Almighty God Jesus Christ nor his Apostles neither commended for baptizing any one Child or Children nor reproved for neglecting to baptize such then Infants Baptism is not of nor from God. But no Man or Woman was at any time or times either commended by the Almighty God c. for baptizing any one Child or Children nor reproved for neglecting to baptize such Ergo Infants Baptism is not of nor from God. This Argument remains good and unanswerable unless they can shew us that there is some Gospel-Ordinance and universal Duty injoyned on Men that no Man or Woman was ever commended for doing it nor reproved for neglecting it when they can shew that this Argument will be invalid That Doctrine that reflects upon the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ our blessed Mediator and glorious Law-giver or renders him less faithful then Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Testament did cannot be of God. But the Doctrine of Infants Baptism reflects upon the Honour Care and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ c. or renders him less faithful than Moses and the New Testament in one of its great Ordinances nay Sacraments to lie more dark and obscure in God's Word than any Law or Ordinance of the Old Testament Ergo Infants Baptism cannot be of God. The Major certainly none will deny The Minor is easily proved Can any thing reflect more upon the Honour of Christ c. than this as if he should neglect to speak out his Mind and Will to us plainly or be so careless about it that sorry Man is forc'd to try his Wit to supply what is defective and wanting in this Matter in Christ's Word for he is strangely left of God and benighted who will not confess Infant Baptism to need much of humane Craft and Cunning to make it out from Christ's New Testament and when he has done all he leaves it as doubtful as he found it in the Judgment of indifferent Persons Did Moses deal thus with the Children of Israel No no. How careful was he to deliver every Law Statute and Ordinance exactly particularly the Law of the Passover Do but read how careful and circumspect he was in that in all respects and matters relating to it Nay and the Wisdom of God was such to leave nothing then in the dark but gave order that all Things might be made plain that he that run might read it and he that did read might know the Duty i. e. the Statuâ—e or Ordinance tho in many things they might need instruction how in a right Spirit to be found in it and what it signified But I dare affirm no Man who reads the New Testament from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelations a thousand times over shall ever from that Holy Word or any place or part of it find it to be his Duty to baptize his Child the Word of God is powerful in convincing Men of their Duties as well as of their Sins but in this it fails it has no Power to convince Mens Consciences The Faith of Persons must stand in the Wit and Subtilty of Men in respect of Infant-Baptism and not in the Power of God and efficacy of his blessed Word Let some shew us the Person who only by reading the New Testament was convinced of Infant-Baptism though 't is true divers by reading of the Writings of Learned Men and their subtil and sophistical Arguments for so I must call them have been perswaded to believe it to be of God. Yet after all some of them have plainly signified the great Ground and Argument they build upon is this viz. Because such and such Learned Godly and Wise Men assert it to be a Truth of Christ So that it appears very clear they build their Faith herein not upon the Authority of God's Word but upon the Credit and Authority of Men. But certainly it must needs as I said reflect upon the Honour and Faithfulness of Christ to conclude Infant-Baptism to be of God for can any think the Lord Jesus would leave so great an Ordinance or Sacrament of the New Testament so obscure and dark in his Sacred Word had it been his Mind that Believers should baptize their Children since the Apostle magnifies Christ's Faithfulness who is the Son above that of Moses who was but the Servant And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant for a Testimony of those things which were to be spoken after Hebr. 3. 5. But Christ as a Son over his own House c. ver 6. and therefore was counted worthy of more glory than Moses ver 3. Besides do but consider what Darkness and Confusion the Asserters of Infant-Baptism seem to be in about the Proof and Right they say Children have to it 1. Some of them say it depends wholly upon the Authority of the Church 2. Others dare not baptize them but as Believers and Disciples and therefore affirm they have Faith c. 3. Others can't believe this and therefore though they likewise baptize them as Believers yet get Sureties to stand for them 4. Others say they have a Right by the Faith of their Parents some are for baptizing all Children others none but the Children of Believers 5. One says if either of their Parents are Believers they may be baptized some say both Father and Mother both must be godly Persons and in the Covenant of Grace or else the Child has no Right to be baptized No marvel when Men have lost their way they are thus lost in a Wilderness That Ordinancé God has made no Promise to Persons in their Obedience thereto nor denounced any Threatning or Punishment on such who slight neglect and contemn it it is no Ordinance of God. But God has made no Promise to Persons who baptize their Children nor denounced no Threatning or Panishment on those who slight neglect and contemn it Ergo Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of God. Let any such who assert Infant-Baptism shew us a Promise to the Obedient herein or a Threatning denounced against the Disobedient thereto and we will say no more There are Promises made to Believers in their being baptized that 's evident and Punishments threatned on such who reject the Counsel of God in that respect the like there is in respect of any other Gospel-Ordinance but none of this in the Case of Infant-Baptism CHAP. X. Wherein the great Arguments and pretended Scripture-Proofs for Infant-Baptism concerning the Covenant Circumcision and Infants Church-membership are Examined and Answered ONE main and great Argument the Pedobaptists bring for that practice is this viz. Children of Believers are in Covenant as well as their Parents The Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant to which the Seal of Circumcision was annexed and as Circumcision belonged to the Children of the
saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Now they affirm that Infants are Believers and therefore are to be baptized Mr. Smythies says Infants are Believers in a sense or else they could not be saved nor have right to the Promises of Christ in the Gospel and if they are in any sense such Believers as are intitled to Salvation they are such Believers as have a right to Baptism if the Estate belongs to a Child in the Cradle the Indentures and Seals of that Estate belong to him likewise the Child of a Believer may as well be called a Believer as the Child of a Proselyte was called a proselyte if God gives Children but the denomination of Believers it is sufficient to entitle them to Baptism Thus Mr. Smythies But how does it appear that Infants are Believers in any sense is there any Argument or Scripture brought by this Man to prove them so to be if he can prove they have Faith and do believe in Christ he will do more than all the Men that ever lived on Earth could do I mean Children as such in common and in an ordinary way to be Believers True nothing is too hard for God to do he that can make an Ass to speak can as well cause a Babe to believe But how does it appear God has given them either the Habit of Faith or the Act of Faith or Faith in any sense to render them to be Believers But 't is intimated they are Believers by their Parents Faith why may not their Parents Baptism serve as well as their Parents Faith and they receive the Lord's Supper for them in their Names also and that be imputed to the Children by virtue of their Parents Faith And what though the Estate belongs to the Child in the Cradle together with the Indenture and Seals of that Estate Is it required the Child in the Cradle should therefore set his Seal to the Indenture is that requisite or would it make the Estate the more firm or sure to him But when you can prove Grace and Salvation to be Hereditary and that the Father's being a Believer and a godly Person all his Children must needs be such too you do your business Secondly But why do you say Children must be Believers or else they can't be saved who told you so Because Faith in Adult Persons is required as necessary in them if they are saved Can't God save poor Infants without they also do believe has God told you he cannot or will not save them except they believe I must confess I wonder at your Ignorance and daring Boldness God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of and what have you to do with the Secrets of God who made you one of his Privy-Council you may as well say unless they repent they cannot be saved from Christ's words Luk 13. 3 5. and that they must be obedient and take up the Cross for these things are required of Adult Persons that would be saved as well as believing Thirdly Prove that God has given Children the Denomination of Believers or if it was granted he hath would it therefore â—ollow they may be baptized certainly no for we read of many who were said to believe they had some kind of Faith and so in some sense had the denomination of 〈◊〉 and yet had no right to Baptism for such ought to have 〈◊〉 Faith or to believe with all their Hearts 〈◊〉 Philip said to the Eunuch Act. 8. who are fit Subjects of that Ordinance or have a sufficient Title to it and would not that believing in any sense you speak of that entitles them to Salvation give them as good a right to the Lord's-Supper as to Baptism Come Sir you can't infer a right to an Ordinance from what grounds you please Baptism depends wholly I say again upon the Authority of a positive Law and express words of Institution and none but such who are made Disciples by preaching or who do actually believe ought from thence to be baptized I wonder what Faith 't is you suppose to be in Infants is it the Faith of the Church as Tho. Aquinas asserts which is intailed upon all within the pale thereof Or is it an Imputitive Faith from the Parents in Covenant as Musculus and others maintain Or is it the Faith of the Gossip or Surety as many of your Church say i. e. others believe for them Have they a justifying Faith as Mr. Baxter intimates or a dogmatical Faith only as in Mr. Blake's Sense Some as Mr. Danvers observes say 't is a Physical some a Metaphysical and some a Hyperphysical Faith. Some say they are born Believers others say they are made Believers by Baptism Now when you tell us what Faith they have we shall the better understand you and give you an Answer A Personal and actual Faith saith Dr. Taylor they have not for they have no Acts of Understanding besides how can any Man know they have Faith since he never saw any sign 〈◊〉 neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly saith he Some say they have Imputative Faith But then so let the Sacraments be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hang upon their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that This saith the Bishop We know there are some argue stifly for Infants having habitual Faith but as the said Doctor saith Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit this strange Invention saith he is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the Men are to be excused unless they had any better Arguments to defend their Practice they are forc'd to confess the Truth in the main viz. That Faith is required of Persons to be baptized and therefore they do what they can to prove Infants do believe But I will conclude this with what the said Doctor further saith And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World. CHAP. XII Containing an Answer to several other Arguments brought for Infant-Baptism Object 1. THough there is
we doubt not but it is so in some good sense between the Almighty and a Believer who is the only Subject i. e. there is indeed a mutual Stipulation on both Parties in that Solemnity but an Infant can do nothing herein Baptism saith Bullinger is an Agreement or Covenant of Grace which Christ enters into with us when we are baptized c. Fourthly Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins one end of this Ordinance therefore is this viz. To testify the Truth of our Repentance and to engage us thereby to bring forth Fruits meet for amendment of Life As their Sins are not forgiven them saith Mr. Baxter till they are converted so they must not be baptized for the Forgiveness of Sins till they profess themselves converted seeing to the Church non esse non apparere is all one Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is the sum of that preaching that makes Disciples Acts 20 21. Therefore both these must by Profession seem to be received before any at Age are Baptized And that no other say I besides them at Age ought to be baptized by this very Argument is very clear and evident Bullinger as he is quoted by Mr. Baxter I find speaketh thus viz. To be baptized in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ saith he is by a Sign of Baptism to testify that we do believe in Christ for the Remission of Sins First mark it is not only an Ingagement to believe hereafter but the Profession saith he of a present Faith. Secondly And that not a common Faith but that which hath Remission of Sin. Farewel to Infant Baptism a present Faith is required of such that are to be baptized nay and more a present profession of it too Infants have neither Faith nor can they profess it Ergo they are not to be baptized Fifthly Another End of Baptism is as one well observes to evidence present Regeneration whereof saith he it is a lively Sign or Symbol Hence 't is called the Washing of Regeneration what signifies the Sign where the Thing signified is wanting Baptism is frequently called the Laveâ— of Regeneration it being a Sign or Figure of it to the Person Baptized Christ hath instituted no Baptism saith Mr. Baxter but what is to be a Sign of present Regeneration but to Men that profess not a Justifying Faith it cannot be administred as a Sign of Regeneration Therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administred to such Does not this Argument make void the Baptism of Infants as well as Adult Unbelievers by the Ancients Let Mr. Baxter take it again but with a very little alteration Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a Sign of present Regeneration but to little Babes that profess not a justifying Faith it cannot be administred as a Sign of present Regeneration therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administred to Infants The stress of the Argument lies in the Institution of Christ in that no Baptism is instituted and commanded by Christ but what is a Sign of present Regeneration not Future therefore Infant-Baptism can be no Baptism of Christ Sixthly Baptism is called An Answer of a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead or the Covenant of a good Conscience by the Resurrection of Christ as saith Sir Norton Knatchbul in his Learned Notes printed at Oxford 1677. in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved saith he as they were saved by the Ark. But now Infants cannot Covenant thus nor Witness thus in Baptism by a Belief of the Resurrection which saith the said famous Learned Man Baptism is an emphatical Figure or a particular Signal of to the Person baptized See what our Late Annotators speak upon the place In Baptism say they there is a solemn Covenant or mutual Agreement between God and the Party baptized wherein God offers applies and seals his Grace stipulating or requiring the Parties acceptance of that Grace and devoting himself to his Service and when he out of a good Conscience doth ingage and promise this which is to come up to the terms of the Covenant that my be properly called the Answer of a good Conscience it seems say they to be an allusion to the manner of Baptizing where the Minister ask'd the Party to be Baptized concerning his Faith in Christ and he accordingly answered him Dost thou believe I believe c. Acts 8. 37. Now are Children capable to do any of this Can they covenant with God Can they answer a good Conscience by believing the Resurrection of Christ or can Baptism appear to be a Symbol of it to them No nor indeed can Rantism be so to any other I mean to the Adult Seventhly Baptism hath another End and Use assigned to it viz. That the Party baptized may have an orderly entrance into the Visible Church and so have a right to partake of all other Ordinances and Priviledges thereof as breaking of Bread c. This hereafter I shall make fully appear nor is it any other thing than is generally owned by Christians and eminent Men but Infants cannot be admitted to those Priviledges viz. to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper c. and therefore ought not to be baptized for he that has right to one cannot be denied the other by any Ground or Authority from God's Word CHAP. IX Containing several other Arguments proving why not Infants but Believers only are the true Subjects of Baptism IF there is no word of Institution or any thing in the Commission of Christ for Baptizing Infants but of Believers only then not Infants but Believers only ought to be Baptized But there is no word of Institution or any thing in the Commission of Christ for baptizing Infants but of Believers only Ergo not Infants but Believers only are the Subjects of Baptism The Major Proposition is undeniable for if Infants may be baptized in the Name c. without any Authority from Christ or word of Institution or the least intimation of it in the great Commission what Innovation can we keep out of the Church This is enough to cause any Protestant to renounce his Religion and cleave to the Romish Communion who asserts the Church's Power is such that without a word of Institution she may do the Lord knows what Nor do they as far as I can find assert Infant-Baptism from the Authority of the Scripture but from the Power Christ has left in the Church in which they seem more honest than some Protestants that pretend to maintain this Rite by plain Scripture-proof without the least shadow or intimation of any such thing to the palpable Reproach of the Christian Religion As to the Minor 't is evident and owned by the Learned that those who are enjoined to be baptized in the Commission Matth. 28. are first to be taught or made Disciples But Infants cannot be made Disciples
he she were a Widow yet she might have no Children or if any they might be grown up and to such Children we deny not Baptism upon profession of Faith. Besides she was at this time from her own Dwelling and that many miles distant for she was of the City of Thyatira but now was at the City of Philippi where she was a merchandizing being a seller of Purple Grant she had Children how unlikely a matter is it saith he that she should carry them about with her trading so many miles distant But finally to resolve the Doubt the last Verse of this Chapter calls them of the House of Lydia Brethren They entred into the House of Lydia and when they had 〈◊〉 the Brethren they comforted them and departed Who now can conclude rationally that any Children were in any of these Housholds 'T is a haâ—d case Men are forc'd to fly to such weak and unlikely grounds to prove their practice but as the Proverb goes A poor Shift is better than none at all The next Proof they bring to prove Infant-Baptism is from Acts 2. 39. The Promise is to you and to your Children c. The Pedo baptists would sain have this Promise to be a Promise of External Priviledg and such as gives Children of Believers a right to Baptism but that there is no such thing in the least to be proved from this place we shall make appear by opening the Text. First 'T is evident that Peter preach'd this Sermon to the Jews and to many of them who had a hand in murâ—hering the Lord of Life and Glory And this he laid home and prest upon their Consciences very close and they being prick'd in their Hearts cried out Men and Brethren what shall we do If it be thus we are lost Men and undone No as if Peter should say Do not dispair upon your Repentance there is Mercy for you Then said Peter unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you for the Remission of Sins and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit For the Promise is unto you Ay this is good News indeed they might say But what will become of our Children our Off-spring for we have wish'd that his Blood might not only be upon our selves but also upon our Children Well what tho let not this terrify you neither as to drive you into despair for the Promise is not only to you who repent c. but to your Children or Off-spring also your Posterity shall not be lost for the Promise is unto them as it is to you viz. if they repent and not only to them of your Race or Posterity but also to all that are afar off meaning the Gentiles who were said to be sometimes afar off But now if they would know who of their Children and those who were afar off the Promise was made unto In the close of the Verse he resolves them in these words Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call The Promise therefore here evident is that of the Spirit and all the Divine Graces and Blessings of it which was promised and first tendered unto the Jews and their Off-spring upon unfeigned Repentance and turning to God or being effectually called and brought over to close in with the Tenders of Mercy and then to the Gentiles who in like manner should be wrought upon or effectually called This Promise was not made to their Children as Believers Seed nor to them or any other uncalled by the Lord but with this express Proviso Even so many as the Lord our God shall call Which Calling or effectual Work of Grace upon their Souls made them capable Subjects of Baptism Nor are the words to you and your Children mentioned as an acknowledgment of a Priviledg to them above others being Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh but by reason doubtless of their Wish Mat. 27. 25. His Blood he on us and on our Children Nor is there the least intimation given of a right to Baptism to them or their Children as the Children of Believers but as an Exhortation to them and theirs to repent and be baptized as their Duty for their Benefit and Soul-advantage the Promise being not mentioned as though of it self it gave a title to Baptism either to them or their Off-spring without Repentance But as a Motive why both they and their Children should actually repent and be baptized i. e. because in so doing they would be in the way of obtaining Remission of Sin and receive the Holy Spirit the two grand Branches of the Promise here mentioned Which Duty of Repentance little Children being not capable of performing are not therefore according to this direction of the Apostle the proper Subjects of such an Ordinance By Children here saith a Learned Man is not meant their Infants but the Posterity of the Jews And so Dr. Hammond grants it and therefore confesseth this place a very unconcluding Argument for Infant-Baptism And says he though by Children be here meant the Posterity of the Jews yet not the natural or carnal Seed neither but the Spiritual as appears by the last words in the verse viz. Even to as many as the Lord our God shall call So that it is very evident that this Text is grosly abused by such as infer from hence a title to Baptism for Children of Believers by virtue of a Promise to them as such whereas it is manifest from the whole scope of the Context that it is only an incouragement to the Jews against Dispair by reason of their crucifying the Son of God letting them know that yet there was hope of Mercy and Pardon for them and their Children upon the respective Repentance of both or either of them And to the same purpose our late Annotators I find give it speaking of this Text. A Fifth pretended Scripture-proof for Infant-Baptism is taken from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children Vnclean but now are they Holy. Object From hence 't is asserted That the Children of Believers are holy with a Federal or Covenant-Holiness and therefore to be baptized Answ To this we answer That the same sort of Holiness which is ascribed to the Children is to be understood in reference to the unbelieving Husband or the unbelieving Wife who are both said to be sanctified by their respective Yoke-fellows which cannot be meant of a federal or a Covenant-holiness but that which is matrimonial For if we must understand it of a Covenant-holiness then it will follow that the unbelieving Wife or unbelieving Husband may upon the same ground lay claim to Baptism as well as their Children which yet your selves will not grant Besides it is evident from the words themselves in which the Term Husband and Wife are twice used which shews that the Holiness is from the conjugal Relation and cannot be meant of any other than Legitimation And the term Vnbeliever is also twice used and said to be Sanctified which can
have no other sence but this that the unbelieving Yoke-fellow is sanctified or made meet in respect of conjugal use to his or her Yoke-fellow And so though the one be an Unbeliever yet they might comfortably enough live together in lawful Wedlock See our late Annotators I rather think say they it signifies brought into a State that the Believer without Offence to the Law of God may continue in a married Estate with such a Yoke-fellow for else saith the Apostle your Children were unclean that is would be accounted illegitimate But now this being determined that the Husband is thus sanctified to the Wife and the Wife to the Husband though the one be an Unbeliever hence it follows that your Children are holy that is lawfully begotten which is the only sense opposite to the Determination ver 12 13. It was 't is plain about this matter those Saints at Corinth wrote to the Apostle and therefore according to the scope of the place it cannot intend any thing else And as for the use of the word Holy for Legitimate that it is in this sense used else-where in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. where a Seed of God or a Godly Seed can be understood in no other sense than that of a lawful Seed in opposition to those born by Polygamy Neither ought any Man to infer Federal Holiness to be intended here unless he can prove from some other Text in the New Testament any such Holiness to be in Children i. e. because Parents are Believers and in the Covenant of Grace their natural Seed must therefore be so esteemed and have the like Right to Gospel-Baptism as the Children under the Law had to Circumcision which is no where to be found in all the New-Testament but the quite contrary as has been proved and therefore this Interpretation ought not to be admitted but utterly to be rejected in regard of what the Apostle Peter asseres How false and ridiculous therefore is that which Mr. Smythies hath lately affirmed Whensoever saith he God enters into Covenant with the Parent he enters into Covenant with the Children of that Parent that is the Children were included in the Covenant and the Blessings of that Covenant belonged to the Children as well as to the Parent They that will build their Faith upon such kind of Men deserve to be deceived who speak what they please and prove nothing as if this was so because Mr. Smythies says it I must charge it upon him as false Doctrine 1. As being quite contrary to the Nature of the Gospel-Dispensation and Constitution of the New Testament-Church wherein the Fleshly Seed are rejected and cast out in respect of Church-Priviledges and Ordinances 2. What is this but to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation in opposition to what our Saviour saith John 3. 3. and Paul Ephes 2. 1 2. 3. It also contradicts all Mens Experience How palpable is it that Godly Men have wicked Children now adays as well as in former times What wicked Children and yet in the Covenant of Grace Or were they in it and are they now fallen out of it What a Covenant then do you make that sure and everlasting Covenant of Grace to be Besides we have many learned Men and Commentators of our Mind upon this Text as Mr. Danvers observes and â—uotes them Austin saith it is to hold without doubting whatsoever that Sanctification was it was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins Ambrose upon this place saith the Children are holy because they are born of lawful Marriage Melancthon in his Commentary upon this same Text saith thus Therefore Paul answers that their Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God if the impious Person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a Reason The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is it is granted to Believers from God so here he speaks of the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God. Things prohibited under the Law as Swines Flesh and a Woman in her Pollution were called unclean The Connexion of this if the use of Marriage should not please God your Children would be Bastards and so unclean But your Children are not Bastards therefore the use of the Marriage pleaseth God And how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner the Law shews Deut. 23. Camtrarius in his Commentary upon this place also saith for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an unusual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this saith he it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy Erasmus saith likewise Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian the other not are holy legitimately for the Conversion of either Wife or Husband doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were Unbelievers What Reason now had Dr. Featly and others to contemn this Exposition of the Text considering what we and so many Learned Men have declared as touching this matter for a more fuller Answer read Mr. Danvers p. 166 167 168 169. But after all should it be allowed that the Holiness in this Text is indeed to be taken for a Faederal or Covenant-Holiness yet we cannot therefore grant that this is a sufficient Proof for Infant-Baptism for let the Holiness be what it will whether Moral Faederal or Matrimonial neither of these is any where assigned to be a ground of baptizing Infants the Institution Commission and Practice of the Apostolical Church being that alone that can warrant the same 'T is God's Word only not Mens Reason conceited Grounds and Inferences that can justify a Practice or make a Gospel-Ordinance if all therefore was granted which you affirm of the Covenant made with Abraham of Circumcision and Faederal-Holiness yet Infant-Baptism is gone unless you can prove God hath from this ground commanded you to baptize your Children or that they were for this Reason admitted to Baptism in the Apostles Time for all your Arguments from thence prove as strongly that your Infants may partake of the Lord's-Supper c. But that any thing less than a Profession of Faith and Repentance is or can be a sufficient ground for baptizing any Person young or old we do deny sith the New Testament is the only Rule or perfect Copy by the Authority of which we ought to act and perform all Duties of instituted Worship and administer Sacraments c. which are mâ—re positive Precepts and depend only upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-maker So much to this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism A sixth Proof of Infant-Baptism is grounded upon Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
those Anabaptists were very ill Men and guilty of several immoral Actions and held great Errors yet how unreasonable and uncharitable a thing is it to render all those People of that Perswasion in those times and also since to be as bad and as like guilty especially considering that the Principle and Practice of baptizing believing Men and Women in it self is so harmless a thing and no ways tends to lead Persons to such Evils For by the same Rule might not the best and most holy Church and People in the World or ever were in the World be censured and reproached and neither the Church of the Jews nor the Gospel-Church in the Apostles days escape sith in the first there were very ill Persons as Chora Dathan and Abiram and many others and in the last a Judas a Diatrophes an incestuous Person who was guilty of worse or more shameful Fornication then what was amongst the Gentiles as the Apostle affirms Besides as Mr. Danvers observes those of the same Opinion in former times are acknowledged to be godly and good Men or have an honourable Character given them and this too by the ample and authentick Testimony from their greatest Enemies he cites Raiâ—trus the Bloody Inquisitor of those in France and Baronius and Cassander of those in Germany nay and Mr. Baxterâ— himself who though he has been found free enough in his Reproaches yet to give him his due is pleased to witness to our Innocency in this Nation take his own words saith he That Anabaptists are godly Men that differ from us in a Point so difficult that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintain'd that it is not determined in the Scripture but dependeth upon Tradition of the Church And I know as good and sober Men of that Mind as of theirs who are most against them c. And again he saith that Augustin and many Children of Christians were baptized at Age and that the Controversie is of so great difficulty that if in all such cases none that differ be tolerated we may not live together in the World or Church but endlesly excommunicate or prosecute one another But blessed be God we need not the Testimony of Men having the Testimony of our own Consciences which is our rejoycing as the Apostle saith that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity not by fleshly Wisdom but by the Grace of God we have had our Conversation in the World. Tho there may be some of our Communion who may be under Guilt and gross Enormities and mistaken Principles and Notions to our great Grief and Sorrow as well as amongst other Communities of godly Christians but Charity will cover a multitude of Faults Object 8. But you lay too much stress upon Baptism Answ What some may do I know not but I am sure generally we lay no more stress upon it than we ought we say it is a Duty incumbent upon all Believers a holy Ordinance of Christ one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament and they that reject it do reject part of the Counsel of God. Yet we do not lay such stress upon it as some do upon Infant Baptism We do not say Men cannot be saved unless they be baptized provided they do not sin against their light and clear convictions of their own Consciences 'T is evident there are those who have asserted That Infants that die unbaptized shall not cannot be saved which certainly is abominable to affirm For were it our duty to baptize our Children yet can any think that the omission of our duty to them herein can exclude them the Kingdom of Heaven but 't is evident it is not required they are not the subjects of it Object 'T is no where said that Women received the Lords Supper yet 't is given to them Why may not Infants be Baptized as well tho there is nothing mentioned of their being Baptized in the Scripture Answ To this we Answer That there is ground enough from the Scripture for Women who are baptized Believers to receive the Lord's Supper Let a Man examine himfelf and so let him eat saith the Apostle viz. Man or Woman For so the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies There is one Mediator between God and Man. Is not Woman as well as Man intended there If there come into your Assembly a Man having a Gold Ring c. A double-minded Man is unstable in all his ways Are not Women as well as Men comprehended and meant in those places as well as Men tho not expressed 2. Were not Women as well as Men who believed Baptized Were not Women Disciples and commanded to be made discipline by the preaching of the Gospel in the Commission as well as Men And are not Males and Femals all oâ—â— in Christ Jesus Is not this a meer trifling Vanity and nought but a piece of Foolery and Deceit to darken Counsel with words without Knowledg Women were Baptized we read of Lydia an honourable Woman that was Baptized And when they heard this 't is said they were baptized both Men and Women And they that were required to be Baptized and did partake of that Ordinance continued together in the Apostles Doctrine and in Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and Prayer This sufficiently proves Women received the Lord's Supper When shall we see the like proof for Babes Baptism Were not Women Members of the Churâ—â— and does not the Holy Supper belong to all â—â—â—â—lar Members thereof This Objection seems to represent these Men like a person almost drown'd who catches hold of any little Twig or Flag to help him But Brethren these things will never do your business Object If we have no Scripture-Example to baptize Infants no more have you for the baptizing such Persons as you do baptize viz. those of Age whose Parents were baptized and educated from their Youth in the Christian Religion for evident it is those we read of in the New Testament who were baptized were such who were newly Converted either from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity Answ What tho we have no Example in the Scripture of any besides such you speak of that were baptized that â—eing the very beginning of that Gospel-Adminiâ—â—â—ation yet is not the Commission a perfect Rule to succeeding Ages as well as it was to that present Age Evident it is that by virtue of the Commission none were to be baptized but such as are discipled or first taught before admitted to that Ordinance If the person be a Believer we have no ground to refuse him because his Parents were Jews or Heathens so we have no reason to receive others at all the more because their Parents were Christians 2. Can you prove that difference as to the state of the Parents in respect of what you speak of doth give you a warrantable ground to act contrary to the order and nature of the great Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. By the authority of which the Apostles