were not Disciples whom they would have Circumcised for 't is said They taught the Brethren except they were Circumcised c. they could not be saved But you cannot imagine that they taught Infants If Acts 15. be diligently read it will expound it self for vers 19. the Disciples are said to be such as from among the Gentiles were turned to God And all that are called Disciples vers 10. are called Brethren and as such they are written unto by the Assembly vers 23. And the Epistle is said to be read to all the Multitude meaning of the Disciples who thereupon are said to rejoice for the Consolation Sure these were no Infants 2. But you say They are Disciples in that tho Man cannot teach them yet God can and may Well I thank you for your Ingenuity It is true as you say Man cannot teach or make Infants Disciples and then to be sure they are not intended by our Saviour to be made Disciples by what he says in your Text Mat. 28. 19. For all that are to be made Disciples by that Commission are to be made such by Men So that you are evidently besides your Text in all that you say to this Argument and you are beside your own Exposition of your Text also which I will here set down as you give it pag. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Going to Disciple all Nations instruct them in the Principles of my Religion and then being Disciples baptize them So that there is a Discipleship pre-existent to Baptism and indeed the premising the Word DISCIPLE implies none to be capable of Baptism who are not Disciples of Christ and Members of his Church These are your Words 'T is true you say Infants will be proved to be Disciples But surely not by saying as you do here that God can make them Disciples or teach them For it is no good arguing from what God can do to say he has done it or will do it For God can of the Stones in the Street raise up Children unto Abraham but I may not therefore say the Stones in the Srreet are the Children of Abraham You say indeed that God hath given several instances of his teaching several from the Womb but you can neither name the Persons nor shew us what he taught them however if you could such miraculous Operations are not given for general Rules God once taught a dumb Ass to speak and to reprove a Prophet but it would be bad arguing from this instance that Asses are Disciples And yet this is a clearer instance of God's teaching the Ass than you can give of his teaching any Infant 3. But seeing you put Infants Discipleship upon the account of God's teaching them you must have some competent ground to believe that he has miraculously taught them before you baptize them or else you destroy your Exposition of the Text which avers That there is a Discipleship pre-existent to Baptism And when you shall shew me the Infant whom God hath taught or made a Disciple I believe I shall not oppose your Baptizing that Infant and this is as much as you can desire 4. But you say further That God hath promised to teach Children What Sir in their Infancy Let us see your Proofs Isa 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the Peace of thy Children John 6. 45. It is written in the Prophets and they shall be all taught of God Every Man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me Certainly had you read those Texts with their Coherence and considered that our Saviour himself in the latter expounds the former you would never have imagined that God here promises to teach any Infants much less all the Infants in the Christian Nations for it is very apparent they that are taught according to these Scriptures have heard and learned of the Father so as to come to Christ And indeed the meaning is that God speaking to us by his Son who is very God 1 John 5. had now made good that gracious Promise Isa 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the Lord. But you have another Text Acts 10. 47. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy-Ghost as well as we Now he that reads this place will easily see that the Persons here spoken of were only such as were assembled to hear Peter in whatsoever they should be commanded of God and that the Holy-Ghost fell on all that heard the Word Which place therefore can with no shew of Reason be brought to prove that Infants are taught of God However when you shall find an Infant that has received the Holy-Ghost as well as the Apostles then for my part I shall not forbid Water that you should baptize him provided you first be baptized your self 5. You will have Infants to be Disciples because Christ you say commands the receiving of them in his Name and you quote Luke 18. 16 17. Mat. 19. 13. Luke 9. 47. I have carefully read all these places but can find no Command to receive Infants in the Name of Christ much less to receive them by Baptism It is true Christ called a little Child unto him and said Whosoever shall receive this Child in my Name receiveth me Now this Child was able to know what Christ said and is no fit Instance to prove an Infant of eight days old to be a Disciple of Christ neither does this Text call this Child a Disciple but the Disciples are distinguished from it And yet it and so any little Child may be a good Precedent even to Disciples to learn Humility and Simplicity by and so may a Lamb or a Dove serve to teach us to be humble and harmless yet they are not therefore Disciples Neither can the receiving this Child or any other in like case be understood of receiving them by Baptism for then you may read the place thus Whosoever baytizeth a Child in my Name baptizeth me but this is both false and absurd And besides he that is baptized may be rather said to receive Christ than he that baptizeth in that Action Or would you make our Saviour to say He that baptizeth an Infant in my Name receiveth me If so I would know by what Authority you take the word receiveth for baptizing in the first place and in the second for something else Surely if to baptize an Infant in the Name of Christ be a receiving of Christ it 's an easy thing to receive Christ especially for the Priest who pretends to baptize Infants daily But sure it is as much the Duty of other Christians to receive Children in the Name of Christ as the Priests for the Word is Whosoever shall receive this Child in my Name and therefore it cannot be meant of baptizing them and then these Scriptures prove not your Argument at all 6. You urge that Infants are Members of Earthly Kingdoms and I grant
of a fruitful Land and external Peace and Glory as a Nation whilst they did truly walk according to the Laws of God of which Advantages their Children were partakers as well as others But on the other side the Christian Church by how much she is more faithful by so much the more is she subject to Persecution As may be seen in the differing estate of the faithful Church at Smyrna Rev. 2. 8 9. and the unfaithful Church at Laodicea Rev. 3. 17. Or if we rerespect Rites and Ceremonies then 't is certain even in the Judgment of all Christians the Jews had more Ceremonies belonging to their Infants than belongs to Christian Infants For besides the Rite of Circumcision there was an Offering to be offered for them and they were to be presented in the Temple and to partake of the Passover Exod. 12. 47 48. and therefore Mr. Taylor does ill to deny it pag. 92. Whereas the Poedobaptists only contend for the external Rite of Baptism to belong to their Infants But if by the Word Privileges in the Argument be meant some higher thing than external Ceremonies then the Minor is true For as God was gracious to Infants in the Jewish Nation as to the Business of Salvation So is he such to the Infants of every Christian Nation in the World But if now you be displeased because I do not prefer or at least equalize Christians Infants with Jewish Infants in respect of external Ceremonies Then let me freely tell you that I do believe the Privileges of Christians is greater than the Jews even in this that God accepts our Infants to his Grace and to Glory without imposing the Burthen of any Ceremony at all upon them For seeing he has by the Gospel taken away that bloody Ceremony of Circumcision and by our Lord Christ declared Infants to have right to the Kingdom of Heaven without imposing any Ceremony upon them instead of Circumcision I say herein our Privileges are greater than the Jews and in this Sense I confirm your Minor But then I deny the Consequence of your Major For you may plainly see that our Christian Privileges when compared with the Jews stand not in having external Ceremonies but rather in being freed from them Even as it cannot be doubted but that the Children of Seth Henoch and Noah c. had as great Privileges as the Jews and yet it is certain and plainly confessed by Augustine that they had no Ceremony or sign of Regeneration belonging to them that we read of Aug. de Civ Dei lib. 15. cap. 16. Thus your chief Fort being demolished what Reasons you bring to defend it signifie nothing however we shall meet with them in the following Arguments Mr. Taylor 's Argument 2. Those who were Circumcised under the Law may be baptized under the Gospel But Children were Circumcised under the Law Therefore they may be baptized under the Gospel ANSWER 1. I answer to the Major If by Those you mean all those that were Circumcised under the Law Then the Major is not true For first all Male-Servants which were bought with Money must needs be Circumcised they might not else dwell in the Family Gen. 17. 12 13 14. Exod. 12. 44 48 49. But no such imposition is laid upon Families under the Gospel 1 Cor. 7. 2. If by Those you mean Infants then I deny your Major For tho Infants were Circumcised under the Law it does not follow that Infants may be Baptized under the Gospel Nor do your Arguments brought to make it good prove it at all For 1. Tho Baptism succeeds Circumcision as the Sacrament of initiation yet it does not follow that the same Persons or Persons no otherwise qualified than the Infants of the Jews or Servants bought with Money are to be admitted to Baptism because Circumcision belonged to the natural Seed of Abraham as such whether in the Covenant or no as in the case of Ishmael and to his Servants as such But Baptism being the Sacrament or washing of Regeneration belongs to those who are born from above as such Hence 't is said Gal. 3. 28. We are Abraham's Seed because we are Christ's so as to have crucified the Flesh with the Affections and Lusts Gal. 4. 24. And not that they are Christ's because they are Abraham's Seed This vast difference therefore between the Communicants of the Church Jewish and the Church Christian shews a great difference between the carnal Ordinances of the Law and the spiritual Ordinances of the Gospel so that it is no good arguing from Infants Right to the one to their Right to the other 2. You say our Children are as capable of being Baptized as the Jews were of being Circumcised But this is denied for the Jews had a Command to Circumcise Infants and that made them capable of that Ceremony but without a Command none were capable of it For some Infants might be as capable of Circumcision in respect of Strength on the seventh Day as others on the eighth Day but the Command not empowering any to circumcise till the eighth Day made all Children that died before the eighth Day uncapable of Circumcision Again you will not say that any Man as such only is capable of Baptism because you grant they must first be Disciples and as such baptized Nor will you say that all Infants as such only may be baptized because you do not think God has required the Infants of the Turks to be baptized So then unless you can shew that God has required our Infants to be baptized they have no capacity for it We conclude then whatever may be urged as a Capacity for Baptism yet without a Command from God to baptize our Infants is meer Will-Worship and Presumption 3. You say That the Precept of receiving Parent and Child into Covenant stands unrepealed to this day But if by receiving into Covenant you mean a receiving to the Duties of the Covenant what you say is not true for the Covenant of Circumcision is repealed Gal. 5. 2. Behold I Paul say unto you If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And there was never any Covenant but the Covenant of Circumcision which obliged Parents to bring their Infants to the Ceremonies of Religion So then Infants are not under the Burthen of any Ceremonies of Religion at this day I marvel you should here say There is no Countermand of the ancient Jewish Practice of receiving Children to Circumcision Either the Printer has wrong'd you or else you hold the Jews are yet bound to circumcise their Infants 4. You argue from Christ's being proposed as Mediator of a better Covenant that therefore this great Privilege you mean bringing Infants to Ceremonies of Religion is not repealed But the Truth is far otherwise for the Covenant of Christ as Mediator is therefore better than the Covenant of the Law because he has taken these Ceremonies out of the way and accepts poor Infants without any other Ceremony instead of them yea
the Covenant is therefore better to Believers themselves in that they are obliged but to a very few Ceremonies whilst the Jews laboured under a burthensom Yoke of many Ceremonies And if your way of arguing were good it would prove that the Gospel is worse to Believers than the Law was to the adult Jews because they had abundance of Religious Privileges to wit Ceremonies and Believers have but a very few Now who would think that wise and good Men should thus grope at Noon-day 5. You quote Acts 2. 38 39. and say that this Text expresly avers your Conclusion But it is certain the Promise there is not of bringing Infants to any Ceremonies and so does not at all favour your Conclusion for the Promise being of the pouring out of the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost according to the Prophecy of Joel concerns not Infants in Infancy saith Dr. Jer. Taylor And as for the Precept in the Text to wit Repent and be baptized every one of you 't is as certain that concerns not Infants for Infants are just Persons which need no Repentance and consequently as little need the Baptism of Repentance I rather therefore adhere to Dr. Jer. Taylor than to Mr. Nath. Taylor in this Case and I find that Erasmus and Diodate do expound this Text as we do 6. Now Sir your great Strait seems to be this You think the Children of Heathens have as great Privileges as we allow to the Infants of Christians Let me answer freely I do believe that through the Grace of Christ their Infants dying such are in as sure a capacity for Salvation as our Infants And why should this offend that seeing Infants are equally concluded under Sin in the first Adam God should have equally Mercy upon them in the second Adam Nay does not Mr. Taylor himself tell us p. 4. That it 's dreadful to believe that all Infants which die unbaptized are damned And that any of them shall be damned he cannot prove seeing he says He cannot implead them of Sin in not being baptized being not capable of desiring it Well I thank him for this and shall requite him by granting Christians Infants are more happy in some gracious respects than the Infants of the Heathen being the Seed of many Prayers and piously devoted therein to Almighty God from the Womb and have the Advantage of an early Education in the Christian Religion that they may be as timely baptized as may be On the other side the Infants of the Heathens are perhaps devoted to Idols as the Jews did sometimes devote theirs to Moloch But yet as we do not think that God sent the Jews Infants to burn in Hell because their Parents burnt them to Moloch so neither ought we to think that he will punish the Infants of the Heathen with Devils because their Parents devoted them to Idols for as for poor Infants what have they done 7. You answer not our Objections by saying The Covenant of Grace Gen. 17. 10 13. is permanent to the Worlds end c. For tho this were true yet that the Ceremonies which there accompany that Covenant were to continue to the World's End and should pertain to Infants to the World's End you neither believe your self nor can any Man prove that any Ceremonies by Order from Christ should belong to Infants to the World's end seeing it is granted that Infant-Baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament And if I yield you your five Considerations following pag. 33. I do not see that you gain any thing as to the Point in question I therefore proceed 8. I think you mistake where you write that we say Those that had Right to Circumcision were a spiritual Seed for we know that the Carnal Seed had Right to it What therefore you would build upon this Mistake falls of it self But whereas you would infer that Baptism as well as Circumcision belongs to the carnal Seed it is certainly a great Error It is true some that are Hypocrites may come to Sacred Baptism but then they profess at least to be otherwise and are not admitted as Hypocrites nor as Men only as you seem to urge Numb 2 p. 34. but as they declare themselves Christians or spiritual And therefore it is said of the whole Church Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3. 26 27. And again Col. 2. Ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Therefore Rom. 6. we are buried with him in Baptism And besides this your Church makes Baptism a visible Sign of an inward or spiritual Grace and does affirm of all whom she admits to Baptism that they are regenerate and born anew Which shews that in this Point we agree that the inward Work of Grace should be in all that are baptized 9. I grant that Jeremiah and John Baptist were sanctified or separated to God from the Womb the one to be a Prophet the other to be the Fore-runner of our Lord Christ yet I deny that these extraordinary Cases are to be made the Rules for us to baptize by God knows what we will be from our Birth to our Death but these Things are hid from us Things revealed and commanded belong to us We may not presume to think either of Men or Infants above what is written to say this is sanctified from the Womb and that not this is a Believer and that not c. But shew us a Rule to baptize Infants and we will dispute no further Mr. Taylor 's Argument 3. Those who are within the Covenant of Grace may be baptized But Children are within the Covenant of Grace Therefore Children may be baptized ANSWER 1. The Major being taken universally for all that are in the Covenant of Grace then it is to be denied for God never made that the Rule of Baptizing Nay when Circumcision was in the greatest use yet all that were in the Covenant of Grace were not to be circumcised Such were the many Thousands of Male Infants who died before they were eight days old these were in Covenant and their Salvation as sure as if they had been circumcised The Females also were in Covenant yet not to be circumcised If you say they were not capable learned Authors tell you otherwise and name some Nations who circumcise both Sexes to this day By this you see your Major runs upon a false Supposition 2. And if by those who are within the Covenant you mean some of those then your Argument comes short of the Question viz. Whether all that are in the Covenant of Grace may be baptized But let us try your Minor The Covenant of Grace hath two parts 1. A Declaration of God's Mercy in Mans Redemption in this respect I grant Infants are within the Covenant of Grace 2. A Declaration of Mans Duty in point of
Peter derives the Title both of Parents and Children from the Promise of God and builds the Title of all the Called of the Lord and of them that were afar off also upon the Promise of God and not upon the Faith of Abraham himself Besides the Promise here is of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and therefore not pertinent to Infants as I have shewed Here is therefore no proof at all of your Minor I think it were better to say that by Faith a Christian knows his Child has an interest in the Covenant of Grace than that his Faith entitles his Child to it I fear this Minor is a very dangerous Assertion and that partly because the Consequence of such an Opinion is to shut out all Infants from the Covenant of Grace who have not faithful Parents to entitle them to it And in truth it seems to swell with too much boldness and carnal presumption but I spare you 2. The Faith of the Jews and Proselites did not entitle their Children to the Covenant of Grace but they themselves being incorporate into that Church-State their Children by express Command from God had a Title to legal Priviledges but the Covenant of Grace for that 's it we dispute tho you leave out the Word Grace in your Argument extended to Infants by God's free Redemption which he purposed for them in Christ from the Foundation of the World or else what shall become of the many thousands of Infants of Unbelievers 3. You can never prove that the Faith of the Jaylor or Lydia either did entitle their Infants to the Covenant for you cannot prove they had any Children And it is so exceeding plain that all that were baptized in these two Families were Believers that I wonder much that you should say that on the believing of the Jaylor and Lydia the whole Families were baptized Pray read Acts 16. 32. to the end and you will find that they that were baptized were actual Believers and capable of being consolated by the Apostles Mr. Taylor 's Argument 10. Those who are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven are capable of Baptism But Children are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore Children are capable of Baptism ANSWER 1. The Major being taken universally for all that may go to Heaven it may very well be denied for Mr. Taylor dare not deny a Capacity of Salvation to some of the Infants of the Jews and yet Mr. Taylor himself does not think they are capable of Baptism for he makes the Faith of the Parents necessary to the entitling them to Baptism which in this Case is wanting 2. That the greater includes the less is not universally true for Women have a capacity to go to Heaven yet they have no capacity to be Bishops which is less than going to Heaven Infants are not capable of the Lord's Table which is less than to go to Heaven Indeed this Argument being admitted to be good would bring Infants to all Privileges in the Church-Militant as well as to Baptism for thus a Man might argue Those who are capable of all the Privileges of the Church Triumphant are capable of all the Privileges of the Church Militant for the greater includes the less But Infants are capable of all Privileges in the Church Triumphant Ergo c. And if it be unreasonable as you say it is to deny the external Sign to those to whom Christ hath granted the internal Grace pray why are you so unreasonable as to deny your Infants the Sign of the Lord's Table seeing you affirm they are regenerate and born of Water and the Spirit But if you were put to prove that Infants whom you sprinkle have the inward Grace which entitles to Baptism you would never be able to make demonstration to your own or any wise Man's Satisfaction for is not the inward and spiritual Grace Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken and Faith whereby the Promises of God are stedfastly believed And what Infant did you ever know thus qualified for Baptism Mr. Taylor 's Argument 11. All who are Believers ought to be baptized But Children are Believers Therefore Children ought to be baptized ANSWER 1. The Minor Proposition that Infants are Believers is not true And I answer in the Words of Dr. Hammond who saith Letter of Resolut p. 297. I shall profess to be none of those that are concerned in the Question Whether Infants have Faith I freely confess to believe that Faith is so necessarily founded in Vnderstanding that they that have not Vnderstanding cannot have Faith whether actual or habitual And Dr. Jer. Taylor tells us expresly Whether Infants have Faith is a Question to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove Thus these two Pillars of the Church of England explode your Argument as an egregious Error 2. And for that place Mat. 18. 5 6. by which you would prove Infants Believers the Learned of your own Church expound it to a contrary Sence and take the little Child that believeth to be a true Christian that hath laid aside all worldly Pride whereby he is become abject in the sight of the World I shall not contend with you about the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 professing my self no Scholar tho Ludovicus Vives useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an Houshold-Servant But it is sufficient to my purpose that you dare not say Infants are actual Believers nay you confess they have not actual Faith And for imputative Faith if there be any such thing yet it can be no Rule for the baptizing any Body seeing it is not revealed to whom Faith is imputed and whilst you say God may esteem Infants as Believers another may as well say he may esteem them as baptized also I say your granting Infants have not actual Faith you can take the word believeth Mat. 18. 6. only by the Figure called Prosopopoeia if you will needs have the Child an Infant of Days And if it be good arguing from hence to the Baptism of Infants then you may argue as strongly for baptizing the whole Creation if you can tell how for it is said to groan expect and wait for the manifestation of the Sons of God and to be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption Rom. 8. 19. We conclude then that it is not a figurative Faith but an actual Faith at least by profession that entitles to the reception of Baptism 3. We do not say that God will impute Unbelief to Infants but only to those that refuse to believe and tho we know Infants are not Believers yet we do not say or think they are Unbelievers they being not capable to sin against God in that case or any else And Unbelief presupposes a capacity in the Subject and means sufficient to believe and yet the Creature refuses to believe The Sin of Unbelief therefore being no way chargeable upon any Infant it follows by necessary Consequence that they have no capacity
mention not Now may it please the God of Heaven to put it into the Hearts of the Guides of the Church of England to consider these things 1. That none of these Ceremonies about which we differ from them are required of Christians in the Holy Scriptures And that therefore 2. To enforce them by Excommunication and Penal Laws upon the Consciences of Men is more than God requires of you or any Body else And surely if the making these things necessary to our Communion were but removed so that Things which are not delivered in the Word of God were left at liberty we should not stand at so great a distance from the Church of England as now we do For tho we are verily persuaded that these Things objected against by us are Errors and therefore prudently to be amended yet we believe the imposing of them is a thousand times more offensive in the sight of God and more grievous to the Souls of Men because as we conceive God's Authority is then usurped by Man and Mens Fear towards him is then taught by the Precepts of Men. And yet we know and indeed must confess that many Things as to the more convenient performance of Religious Services in a Church-way are left to the Prudence of the Church guided therein by the general Rules in the Word of God and some Things also which are not of the Essence of Christianity will seem doubtful to some and clear to others And therefore there will be a continual Necessity of brotherly Forbearance one towards another in some sinless Ceremonies as many Things may be so esteemed whilst not made the Boundaries of Communion and forced upon Christians against their Consciences For Example tho Sitting be the most safe Gesture at the Lord's Table because nearest to Christ's Example yet if any in Humility and of Devotion to God think it their Duty to receive kneeling this surely cannot justly offend any Christian And thus also bowing at the Name of Jesus being left at liberty when where and upon what occasion the Conscience of a Christian may be most pressed to do it need not offend any tho it is apparent such bowing is not the meaning of the Text Phil. 2. 10. And the same may be said of well-composed Prayers so that still such Forms be used as a matter of Christian Liberty and not imposed by Law as necessary And could Things be managed with such Moderation as certainly the State of the Inhabitants of this Land does much call for it in a friendly and brotherly Spirit 't is hoped our Animosities would abate and Charity would endear all that are upright towards God one towards another tho labouring under many Weaknesses or dark Circumstances But whilst one Party stands up with a Sword in their hand or with power to thrust Men into Goal and rifle their Estates unless they will all submit to their Will and Pleasure not only without but perhaps in some things against the Word of God the pretended Rule to all Protestants in Matters of Religion this lays a Necessity upon all that are of Noble and truly Christian Spirits to testify against such Cruelty and unmanly Proceedings and to assert the true Christian Doctrine and Liberty and Christ's Sovereign Authority only to make Laws for his Church as such altho for so doing they suffe the Loss of all Things which are dear to them in this World and therewithal to stand off from the Communion of such unreasonable Men as have not learned to do to others as they would have others to do to them under their differing Opinions when in a state of Subjection to those who differ from them Thus much briefly of the Reasons or Causes of our Separation We will now consider what Mr. N. Taylor brings to make good Poedobaptism And the rather because he says he has defended Infant-Baptism both by Scripture and Reason Let us hear how he doth this Mr. NATHANIEL TAYLOR' 's Fourteen Arguments for Infant-Baptism considered and answered BEfore we answer his Arguments we will take notice of some of his Concessions And 1. He saith Baptism of Water is not absolutely necessary to Salvation pag. 2. 2. He tells us St. Paul joins the Word of God with this Baptism in order to the purifying Christ's Church that acting on the Soul and this terminating on the Body And that St. Peter's Assertion is clear that it is not Water purifying the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God that saveth pag. 7. 3. He tells us also That the premising the Word DISCIPLE Matth. 28. 19. implies none to be capable of Baptism who are not Disciples of Christ and Members of the Church pag. 10. 4. And further That Christ would have his Ordinances performed by an external Administration wherein the subject might be in the nearest capacity of understanding pag. 81 82. 5. He grants That Childrens Baptism and Church-Membership are not mentioned in the New Testament pag. 51. From all which a Man may very fairly argue and conclude against Infant-Baptism thus If Infants are undoubtedly saved without Baptism and are Members of Christ's Church without Baptism and that the Word of God must act upon the Soul in true Baptism so as that the Subject of Baptism must have the answer of a good Conscience And if none be capable of Baptism till they be Disciples of Christ according to Matth. 28. 19. and ought to be in the nearest capacity of understanding what is done in the external administration of Baptism And if Infant-Church-Membership and Baptism be not mentioned in the New Testament then Infants ought not to be baptized But all this is true saith Mr. Taylor Therefore I conclude Infants ought not to be baptized And thus his Book I will not say as he may be soon blown away but it may seem to be soon answered And his learned Title very unsuitable For how shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is not mention'd in the new Testament can that be Orthodoxal Baptism which is not mentioned there Sure this is incredible But let us hear his Arguments by which he undertakes to vindicate Infant-Baptism both by Scripture and Reason Mr. Taylor 's Argument 1. If our Christian Privileges be as great as the Jews were then our Children are rightly baptized But our Christian Privileges are as great as the Jews were Therefore our Children are rightly Baptized ANSWER Because Mr. Taylor says he offers his Reasons for Infant-Baptism in order to a composure of Differences and I do believe he means as he says I shall therefore endeavour to answer them with all Love and Sincerity as becomes a Christian And I say 1. That upon a fair Distinction both Propositions may be denied For if the Question be of external Privileges only then whether we respect outward Advantages in the World or Rites and Ceremonies in the Church pertinent to Infants the Minor is to be denied for the Jews were under a sure Promise
it and also I grant that they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven and so are of the Universal Church But this proves not that they are Disciples at all for the Infants of Heathens are Members of Kingdoms and may go to Heaven and yet you think they are no Disciples for all that And if Infants may in some Sence be said to be God's Servants Psal 119. 91. yet this proves not that they are Disciples for all Creatures as well sensitive vegetative as rational are said to be his Servants yet all Creatures are not Christ's Disciples Mr. Taylor 's Argument 8. To whom Christ grants Imposition of Hands to them belongs Baptism But to Children Christ grants Imposition of Hands Therefore to them belongs Baptism ANSWER 1. If the major Proposition be taken universally that to whomsoever Christ granted imposition of Hands or touching in any case that to them belongs Baptism then the Major is not true for he touched or put his hand upon the dead yet Baptism belongs not to the dead Luke 7. 14. If it be said Christ touched the Bier not the Dead I answer He touched the Childrens Cloaths when he took them in his Arms but he took the dead Damsel by the hand and said Talitha cumi Damsel I say unto thee Arise Mark 5. 41. Thus much to the Major now to the Minor 2. If by laying on of hands you understand that which by Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6. 2. is made a standing Ordinance in his Church and in order next to Baptism as is evident you do then I deny your Minor For that Ordinance was not yet instituted nor useful because the End of it was not yet to be received for the Spirit of Promise was not yet given nor as yet to be given because Jesus was not yet glorified John 7. Wherefore your Misinterpretation of Mat. 19. 13 14 15. is injurious to Truth and would prefer these Infants to the Apostles in the reception of the First-fruits of the Spirit unless you think Christ laid hands on the Children without obtaining the End or Essect of the Service So then it 's clear that this laying on of hands or touching Infants for so it is expressed both by St. Mark and St. Luke cannot with any fairness be understood of that laying on of hands which follows Baptism and therefore is no Proof at all for your Minor 3. The Church of England does not believe that Infants are fit Subjects for laying on of hands and therefore does not understand this Text Mat. 19. of that laying on of hands which follows Baptism neither does Mr. Taylor himself believe that Confirmation belongs to Infants If otherwise they are very unfaithful in that they were never known to lay hands upon any one Infant for confirmation as I can hear of But how comes it to pass that Mr. Taylor will baptize Infants when yet he confesses their Baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament and yet not plead for their Confirmation till they be capable to own their Covenant made in Baptism when yet he pretends tho I dare say he believes it not that Text Mat. 19. 13 c. is express for that laying on of hands which follows Baptism to be granted to Christ to Infants pag. 56. 4. Mr. Taylor says That Christ confirmed or laid hands on the Baptized I shall entreat him to make this plain for I would gladly see it well proved however I am sure his Doctrine orders it to be done and that 's sufficient What you say further here is either what we oppose not or what is answered elsewhere save only your last Particular which now we shall consider 5. Their coming to Christ say you is their becoming his Disciples or Proselites Suffer them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Proselites to me If to this I should answer with Tertullian Veniant ergo dum adolescunt c. Let them come therefore when they are grown up it will be thought too little tho God knows how hasty soever Men are to get them sprinkled they are slow enough to bring them to Christ when they are capable to be taught I will therefore answer further Do you think that when Infants are brought to a Priest to be sprinkled and crossed that then they are brought to Christ Or can Christians no other way bring their Infants to Christ Or do no Infants belong to Christ but those who are so brought These Things will not be asserted I think yet let us go as far as we can by the Light of the Text. By this Example of Christ I think the Ministers of Christ may lawfully pray for a Blessing in behalf of all the Infants of those that shall desire it and that it is well done in those Parents that do desire the Prayers of the Church or her Ministers for their Infants And this is as much as can be fairly urged from this Text as imitable for us For the touching by our Saviour's hands may be a Point too high for us unless we will also touch the Dead c. which I hope is not written for our Example But now if the Minister will needs baptize my Child because I bring it into the Congregation and desire Prayer to be made to God for his Blessing upon it he herein goes beyond the Example of Christ and beyond the Text and therefore there I must leave him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notwithstanding For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est advenio quoniam veniebant est Ethnicis ad Judaismum saith the Learned and I think Infants cannot change their Religion nor was it fit to call an Infant of a Jew a Proselite when it was brought to Circumcision and consequently as improper to call the Child of a Christian a Proselite However all that can lawfully be done to proselite an Infant if you will needs have that Term used is but to devote them to Christ by Prayers for his Blessing but not a Syllable for baptizing them Mr. Taylor 's Argument 5. If the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant then it entitles them to Baptism But the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant Therefore the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to Baptism ANSWER 1. The Consequence of the Major may well be denied for tho it should be some ways true that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant yet it follows not that it entitles them to the performance of or submission to the Things which they understand not nor are able to perform And whither would such a Consequence lead us if we should follow it What Duty should not Infants be entitled to as well as to Baptism But let us see whether the Minor be well proved you quote Acts. 2. and think it a clear place to prove that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant But this Text says not a word to that purpose for
for Faith Neither do we pretend to judg Mens Hearts for tho God has ordered Faith to be a Pre-requisite to Baptism yet we are only to judg of the Profession of Faith not of the Sincerity of it And as it is true as you say that Infants cannot play the Hypocrite so it 's true they cannot play the Christian and therefore not fit for the Duties of Christians of which Baptism is one Mr. Taylor 's Argument 12. They who are capable of the Ends of Baptism may be baptized But Children are capable of the Ends of Baptism Therefore they may be baptized ANSWER 1. If by the Ends of Baptism you mean the Things which concern God's Mercy in the Redemption of Man only then the Major is denied but if by the Ends of Baptism you mean the Things required on Mans part then the Minor is not true for Mortification and Vivification are the Ends of Baptism on Man's part of which Infants are not capable for they cannot put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh nor have they any need so to do neither can they rise to Newness of Life And tho I grant and have often said it that we ought to devote our Children to God in the best manner we can yet to go beyond the Word of the Lord under that pretence will neither profit us nor our Children 2. What you say here of Baptism being a Seal to Infants c. is answered before And surely the word Heathen so often used by you as it imports sometimes an Enemy to God yet being of it self of no ill signification Infants are not so to be accounted Heathens nor doth the word Christian as it imports a Follower of Christ belong to Infants So that this is only a Noise of Words to talk that our Infants are not distinguished from the Infants of Heathens tho I have shewed a difference between them Mr. Taylor 's Argument 13. Whom the Church of Christ ever received to Baptism may still be baptized But the Church of Christ hath ever received Children to Baptism Therefore they may be baptized ANSWER 1. The Minor Proposition is not true and therefore I do deny that the Church hath always received Infants to Baptism And indeed you do not so much as pretend any thing from the Scriptures to prove it but before do honestly confess That Infant-Baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament and therefore certainly it will be impossible to prove that the Church did always receive Infants to Baptism And it is also very observable that Eusebius who wrote the History of the Church for four hundred Years after Christ does not so much as mention Infant-Baptism at all 2. But how then does Mr. Taylor prove his Minor Why his chief Author to that purpose is Mr. Walker in his Book called A modest Plea for Infant-Baptism which Book in that part has been answered by Mr. De-Laune to which I refer the Reader The Sum of which Answer is to prove that all Mr. Walker's Testimonies from Antiquity for Infant-Baptism for the first 300 Years after Christ are either invalid or taken out of forged and spurious Books And it is more than sufficient to ballance Mr. Walker's and Mr. Taylor 's bold Assertion That the Catholick Church hath always received Infants to Baptism by the contrary Testimonies of Ludovicus Vives and Dr. Barlow the first expresly saying In old Time none was brought to Baptism but he was of sufficient Years to know what that mystical Water meant and to require his Baptism and that sundry times The other tells us There is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism nor any just Evidence for it for about 200 Years after Christ 2. You say That for many hundreds of Years the Question about Infant-Baptism was not moved But this is a great Mistake for Tertullian did question it as an unwarrantable Practice in the beginning of the third Century as is shewed by Mr. Tombes and others who have diligently enquired into the ancient Customs of the Church 3. The first Instance which you bring for the Practice of Infant-Baptism in our Nation is that in King Ina's time about the Year 692 but we can prove it was opposed by the Britain Bishops two hundred Years before this See Fabian's Chron. part 1. fol. 107. 4. You say The deferring of Baptism among the Ancients was not for their questioning Infant-Baptism But sure if they did think themselves too young to be baptized at twenty or thirty Years of Age they could with no reason think their Children old enough for Baptism at seven or eight days old Extremes have undone all they were too slow and you are as much too quick But the proper time for Baptism is when Men attain to the new Birth Baptism is therefore rightly call'd the Washing of Regeneration 5. You seem to hold That Infant-Baptism was lawfully practised by God's People before Christ and even from the Apostles Time since Christ But I wonder by what Law you give us none but Mr. Walker's Book which is very well answered by Mr. De-Laune in his Book entitled Truth defended And I am sure the best Antiquity says nothing for you Mr. Taylor 's Argument 14. That Doctrine which introduceth many Vnchristian Consequences is erroneous But the Doctrine of the Antipoedobaptists Introduceth many Vnchristian Consequences Therefore the Doctrine of the Antipoedobaptists is erroneous ANSWER 1. The Minor Proposition is not true for our Doctrine in the Case of Baptism is true and Truth does not introduce any erronious Consequences Now that our Doctrine is true appears thus Because it fully agrees with your Text Mat. 28. 19. even as it is expounded by your self in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Going to disciple all Nations instruct them in the Principles of my Religion and then being Disciples baptize them This you say and this we say the only difference is We do as we say but You say and do not You therefore must needs be in the Error in this case 2. But let us hear what you have against our Doctrine First you say It opposeth the whole Current of Scripture nullifies many Scripture-Promises and Privileges and destroys the Covenant of Grace as the premised Pages manifest But I hope the premised Answers do manifest the Charge which you bring against our Doctrine to be very unjust And seeing you are the Men and not we that have changed the Ordinance of Baptism you may justly fear the Censure of the Prophet Isa 24. 5. for breaking the everlasting Covenant See the Place and consider it seriously 3. You say Our Doctrine introduceth the World into Gentilism or Heathenism and makes Christ's Church always gathering and never gathered But how can you say this seeing we are for the teaching or discipling all Nations and every Person in the Nations as they are capable and God gives his Ministers opportunity and we take the same way to do this which the Apostles used according to our Ability i.
e. to preach the Gospel to every one that will hear us and to bring up our Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord And what tho the Church be thus always gathering does not Mat. 28. 19 20. warrant this Practice to the end of the World and if you do not thus gather your Children to Christ they will never be Christians by your Crossing and Sprinkling them 4. Your talk of excluding Infants from the Covenant is answered before and proved untrue what you add of our introducing of despair of the Salvation of Infants shews your Self-contradiction For now you seem to make Infant-Baptism so necessary to Salvation that if they be not baptized we must despair of their Salvation Than which what can be a more erronious Consequence of your Doctrine of Poedo-baptism 5. It is apparent that our Doctrine makes the Covenant established by Christ better than yours whatever you say here to the contrary not only because we assert the Grace of God in the Business of Salvation to extend to Infants more generally than you do But also for that it shews God has not imposed any Ceremonies upon them as he did upon the Jewish Male Infants of eight days old Whilst your Doctrine makes your Crossing and Sprinkling them of such importance as that if it be denied them despair of the Salvation of Infants is genuinely introduced pag. 74. As if God had tyed the Salvation of all the Infants in the World to a Ceremony Thus does your Doctrine make the Covenant established by Christ worse than the Law of Moses for under it the greater part of the Infants of the Jews were saved without being Circumcised to wit all the Females and all the Males under eight days old But you have no hope for Infants Male or Female tho but of a day old if it be not sealed with your pretended Baptism Lord whither will Men go when they forsake thy Word They will make Christ an Impostor if Infants be not capable of Baptism See Mr. Taylor 's Book pag. 72. n. 5. 6. You say Our Doctrine equals the Children of Christians with the Children of Turks c. But we have shewed the advantage to be on the part of the Children of Christians And what if God willing to magnify his Mercy and Goodness has provided a Saviour for the innocent Babes dying in Infancy throughout the World What need this trouble any Body must our Eye be Evil because his is thus Bountiful We know that he hath concluded all under Sin that he might have Mercy upon all And if God hath not Mercy on poor dying Infants so as to save them all by Christ pray shew what Mercy he hath upon them Sure it had been a Mercy they had never been born but not one Iota of Mercy to be born only to cry dye and go to Hell Can you think that such Doctrine befriends the Covenant of Grace I think not 7. To what you say or have said about the Form of Baptism you much mistake us if you think we do not baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost The Article of our Faith which you point to was not written as I conceive to teach any to dispense Baptism in different Forms of Words but to shew that the Name of Son is to be taken as he is our Lord and Saviour Yet let me tell you that I can shew it under the Hand of some now in your Ministry that says Matth. 28. 19. does not impower any to use that Form of Words in Baptism and shews also that the Learned are not agreed in that Matter However I am one with you as to the use of the Form there set down and no other Of the manner of using Baptismal Water 1. Mr. Taylor grants the Mode of Baptizing is laid down by our Saviour and expressed in the Word Baptizontes baptizing them Mat. 28. 19. Now this is very well and I am glad he has done this Holy Ordinance so much right as to acknowledg Christ to lay down in his Commission Mat. 28. 19. the Manner or Mode in which it ought to be performed But then I am sorry to see my good Friend so soon forget himself as in the very next Page to tell us that the Mode of Baptizing is an indifferent thing left to the Prudence of the Church whether to dip or sprinkle Neither of them being commanded nor either of them absolutely forbidden by the Precept of Baptizing What shall I say to this If Baptizontes be the Precept for Baptizing and yet commands nothing neither to dip nor to sprinkle nor absolutely forbids either sure then we keep no Command in doing either nor do we break any in omitting both Pity it is that Men to uphold their own Tradition should thus fight against both Scripture and Reason For if our Saviour by the Words baptizing them command nothing then its best to do nothing if he command both dipping and sprinkling then both must be done if he command but one of these then but one of them must be done Let him chuse which he will he must chuse but one But yet he tells us otherwise pag. 76. for saith he The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equally admits of both Significations as is granted by the best Criticks And quotes chiefly Mr. Walker's Doct. of Bapt. p. 60. to p. 64. For answer I say if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do equally signify dip and sprinkle then unless we will be unequal we must do both or else shew which of them may lawfully be omitted As for Mr. Walker's Book I have seen it and observed that he plays with the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till he makes their Signification altogether uncertain and sets the Learned together by the Ears about the meaning of these Greek Words And indeed according to Mr. Walker no Man can certainly know when he hits right upon the thing to be done in Obedience to this Precept Baptizing them As if our Lord should leave his Apostles and they leave us to guess at his meaning in a Passage wherein he commands nothing certainly And yet to go round again however we use Water in the Name c. we can hardly go besides the meaning of Christ For if we dip the Subject in the Element of Water we are right if we sprinkle it upon any part of the Body for you can assign no one part more than the other we are right still if we dip the Head only or only the Foot we are right if the Head or Breast or Hand only be sprinkled still we are right Now who can think that our Saviour should use an ambiguous Word which is to guide us in matter of Fact Do not Men that thus deal with the Word Baptize make him the Author of all our Contests in this Case And assuredly Mr. Walker has run many a one into a maze about the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I am sorry to see