair and rational answers given to them respectively there will be no need of any further inquiry after either of his undertakings in the latter part Sect. 7. In order to the advance of his first argument he prescribes us the best way as he conceives to come to satisfaction about the said Question and this saith he is to observe the Mr. A. p. 1. footsteps of the Flock of Christ in the first setting forth of this Ordinance c. he means in the practise of Christians in John the Baptists and Apostles times To prove this to be the best way he refers us to what the Apostle did in one case 1 Cor. 11 23. and to what Christ did in another Mat. 19. 4. 8. But first Mr. A. prescribes us one way to come to the said satisfaction but his Proofs and Texts brought to commend this way unto us lead us to another way This way which his proofs and texts lead us unto is indeed absolute and compleat and could he guide our feet into this way in the case and question in hand we should without asking or making any more questions for conscience sake walk together with him in it But this way consisteth not in the footsteps of the flock of Christ nor in the practise or example one or more no not of the greatest Saints but in the expresse letter of an institution In the latter of the two places cited our Saviour for the reducing of marriage and matters relating thereunto to their primitive intent and use doth not send the Jews to the practise either of Abraham Isaack or any of them that came nearest in practise to the Law or institution of marriage but to the institution it self So likewise in the former the Apostle to make streight what the Corinthians had made crooked in the Administration of the supper doth not send them to the practises of such and such Churches who possibly in their administrations came nearest to the institution but to the institution it self Which way of the two shall we take for our satisfaction that which Mr. A. prescribes and follows or that which the Scripture cited by him leads us unto If he would have us to follow the former we have no authority or rule of Scripture from him if at all so to do if the latter then he counsels us against his own practise and prevaricates with his cause and with the foundation on which he builds his first argument viz. matter of fact as himself calls it p. 2. And indeed it is the foundation of all the rest of his arguments and of the arguments of all of his way upon the subject in hand Nor do we deny matter of fact to be a foundation in its kind but in what cases and how far we own and reverence it in such a relation may be shewed in due time Sect. 8. But 2. His more probable meaning and intent is though his words fall short that both together practise and institution are the best way or means whereby to receive satisfaction in the Questiâ—n before us If so then is it but reasonable to desire of him either 1. To produce or shew unto us an expresse institution for Baptism this probably would soon comprimise the difference between us Or else 2. To prove substantially for as the saying is old Colts are not to be taken with chaffe nor considering Christians to be satisfied with light or loose conjectures that an usage or practise though immediately following an institution yea and this with good correspondency and conformity to the institution is notwithstanding commensurable to the whole councel and intent of God in the institution or holds forth and expresseth adequately and compleatly all that which the institution comprehendeth Nay the certain truth is that not onely no practication of an institution though with never so good conformity hereunto but that not the letter it self or Grammatical sence of the words of an institution do express hold forth or comprehend the whole mind or counsel of God in any institution whatsoever For God himself hath authorized the law of nature and humane accommodation to Umpire in the practise or administration of all institutions and to over-rule the letter of them a See this more lâ—rgely opened and proved Water-dipping c. p. 5 6 7 c. in these and such like sayings I will have mercy and not sacrifice b Mat. 9. 13 12. 7. So again The Sabboth was made for man and not man for the Sabboth c Mar. 2. 27. Again Which of you shall have an Asse or an Oxe fallen into a pit and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabboth day d Luke 14. 5 See also Josh 5. 5 7. 1 Sam. 21. 6. Mat. 12. 3 4. Luke 13. 15. Mat. 5. 23 24. with some others This heing so how far is Mr. A. out of the way in his Doctrine towards the close of his discourse where neither I nor he can truly say for an institutions sake but for a disputable circumstance or punctillo's sake about the administration nay about the subject onely of the administration of an institution he not onely teacheth a lawfullnesse but importunely urgeth and presseth a necessity upon men to abandon Churches as unclean so to break that faith which they had formerly given unto Christ and unto his Saints touching the performance of all Christian services of love for the edification comfort and well-being of those Churches which they thus abandon and separate from having formerly been members of them But to make disputable and uncertain notions grounds of forsaking or omitting evident and undisputable duties what is it but to make the night an overseer of the day But this by the way Sect. 9. To this I cannot but adde one thing more upon the same account Mr. A knows very well that his Brethren from whom he dissents in the present controversie deny that there is any institution at all of Baptism upon record either in the New Testament or the old yet takes no notice at all of it And though it be matter of so great consequence to the businesse in hand though he had so
this to prove that therefore his intent was to set forth the power and great success of the Gospel in these words they were baptizâ—d men and women considering as hath been lately observed and proved viz. § 35 and 36. that in this verse he speaks of the beleeving of men and women as well as of their being baptized and that if there be any thing intended here to set forth the power and great successe of the Gospel it is projected rather by the mention of their beleeving Philip preaching the things of God and the name of Jesus Christ then by the mention of their baptism in as much as the Evangelist having frequent occasion elsewhere in this book to report the great successe of the Gospel still upon this account mentioneth onely the faith of those who were converted by it and not their baptism Besides Mr. A's supposal the ground of this vein of his discourse viz. that Luke speaks of the same generality of the people ver 12. of which he had spoken ver 10 11 where it was thus expressed To whom they all gave heed from the least to the greatest is not so authentique or clear For it is hardly credible that amongst the great numbers of the inhabitants of such a City as Samaria there should not be found so much as one unbeleever left upon the preaching of one Sermon onely Certain I am that there can be no instance produced from the Scripture of like nature or import Nor is it said v. 12. either that they beleeved Philip or were baptized from the greatest to the least Or if by this expression Mr. A. understandeth simply and absolutely the generality of the inhabitants of Samaria doth it not follow from his said supposition that as well children as men and women were here baptized unlesse he will either understand this expression from the least unto the greatest exclusively or else say that children are not to be numbred either amongst the least or the greatest nor yet amongst those that are between both But for a close of the point now in hand to give Mr. A. a brief account of his men and women with whom he hath had so much to do to so little purpose for his cause the reason why the Evangelist Luke having in the beginning of the verse mentioned the beleeving of the Samaritans without distinguishing the different sexes of those who beleeved in the latter part of the verse speaking of their baptizing distinguishing them into their respective sexes of men and women is to shew that though under the law the one sex onely that of men was capable of and admitted unto circumcision which was then the initiating Ordinance answering in that respect as in several others Baptism the successor of it under the Gospel yet now since the comming and suffering of Jesus Christ in the flesh both sexes as well women as men were made capable by God of being baptized This I beleeve is all the mystery that an intelligent Reader will find in the clause so much courted by Mr. A. to be friend him in his cause they were baptized hoth men and women Sect. 40. His third proof for his conceit of no Infant baptized in Mr. A. p. 6 7 Christs or the Apostles daies borrowed from Mar. 10. 13 14 15 16. wherein some are said to have brought young children to Christ p. 6 7. hath been already not onely answered but clearly argued and proved to make against him I presume a considering Reader will be of the same mind upon an attentive re-perusal of the 25th Section I shal here adde that the judgement and conscience of that learned and worthy Martyr Mr. John Philpot were so full of conviction and satisfaction touching the pregnant validity of this passage for Infant-baptism that in that Epistle of his formerly mentioned once and again upon the mention and recital of this clause Let the babes so he reads it come unto me he breaks forth with an holy indignation into this demand why then do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandement of the Lâ—rd For what do they now a daies else that bring their children to Baptism then that they did in times past which brought their children to the Lord and our Lord received them and putting his hands on them blessed them c. And if Christ judged little children capable subjects of imposition of handâ— which according to some of the most Seraphical Doctors themselves of the faith of Anabaptism is an Ordinance subsequent unto Baptism and not to be administred before it it roundly follows that these children brought to Christ had been baptized But either for Mr. F. the Mr. or for Mr. A. the Disciple to put us to prove by whom they were baptized is such a yoke as themselves are not able to bear no not in such cases where the demand of proof in that kind is much more reasonable For if we in arguing the controversie whether there can be no true Church of Christ and with which communion is lawfull without their baptism by dipping should put them upon proof by whom all and every the members of the 7 Churches of Asia were thus baptized or by whom those Christians mentioned Acts 5. 14. Acts 4. 4. and in many other places were after that manner baptized would they not cry out against such our demands as importune captious and unreasonable That Mr. Fisher Baby-Baptism p. 141. evasion of Mr. Fishers viz. that the imposition of hands here recorded to have been administred by Christ unto the children brought to him was another kind of imposition viz. that which was frequently used in order to cures or healings not that which pre-supposed baptism is magisterial enough as seventy times seven assertions more in the same book with it are but altogether proof-lesse The contrary hereunto is little lesse then clearly demonstrable upon these grounds 1. There is no intimation in the context that any of these children much lesse all of them were either sick or diseased Now there can I beleeve no instance be produced where any young or old either came or were brought to Christ to obtain any cure or healing from him whose infirmity or disease was not mentioned and named 2. Whereas all the miraculous cures wrought by Christ are either particularly as when he wrought but onely one or some few in the same place or else in the general as when he wrought many in places neer adjoyning recorded here is not the least or lightest mention in one kind or other of any cure wrought upon these children by him 3. Had the children been any waies sick or diseased it is at no hand credible that the Disciples would have rebuked those that brought them it would have argued want of common civility yea of humanity it self to have done it 4. The reason given by Christ unto his Disciples and in them unto others why they should rather countenance and further then restrain or hinder the accesse of little
then all those who were not baptized by John although afterwards baptized by Christ or his Disciples must be supposed to have perished eternally But certain it is that all those who rejected that counsel of God and continued in this rejection which the Priests and Elders are here said to have rejected against themselves especially having like means with them to imbrace it did perish eternally Therefore nothing can be more plain then that they sit down quite besides the mind of the Holy Ghost in this text of Scripture who conceive the counsel of God here mentioned to respect Johns baptism or any mans being baptized by him Sect. 58. Besides the present unbeleef and wicked frame of heart of the Preists and Elders considered they did not so much as sin in not coming to John to be baptized as Turks and infidels during their infidelity do not sin in not offering themselves either to Baptism or to the Lords Table among Christians albeit it is true that they sin in neglecting to put themselves into a regular capacity of offering themselves both to the one and the other Therefore certainly it was not the counsel of God that the Priests and Elders under that irregularity of heart which they had at present contracted should have heen baptized by John inasmuch as this had been a manifest prophanation in them of this great Ordinance although I do not conceive that John had sinned in baptizing them in case they had desired it of him Nor is it any part of the counsel of God that men should sin or act any thing to their own condemnation The result of the late premises is that the sin of the Priests and Elders in rejecting the counsel of God so termed in the words before us against themselves did not consist in their not being baptized by John but in rejecting their Messiah the Lord Christ sent unto them and that their refusal of being baptized by John having been invited and exhorted unto Faith and Repentance by his ministry was a sign or evidence of this their rejection Nor doth it follow that in case their refusing Baptism at the hand of John plainly argued their unbeleef therefore the accepting of baptism from him did in like manner argue the Faith and Repentance of all those who accepted it A remotione unius contrarij ad positionâ—m alterius non valet argumentum A continual blaspheming of the name of God demonstratively argueth a man to be desperately wicked and prophane but the forbearance of such blasphemies doth not prove a man to be truly pious or religious The sin of covetousnesse proveth a man or woman to be in the gall of bitternesse and band of iniquity but freedome from this sin doth not argue a man to be in a state of Grace or in favour with God Many like instances might be given We have done at last with Mr. A's first end of Baptism which he makes to be the manifestation of Christ unto the world and have proved 1. That this is no end of Baptism And 2. That granting it to be an end yet it is in all respects as effectually promoted as in some more by Infant-Baptism as by the Baptism of men-beleevers Sect. 59. He proceeds and tells us pag. 15. of another end or use of Baptism which he terms the serving the design of God touching the great businesse of Repentance for the remission of sins And having instructed us by the way that as he conceives there are several considerations in respect of which or some of which Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for the redemption of sins he undertakes the asserting of this conclusion that all these considerations are better answered in that said administration of Baptism which is made to men and women Beleevers then in that which is made to infants By the way whereas he here speaks somewhat masculinely though in a female phrase viz. that as he conceives there ARE several considerations in respâ—ct of which c. when he comes to deliver out these Considerations in particular he bewraies more effeminatenesse and delivers none of them positively but under the protection of this particle If If saith he If If and If and If. 1. He begins If it shall be conceived that it is therefore called the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins because such who are at any time duly baptized do take up the Ordinance out of a Principle of Repentance upon which they look for remission of sins according to the promise of God in that behalf which if it be the saying contains a metonymie of the cause for the effect a Where or in what word or phrase of the saying he speakes of his metonymie of the cause for the effect resideth verily I understand not a thing not unusuall in Scripture yet this denomination and use of it is better serv'd in Mens baptism then in Childrens because Children have no such principle to act in them as Repentance is c. I have much adoe to make any competent sence of this period but as farre as I apprehend I answer Sect. 60. 1. Delivering himself onely thus IF it shall be conceived that therefore it is called c. doth he not encourage and teach others to doubt with himself whether Baptism be called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins in any such consideration as here he suggesteth Or himself onely being in suspence about the truth of the notion why doth he build castles in the aire or offer sacrifice to an unknown god undertaking to assigne us a reason of that which for ought he knoweth yea or pretendeth to know may be of the house and lineage of that which is not He acteth this part of vanity no fewer then five times over within the compasse of two pages viz. p. 15. 16. 2. That which he sacrificeth to his unknown God is a corrupt thing For they who are duly baptized do not alwaies take up that ordinance out of a principle of repentance Simon the Sorcerer being baptized by Philip was I suppose in Mr. A's judgement duly baptized yet it appears by his story that he took not up this Ordinance out of a principle of Repentance Or if Simon the Sorcerer were not duly baptized yet certainly the Lord Christ was But did he take up the Ordinance of Baptism out of a Principle of Repentance And if none be to be looked upon as duly baptized but only those who take up the Ordinance out of a Principle of Repentance both He and we have cause in abundance to demur and doubt whether the far greater part of those in this nation who have lately been dipped have been duly baptized or no Yea Mr. A. himself according to such a principle cannot upon any certainty of knowledge affirm any person to have been been duly baptized unlesse him haply self Nor indeed doth the regular and due administration of Baptism depend upon any principle of Repentance in the person to
sins which is attainable by Faith in the bloud of Christ may be obtained without Baptism 3. If Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins and sanctification of the spirit then hath God suspended both the justification and sanctification of men and consequently their eternall Salvation upon a ceremonie or carnall Ordinance as Baptism by some of the most learned of Mr. A's partie as we formerly heard is acknowledged to be as well or as much as he hath done upon Faith or Repentance themselves and thus men shall be perfected by the flesh as the Apostle speaketh Yea 4. If a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins or in Sanctification of the Spirit then is a Declaration hereof by Baptism or by submitting to an outward and fleshly ceremonie more accepted with God then a Declaration made by mortification innocencie holinesse of conversation c. The reason of this consequence is plain viz. because a Declaration of a mans Repentance by these or any of them is not required by God nor yet accepted by him upon any such account as to interesse him in remission of sins or to translate him from an estate of sin and death into a state of justification no nor yet to intitle him to the sanctification of the Spirit For he that is not a justified person before any Declaration be made by him of his repentance by such fruits or expressions of it as these will never be justified afterwards Nor can any maÌ„ bring forth any such fruits of Repentance as these unless he be interessed in the sanctification of the Spirit before hand Therefore Baptism is not required on mans part nor yet a Declartion of his repentance by Baptism to interesse him either in Remission of sinâ— or sanctification of the Spirit Sect. 81. 5. If it were so then only children of wrath and persons not yet reconciled unto God should be the regular and lawfull subjects of Baptism For if Baptism be required on mans part to interesse them in Remission of sins all they who are yet unbaptized must needs be under the guilt of their sins and so liable to eternall condemnation for them And if the case be thus Faith and repentance are but dead works untill Baptism quickens them and raiseth them up from the dead 6. If Mr. A's Position now protested were Orthodox and sound John the Baptist was in his bloud I mean in the guilt and pollution of his sins when he entered upon the work and ministerie of baptizing with water yea and for ought appears to the contrary so lived and died and consequently perished eternally for it no where appears that ever he was baptized and if he were not baptized by the verdict of Mr. A's Doctrine he could have neither part nor fellowship in the blessed businesse of Remission of sinnes and so must perish 7. If both Repentance and the Declaration of it by Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins and Sanctification of the Spirit then according to Mr. A's judgement and notion about the truth and requisit terms of the administration of Baptism either all or far the greatest part of the antient Fathers of the Christian Church with the generalitie of Christians in their dayes all or far the greatest part of the worthy Martyrs both in latter and in former times all or far the greatest part of our late Protestant Divines whose zeal learning labour and faithfulnesse God was pleased to use about the Reformation and for the Restauration propagation of the truth of Christian Religion as Luther Calvin Musculus Bucer P. Martyr Zuinglius c. together with our own worthies Perkins Dod Hildersham Preston Sibs c. together with the generalitie of the people taught and instructed by them against all these I say we must write bitter things and conclude that whilst they liv'd they were in the gall of bitternesse and bands of iniquity and that they died and consequently perished in their sins For most certain it is that these were not baptized as Mr. A. and men of his judgement count and call Baptism and consequently could not make any Declaration of their repentance by Baptism And if so they must all to hell unlesse Mr. A's Doctrine be content to be sent thither in their stead Sect. 82. 8. If no person can make a Declaration of their Repentance by Baptism then cannot a Declaration in this kind or that which M. A. calls a Declaration interesse any man in remission of sins The reason of the consequence in this Proposition is evident That which is not cannot act nor can any such thing or Act interest any man inâ—â—remission of sinnes which may be as well found in those whose sins are not remitted as in those whose are Now that persons who are baptized may be in the gall of bitternesse and bands of iniquitie and consequently not have their sins remitted their Baptism notwithstanding is apparent in the case of Simon Mâ—gus to whom soon after his baptizing Peter said Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter for thine heart is not right in the sight of God For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitternesse and bands of iniquity Act. 8. 21 23. Nor is the Baptism of a very great part of those who have been of late baptized and this as Mr. A. calls Baptism amongst us any Declaration of their repentance at least not of any such repentance which hath any thing to do with remission of sinnes their unworthy wayes and actions proclaiming them aloud to be persons void as well of the knowledge as fear of God 9. The Grandees themselves of Mr. A's partie yea and I presume himself also with them beleeve and hold that amongst the Heathen unto whom the Name of Jesus Christ was never brought nor the Gospel ever preached orally or by the mouths of men and consequently who were never Baptized there are or may be found persons interessed in Remission of sins If so with what truth can Mr. A. affirm yea rather with what face can he avouch with a most unchristiaÌ„ censure of all those who shall denie it that both Repentance and a Declaration of it by Baptism are required on mans part to interesse him in Remission of sins Sect. 83. 10. In case as well a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism as repentance it self be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins would the Apostle Paul have thanked God he baptized none of the Corinthians but Crispus and Gaius i. that he interessed none of them in remission of sins but these 1 Cor. 1. 14 Or should he have had cause so farre to underrate the office and worth of baptizing beneath the preaching of the Gospell as to say that Christ sent him not to Baptize but to preach the Gospel i. not to do all that which might interesse men compleatly in remission of sins
If the relation of Son-ship unto God and not Faith or repentance be the originall or first ground or qualification in persons which render them capable of Baptism then may Infants lawfully be Baptized But this relation and not Faith or Repentance is the originall or first ground in persons qualifying them for Baptism Ergo. Had M. A. propounded the Argument in these terms he had had no colour at all or a very faint colour only for his latter by the way For though it be supposed that all men whether Christian or Pagan have or rather have had that sin of which they were guilty in Adam remitted unto them for it may be some doubt whether this guilt after remission returneth not again with the guilt of actuall sinning though this be a point that I shall never much controvert and in that respect sometimes were or let it be at present are alike partakers in the love of God with Infants yet doth it not follow from hence that therefore they are equall with them in the relation or priviledge of Son-ship or in that love of God which accompanieth this relation He that committeth sin saith John is of the Divell a Ioh. 3. â— See also ver 9 10. And the reason why Infants are the Children or Sons of God is not only or simply because they have the sin whereof they were guilty in AdaÌ„ remitted unto them but because in conjunction with this they are free from sinning against the Covenant of Grace and so from cutting themselves off from that salvation which is by Christ Whereas men and women who have actually sinned and not repented and belelieved remain in the gall of bitternesse and bands of iniquity and are children of Sathan not of God This for answer to Mr. A's latter by the way being a purchase made by him with the one half of the wages of that disingenuitie which he practised in concealing the true Argument of his Adversaries and substituting in the place thereof a Changeling of his own Concerning his former by-the-way I answer Sect. 170. 1. If his meaning be that the one Argument of his Adversaries that against which he is now buckling on his armour contradicts that other argument of theirs which he mentioneth as one part of a contradiction contradicteth the other he hath made a very bad bargain for his cause by the way For it is a generall rule without any exception that altera pars contradictionis semper est vera one part of every contradiction is alwayes true Now if either of those Arguments which he saith contradict the one the other be true his Doctrine of Anti-paedobaptism must needs be false because they are both contradictions to it For 1. if it be true that the children of Beleevers and these only ought to be baptized then must it needs be false that no children at all ought to be baptized Or 2. if it be true that all children are capable of Baptism or ought to be baptized then it is much more apparantly false that no children ought to be baptized Therefore I do not believe that when Mr. A. challengeth the one Argument of his Adversaries to contradict the other he would be understood to speak of a contradiction strictly and properly so called but only of a coÌ„tradictioÌ„ by way of contrarietie as Logicians speak in which kind both parts of the contradiction may possibly be false but never true Therefore 2. I answer further that if he judgeth it any matter of prejudice to the cause of Infant-baptism that some of those who maintain it are in some things relating to it differently-minded amongst themselves herein also he consulteth disrepute to his own cause For it is well known that the Peter and the Paul the two great Apostles of Mr. A's Re-baptismall Faith I mean Mr. J. Tombs and Mr. S. Fisher resist one the other in their respective Doctrines about the the state and condition of children God-ward Yea the former professeth in effect that if he were of the judgment of the latter about the said point he would give hostages to his Paedobaptismall Adversaries and baptize children with them His words in his exercitation about Infant-baptims p. 24. are these Nor do I doubt but that the Elect Infants dying in their infancie are sanctified yea if it should be made known to us that they are sanctified I should not doubt that they are to be baptized remembring the saying of Peter Can any man forbid water that these should baptized who have received the holy Ghost as wel as we Not long before viz. pag. 19. of the same Exercitation he had delivered his sence to the same purpose in these words I answer the major Proposition is true if it be understood of thâ—se whose is the kingdom of Heaven when it appears that the kingdom of Heaven belongs to them Now the mâ—jor Proposition which here he grants to be true upon the terms specified was this They may be baptized whose is the kingdom of heaven Now Mr. Fishers judgement declared over and over is that unto children yea unto all children doth belong the kingdom of Heaven I believe saith he all Infants as well as some dying Infants and before they have deserved exemption and damnation by actuall rebellion to have according to the generall declaration of the Scriptâ—re right of entrance into the kingdom of Heaven Baby-baptism p. 301. with much more of the same notion in that which followeth and elsewhere Nor do these two Grandees only digladiate between themselves about a businesse of such a main import and so neerly relating unto the Question about Infant-Baptism as Mr. Tombs in the passages now cited plainly enough supposeth but the Churches themselves of the Ana-baptismall perswasion are accordingly divided one from another thorowout the Land one crying out I am of Paul another I am of Cephas some of them siding with Mr. Tombs in his judgement others imbarqueing with Mr. Fisher in his Nor are these Shepherds and flocks scattered from one another in their judgements about the point mentioned only they are at variance amongst themselves about many others Yea notice hath been taken somewhere in the premises that Mr. A. himself contradicts Mr. Fisher himself in his sence about the sealing nature and propertie of Baptism So that if he looks upon contradicting assertions amongst those who are joyned in the defence of the same cause as an argument of the badnesse of their cause as he seems in his first by the way to do certainly his own cause must needs be very bad whose Assertours have no communion in judgment about many things But Sect. 171. 3. And lastly what if Mr. A. be quite mistaken in his supposall that the one Argument he speaks of contradicts the other then sure this by-the-way will be found out of the way aswell as the other He that affirms on the one hand that all children are capable of Baptism and he who on the other hand affirms that the children only of
be cleerly made known unto men Otherwise as the Apostle argueth in a like case If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the Battel In like manner if the Tenor of an Institution be imperfect and some things only appertaining to it be expressed and other things of a like relation suppressed or concealed how shall men either prepare themselves to a due observation of this Institution or know at any time whether it be duly administred observed or received or no Consectary If an Ordinance or Institution may be duly and regularly administred without any such ingredient whether of Ceremony or Morality which God himself hath not prescribed or injoyned in the Tenor of the Institution nor otherwise then may the Ordinance of Baptism be duly and regularly administred and received without a Total submersion of the body of the person baptized inasmuch as this is no where expresly prescribed or injoyned by God CONSIDERATION XXI JN what circumstance or modality soever in or about the Administration of an Ordinance not prescribed by God himself any person shall place Religion or think that in the observation thereof he performs an act of worship unto God he is in this point Superstitious and a will-worshipper Proof To evidence the truth of this Consideration the descrip-of Superstition and will-worship is sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive superstitio as Cameron well describeth it a Camer de Eccles est cultus Dei sed qualem sibi praescribit ingenium humanum i. e. Superstition is a worshiping of God but such a worshiping of him as the wit or wisdom of men prescribeth unto it self Another defineth it to be Cultus seu modus câ—lendi Deum arbitrio humano sine Dei praecepto susceptus b Rivet in Exod. 20. a worship or manner of worshiping God according to the will and pleasure of men taken up without any precept of God If this be the nature of Superstition or will-worship to worship God or rather to conceit that a man doth worship God by any ceremony gesture or action which himself hath not prescribed it is a plain case that whosoever placeth religion in any ceremony circumstance or modality in the observation of any divine Ordinance which God hath not enjoyned is in this behalf a son of Superstition and a will-worshipper Consectarie If they who think they do God service and truly worship him by the observation of any rite circumstance or action in the administration or reception of an Ordinance which God himself hath not prescribed be upon this account will-worshipers and Superstitious it roundly follows that they who administer Baptism by dipping all-over and think that by this mode of that Administration they worship God are in the said condemnation of will-worship and superstition inasmuch as God hath no where in his Word prescribed this mode of the Administration From the same ground and principle it likewise followeth that they who having been once baptized as suppose in their Infancy shall conceit they honour or worship God aright by a second or after Baptism are children of the same error inasmuch as God hath no where prescribed a Baptism upon Baptism nor yet declared Baptism received in Infancy to be null CONSIDERATION XXII SAcramental ingagements the more early imposed are so much the more improveable and the more binding also Proof This Consideration also is hereafter asserted and the truth of it cleered § 161. 163. and elsewhere in the second part of this discourse Doubtless Circumcision under the Law was never the less but rather the more both improveable by and binding unto the Jews because received by them in Infancy Otherwise as hath been formerly argued there is little question but God would have imposed it not upon Infancy but upon maturity of years nor is it to be beleeved that He that hath made this order for men as we lately heard Let all things be done unto edifying would impose a service or action upon men upon such terms according to which it should either not not be edifying at all or less edifying Consectary If Sacramental Ingagements be both so much the more binding upon those who are under them and likewise so much the more improveable by them by how much the sooner they are imposed then must Infant-Baptisme needs be more effectual for all baptismal ends and purposes then after Baptism The Consequence is apparent CONSIDERATION XXIII ADult Baptisme standingly administred in constituted Churches and amongst Believers cannot lightly but prove a root of bitternesse and occasion perpetual quarrels contests and emulations amongst them Proof The reason hereof is because the want of a positive and certain rule whereby to adjudge issue and determine such cases and questions which are frequently incident to any Society or Body of men must needs the ordinary temper and weaknesse of men considered ingender strife contention and discontents amongst them If a Church shall passe by the time of Infancy and not baptize the children of her Members under this age by what rule will they baptize them afterwards To say they are to be baptized when they shall believe and make known their faith to the Church by their lives or works and withall desire Baptism is to speak very inconsiderately and to prescribe a rule every whit as dark and questionable as the case it selfe that is to be measured and adjudged by it For who knoweth not that the members of a Church are commonly of different judgments apprehensions as about other matters so about nothing more then about the signes and properties of a true Faith So that when a person shall come to desire Baptism who it may be hath satisfied one part of the Church touching the soundnesse and sincerity of his Faith another part hereof will remain dissatisfied In this case here will be Ephraim against Manasseh and Manasseh against Ephraim and both indeed against Judah I mean the truth The judgements even of sober and able Christians for the most part are about nothing more divided nor in reason more like to be divided then about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or demonstrative effects of a sound Faith I confess it is an easie matter for Master Tombes or Master Fisher here to interpose their sence instead of a rule to decide such cases as that specified and to tell us Magisterially what they judge meet to be done but whether their Churches will agree about the sence and interpretation of what they shall prescribe for a rule in such cases or if they shall agree in this whether they will own and consent unto the sufficiency of this rule is very questionable Yea rather it is no question but that there will be a battail fought by yea's and nay's if not by more angry and fierce souldiers about it See this Consideration more amply propounded and fully vindicated by Master Baxter in his Discourse for infant-Infant-Baptism p. 130 131. where likewise he substantially proveth that the ordinary practise of
baptizing the children of Christians at age must needs run all into confusion Consectary If the practise of baptizing Christian 's children at age in constituted Churches be such a method or course of baptizing The third Head of Considerations which more immediately relate unto Infant-Baptism and argue the lawfulness of it yea and more then lawfulness ordinarily which is apt to fill these Churches with perpetual contentions and strife then is it not a Method allowed much less prescribed by Christ CONSIDERATION XXIV THe ordinary practise of baptizing Infants in the Church is much more edifying both to the Church and to the persons also baptized when come to years of discretion then the baptizing of men and women only Proofs This Consideration as to point of truth is demonstratively argued and asserted more then once in the latter part of this discourse and so needs no traverse here The Reader is desired for his satisfaction in this to peruse Sect. 56. 73. 159. 160. of that part Consectary If Infant-Baptism contributes more towards the edification both of the Body of the Church and of the persons themselves also baptized then the baptizing of men and women only then is it the unquestionable Will of God that Infant-Baptism should be practised in the Churches of Christ in as much as his order appointment is very express in this Let all things be done to edification 1 Cor. 14. 26. And again Seek that ye may excel to the edification of the Church 1 Cor. 14. 12. of which Scriptures in the second part of this Discourse Sect. 159. 48. CONSIDERATION XXV CHildren were admitted unto Baptism in the days of Christ and of the Apostles Proof For proof of this the Reader is only desired diligently to peruse the 22 23. and so the following Sections of the latter part of this discourse to the end of the 32 Section as also the 40. 132. 157. 158. Sections with several other passages hereof Consectary If Children were admitted unto Baptism in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles then can there no sufficient reason be given why water should be denied unto them in these dayes that they should not be baptized CONSIDERATION XXVI AS Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith under the Law so is Baptism a Seal of the same righteousness under the Gospel Proof That Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness mentioned under the Law and this simply and indefinitely and not with any appropriation unto Abraham or the righteousnesse of his faith onely is demonstratively proved in the latter part of this Treatise Sect. 61 62 63. c. That Baptism is a Seal of the same righteousnesse under the Gospel cannot reasonably be denied and is granted by the more considering persons of the adverse party The Author of the Treatise entituled Of Baptism having said pag. 4. That the righteousness which Abraham had by Faith the acceptation he had was sealed up to him by the signe of Circumcision c. immediately subjoyneth Now what Abraham had by Circumcision that the Saints have by Baptism for so the Apostle intimates in Col. 2. 11. 12. Again pag. 18. speaking of Baptism We shall find saith he beating it out as far as the Scripture gives light that as it seals and confirms our union with him so it also seals and confirms to us the most desirable thing in the world which is the pardon of all our sins Now we know that the remission or pardon of sin and the righteousnesse of faith are Termini convertibiles sive aequivalentes words importing one and the same thing And yet again the same Authour and Book pag. 20. Now for this God hath formed an Ordinance on purpose to confirm and ratifie unto us the remission of sins and this is baptism therefore be not amazed but repent and be baptized The same Author delivereth the same Doctrine in the same discourse ten times over yea Master W. A. himself in his Treatise stiled some baptismal Abuses c. as the Reader will find in the latter part of this Treatise is not tender of breaking with his Tutour Mr. Fisher in this point although in the mean time he contradicts himself as well as his Teacher herein For if Baptism be a Seal of remission of sins it cannot be required on mans part for the obtaining of remission of sins it is not the property of a Seal to procure unlesse it be the ratification and confirmation of what is already procured or done And indeed Mr. Fishers notion which alloweth Baptism to be a Signe but denieth it to be a Seal is upon the matter contradictions to it self For certainly God signifieth nothing but what hath reality and truth of being If so then by what means soever he signifieth a thing he must needs seal ratifie and confirm the being of it But for the truth of the Consideration before us were it not granted by our adversaries in which respect it needeth no proof it might be clearly argued and evinced from that known Scripture Discription of Baptism wherein it is stiled The Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins Consectary If Circumcision under the Law was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith or of the remission of sins and Baptism under the Gospel be a seal likewise of the same righteousness then must children under the Gospel needs be as capable subjects of the latter seal I mean Baptism as they were of the former Circumcision under the Law CONSIDERATION XXVII JT was a gracious priviledge vouchsafed by God unto children under the Law to be admitted members of that Church-body which was most highly favoured and respected by him and amongst whom besides many other most great and pretious promises made unto them he promised to dwell for ever Proof Neither should we need to levy any proof of this Consideration if we had to do only with reasonable and considering men For if it were not a gracious priviledge unto children to be admitted members of such a body as that described then was the Ordinance of God enjoyning men the Circumcising of their children by which they became formal and compleat members of this Body either a kind of Idol Ordinance which did neither good nor evil to those who received and enjoyed it or else such an Ordinance wherein or whereby God intended evil unto them But as well the one as the other of those conceits are the abhoring of every Christian and considering Soul Ergo If it be said that Câ—rcumcision might benefit children in some other way though not by immembring them into the Iewish Church I Answer 1. It is not easie to conceive in what other way it should benefit them 2. What way soever may be thought upon wherein it should profit them otherwise Baptism must needs be conceived to be as profitable to them in the same 3. and lastly it is very unreasonable and importune and not worthy a sober man to affirm or think that children had no priviledge or