in Scripture for such Church-constitution as that of Rome and England is he might as well disclaim communion with Churches built upon Infant Baptism too since there is no more example in Scripture of such a Church constitution then there is of the constitution of those Churches with whom he hath disclaimed communion especially considering that there is example in abundance in Scripture of Churches of a better constitution and that is of Saints Baptized after they had Beleeved 2. As to matter of Precept though there be no litteral or sillabical Precept for Baptized persons to disclaim communion in Church-fellowship with unbaptized ones no more then there is for disclaiming communion with the fals Churches before mentioned yet if the Querist will say that there is Precept in Scripture which does virtually require him to disclaim communion with the Church of Rome and the Parochiall Churches in their way then I will say the same concerning Baptized Beleevers their refusing communion with unbaptized If it be demanded what precept doth virtually require such a thing as non-communion of Baptized with unbaptized I Answer 1. For those that plead the Precept of circumcising Infants under the Law as virtually requiring the baptizing of Infants under the Gospel me thinks this should be satisfactory as to them and so to the Querist himself as touching the Case in hand viz. where God requires Circumcision under pain of being excluded communion with the Church saying the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his fore-skin is not circumcised that soul shal be cut off from his people Gen. 17.14 for what less can be meant by that expression shal be cut off from his people then that such an one should be deprived communion with the people of Israel in Church-fellowship If it be said a cuting off by death is thereby intended then I say that is exclusive of Church-communion likewise for the Major includes the Minor and it is more to be cut off by the hand of death from all oppertunity of future communion with the Church then it is for a man to be debarred present communion onely in order to his repentance that he might be regularly capable of communion afterwards But whether such a cuting off be in that place intended or no most certain it is that such a cuting off is enjoyned Exod. 12.48 where it s said speaking of the Passover That no uncircumcised person shal eat thereof And therâ—fore if it be good reasoning from circumcision to Bâ—ptism which if it be not let the Pedobaptists bid adieu to their cause of Infant Baptism which is built and bottomed thereupon then it follows undeniably by way of Analogie that as uncircumcâ—sion by the command of God did deprive persons of communion with the people of God in Church-fellowship then so non-Baptism does debar persons of Church-communion now And now which of the hornes of this dilemma will the Pedobaptists suffer themselves to be gored by Will they say the consequence is not good to argue the exclusion of unbaptized persons from Church-communion from the exclusion of uncircumcised persons from acts of Church-communion while circumcision was in force if so then how can the consequence be good to argue the Baptism of Infants from the circumcision of Infants for the same things have the same consequences and to things alike belongs the like reason and judgement and therefore let them either grant my inference or for ever cease any more to infer from Infants circumcision to Infants Baptism 2. I would argue further thus the same Law which enjoynes the learned Querist and others of his way to deny the priviledge of their Churches to other Beleevers that are not of their Churches but do scruple their way and cannot submit to their order the same Law does enjoyn baptized beleevers not to admit into fellowship with them in Church priviledges such persons though beleevers as do scruple their order and way of being baptized in order to Church communion and will not submit thereto For the Scripture is every whit as express for Baptism to precede the enjoyment of Church priviledges as it is for a voluntary consenting to Church order and government to precede the same enjoyment Nay I am confident that the Arguments and Plea's brought to prove it lawful to admit Beleevers to such communion without Baptism if admited as good would overthrow and level the Order and Discipline of particular Churches For if one single person may be admited to Church-priviledges without Baptism or without submiting to the order and rule of the Church both which are previous to acts of Church-communion and I affirm the case is more clear for Baptism in this behalf in Scripture then it is for that submission and consent I speak of I say if one person may be admitted upon such terms then why not two if two why not ten and so a hundred or a thousand and consequently such Gospel order laid totally aside 3. If these things serve not turn yet those precepts exhortations or doctrines by which men stand enjoyned to observe Gospel Order 1 Cor. 14.40 2 Tim. 1.13 2 Thess 2.15 1 Cor. 11.2 Titus 1.5 Col. 2.5 Rom. 6.17 do virtually prohibit men Baptized communion with unbaptized in Church fellowship as that which is contrary thereunto 1. That this was the order of the Gospel yea and an order enjoyned by Christ viz. that Beleevers should first be Baptized before admited into Church-fellowship will sufficiently appear if duly considered from that Commission of Christ to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 Go ye therefore teach all Nations Baptizing them Where we see that the very next thing they were to do after they had taught men viz. so as to make them willing to obey the Gospel Acts 2.41 was to Baptize them which injunction therefore as some well observe is put by a participle of the present tense Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. i. e. presently upon their being taught as all examples of that nature in the Acts of the Apostles do declare And if this were the very next thing in order to be done after men were instructed to the beleef of the Gospel then an admiting them into Church fellowship without this could not be without a deviation and turning from the rule of Christ in this behalf which transgression to suppose the Disciples of Christ admiting or the Disciples admited to be guilty of is a peece of uncharitableness more then I am willing to communicate in 2. The Apostles according to the Commandement of Christ begining first at Ierusalem to put this Commission of his into execution Luke 24.47 did act accordingly And doubtless their acting upon this Commission ought to be taken by us as an interpretation of this Commission and their actions relating hereto to be in pursuance of and correspondent to this Commission unless we will suppose them to stumble at the threshold and to begin to depart from it assoon as they began to act upon it which would be too great an
Baptisme of Repentance Luke 3.3 Acts 13.24 Now what was it for him to preach the Baptisme of Repentance but to preach that men ought to repent and so to be Baptized Which that it was also appears in that those that did receive Baptisme from him according to his preaching did professe Repentance for it s said they were Baptized of John in Jordan confessing their sins Mat. 3.6 Mar. 1.5 But the Pharisees who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and Justified themselves Luke 16.15 18.9 11. though many of them came to Johns Baptisme Mat. 3.7 yet it seems disowning the terms on which it was to be administred viz. repentance for remission of sinnes they are said to have rejected or made frustrate as the word is the Counsell of God against themselves not being Baptized of him Luk 7.30 But because the right understanding of the carriage of things here about in the very beginning of this Ministration of Baptism is of great use by which to judge how it ought to be used now the Ministration remayning still though the first Ministrators are dead Therefore I shall desire these two things may be well minded 1. That Johns Ministry by Preaching and Bâ—ptizing was that from which the Gospell Ministration began to take its rise or beginning and which began that great turne which was made in the World by abolishing the legall way of Worshâ—p and Ordinances and of bringing in the Evangelicall Hereupon it s said The Law and the Prophets were till John since that time the Kingdome of God i.e. the new and Gospell state is Preached and every Man presseth into it Therefore also is the Ministration of John called the beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God Mark 1.1 2. By the way then if God was pleased to honour the Ordinance of Baptisme with the ushering in of the Gospell Ministration into the World and to cause it thus to march in the front when he brought his first begotten into the World had not they need to consider whether they doe it right or no who cause it to march in the Reare of all the things of the Gospell in their Opinions of it and affections to it 2. That as Baptisme except it were Johns Preaching was the first Gospell Ordinance by which the change began so the terms of the Administration and Reception of this Ordinance now varied from the termes of the administration and reception of Ordinances under the Law as well as the Ordinance it self varied from those That which gave men right and title to the Ordinances of the Law Circumcâ—sion and the rest was their having Abraham to their Father That which now gave men right to John's Baptisme was not this but their repentance and this John sufficiently signifies Mat. 3.8 9. Luke 3.9 when in his preaching to the people that came to his Baptisme especially the Pharisees he said Thinke not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father but bring forth fruâ—ts meet for repentance as if he should have said Doe not think that plea will now serve your turne to render you capable of this Gospel-Ordinance viz that you have Abraham to your Father though it hath served your turne heretofore as to your particâ—pation in Mosaicall dispensations but now if you wâ—ll be bâ—ptised indeed and enter upon the Gospel-worship then bring forth fruits meet for or becomming repentance Whereupon we shâ—ll finde that he did instruct them how they should live for the time to come as well as to repent of and confesse their sinnes that were past Luke 3.10 11 12 13 14. And now if Baptisme were called the Baptism of Repentance because none but repentant persons or such as so professed themselves to be were to partake thereof then I am sure there is neither the same reason why Circumcision might be truly called the Circumcision of Repentance nor yet that Infants are as duly capable of the Baptisme of Repentance as they were of Circumcision XXXIV Querie answered 1. Whether those words Acts 2.38.39 Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sinnes and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost for the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are a farre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call I say whether these words did so much enjoyne those to whom spoken to repent in order to their being baptised as encourage them both unto the one duty and the other upon account of the promise relating to them I shall not need to determine But surely the Querist does not thinke but that their Repentance was enjoyned in order to their being baptised as well as for other causes unlesse he will say they were to be baptised first and then to repent after according to his own Method of baptising children 2. If the Parents Title to the Promise was a ground or motive unto them to be baptised but not be baptised without Repentance but both to repent and to be baptised as the Querist himselfe supposes it was then why should the Promise be any more a ground to the children to be baptised without repentance then it was to the Parents or how or by what passage word or syllable in the Text does the Qâ—erist discerne that the Promise was made upon any other termes to the Children then it was to the Parents 3. Is it not most apparent that the whole tenor of the Promise here made in respect of the persons to whom it is made expressed in these words you your children and all a far off is governed and limited by that last clause of the 39. ver even as many as the Lord our God shall call If so then the Promise did belong unto the children no otherwise then to the parents nor had they any interest in the promise of remission of sinne of gift of the holy Ghost untill called by Repentance and Bâ—ptismâ— the terms here proposed to render them capable of it no more then their parents had 4. If we consider what the Promise is which is here said to be made to them and to their children it will evidently appeare that it i.e. the good promised belongs to none but repenting persons †The Promise in a sense is made to all the world that is the publication and offer of it Mark 16.15 but Baptisme doth not hereupon belong to all the world but only to such as doe believe the Promise Faith being the condition of the good promised Baptisme is made by God to be as an Appendix to that condition Go preach the Gospell to every creature i.e. offer them Salvation by Iesus Christ but upon what termes shall they receive this Salvation offered These He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved so that Baptisme comes in upon the promise imbraced not upon the offer of the promise Now when Peter sayes the promise is made to you and your children the
suppose that those 3000. stood neerest unto him that spake and with best advantage to hear there being many thousands more present which can hardly be the supposition of any considering man in the case in hand Respon Not to take much notice how far the probable opinion of some will be accepted for proof against us when nothing but demonstrations will be accepted on our behalf I shall first demand of the Querist that if the children and families of those that gladly received the word and were baptized were indeed part of that number of 3000. that were added to the church or to the Discsples as he sayes it is the probable opinion of some that they were then I demand I say whether these children and families were baptized or no If he shall say they were not then he puts to rebuke another of his opinions which is that when believers themselves were baptized their children were baptized also to the belief of which he would perswade us at least as probable in his 24. Quaere from Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 If he say they were baptized why then though it should be granted that these were some of the number yet how would this prove that others besides those that were baptized were added to the church which yet is the thing he was to prove But then 2. to put the matter quite out of doubt that none of the children of those that gladly received the word were part of the 3000. that were added to the church if by children he mean little children or infants for els if they were adult ones they might gladly receive the word and be baptized as well as their parents it sufficiently appeares in that it is said They i. e. they that were added as well as they to whom they were added continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers and I presume the Querist will not say that little children infants did continue stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers and if not then they were none of the number of the 3000. that were added to the church and so I think by this time the probable opinion of some in this behalf is rendred more then probably to be a weak groundlesse and erroneous opinion 3. To remove that doubt touching the improbability that 3000. men should distinctly hear the voice of a man speaking unlesse we will suppose them to stand neerest to him that spake 1. Evident it is that they did hear and so hear as to receive the word gladly but whether they were neerest to him that spake or no is more then he or I can tell or need to know But 2. There is no necessity to suppose that all the whole 3000. did all of them heare and convert in the self-same hour or juncture of time for one while the Apostle might preach to one company of them and another while to another company and yet this would not hinder but that they might all be converted baptized and added to the church the self-same day 3. Neither do I see any necessity to hold that all these 3000. that were in one day converted baptized and added to the church were thus converted and baptized by Peter only but by him and the rest of the Apostles or by them and the other Disciples also For 1. it is said that Peter standing up with the eleven lift up his voece and said unto them c. and doth not this imploy that the eleven did take part with him and assist him in the work 2. These men of Israel being pricked at their hearts they do not cry out to Peter only but the text saith They said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we do ver 37. and therefore it should seem the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter had ministered occasion to them of this demand Nay 3. which is yet more it s said ver 4. that they all to wit the whole number of Disciples that were present together being filled with the Holy Ghost began to speak with tongues as the spirit gave them utterance which certainly was to the understanding of the multitude and also about such things as did much affect them for it s said the multitude were confounded at it and marvelled saying we do hear them speak in our own tongues the wonderfull works of God ver 6.7.8.11 All which things considered I think it will not be irrationall to suppose that others besides Peter might be instrumentall in the conversion of those 3000. Querist Nor 2. is it said or so much as intimated or hinted in the least that any of the whole number of the 3000. who were added unto them were added by means or upon the account of their being baptized although this addition be not mention'd till after their baptizing It is ten degrees mere probable that their believing or Discipleship which were precedent to their baptizing and not their being baptized were the reason and ground of Lukes saying they were added to the Church considering first that the originall main and principal foundation of the holy brother hood amongst the Saints is not the ceremony of their baptism but their fellowship and communion in the divine nature and inward relation to the same Christ by one and the same precious faith Respon We do not affirm that they were added to that particular church by baptism immediately without any other act intervening but we say they were not added without baptisme and so much is in effect acknowledged by the Querist himself in that he sayes this addition is not mentioned till after their being baptized and therefore their baptism must needs go before their addition to the church unlesse we will suppose Luke to have begun at the wrong end of this part of his Narrative in mentioning that first which was last done and that last which was first done and if so then according to the order of things done they were first added to the church and then afterward did gladly receive the word to conversion and were baptized which I suppose no man is so void of common sense as to believe And if their baptisme did precede their addition to the church then why does the Querist strive so as he does to interesse their believing or Discipleship with exclusion of their baptism as the reason and ground of Lukes saying they were added to the church For if he does not exclude baptisme in recounting the reason of that addition then we are agreed for there is no question but that their gladly receiving the Word or believing the Word or becoming Disciples by the Word was one reason or grouâ—d of their addition to the church but not the only one fâ—r Luke mentions their being baptized as well as that and why should any man go about to seperate them The question is not whether faith or baptisme is the originall main and
before Christ was crucified though its true also on the other side that neither could he truly estimate them to be of that number without any baptism at all because the greatest part of those that were baptized by John into the expectation of Christ to come yet dâ—d not believe in him or own him as the Christ of God when he was come much lesse they and many who had beene baptized by the Disciples of Christ did believe in him his being crucified notwithstanding * Luke had no reason to number them with the Church though bapâ—ized who had fallen from the Faith into which they were baptized and câ—nsequently had denied their baptism it self so that all the account that Luke could truly give of the number of the Church or of Disciples was only of such baptized persons who after the death and Resurrection of Christ did believe in him which it seemes amounted to no more then about an hundred and twenty And as for those who had beene baptized by John into the expectation of Christ to come and yet did not own him when he was come or els if they did believe in him for a season yet did afterward renounce him either before or upon his being crucified these were so far from being reputed of the number of the Gospell-church upon account of their baptism received formerly either from Iohn or Christ as that they were directed and exhorted by the Apostle as well to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus as to repent for the remission of sin before they could be admitted into the Church or be counted of its number their former baptism notwithstanding Act. 2.38 41. For who can imagine but that if not all yet that many of the 3000. that were baptized upon the preaching of Peter and the rest had been baptized before by Iohn or who can conceive but that if not all yet that many at the least of that great multitude unto whom the Apostle preached at that time when the 3000. were converted had beene baptized by Iohn those Scriptures considered cited by the Querist Mat. 3.5.6 Mark 1.5 Luk. 3.7.21 where it is said that all the Land of Judea and they of Jerusalem were ALL baptized And again that ALL the people were baptized and yet the Apostles exhortation to these inhabitants of Jerusalem that were now gathered together to the number of many thousands was that they would repent and be baptized EVERY ONE of them and as many as did receive this word were baptized accordingly and so added to the church Since then the owning of Christ crucified together with a being baptized in his name was requisite to render men of the number of Disciples as a Church Hence it came to passe that Luke could not estimate their number to be more then 120. Acts 1.1.15 nor above about 5000. Acts 4.4 notwithstanding more had been baptized by Iohn unlesse more of them had adhered to Christ crucified as these did so then though baptism be one of the requisites not without which yet it is not the only requisite by which the number of the church is to be estimated By this time therefore I hope it doth appeare that this Acts 2.41 doth both colour and cotten to use the Querists own words with the supposal or conclusion viz. that churches or at least the first Gospell-church a Sampler to the rest was not constituted without baptism notwithstanding all that by the Querist hath been offered to the contrary And if the first church or churches might not be constituted without baptism then neither may those that succeed them because the same reasons that made baptism necessary hereunto with them makes it necessary also unto us for Gospell-order setled by Apostollicall authority and direction as this was hath not lost any of its native worth efficacy or obliging vertue by disuse and discontinuance upon occasion of the Papall defection but ought to be the same to us now who are studious of a thorough reformation as it was unto them in the first beginning of such order or rather according to Davids resolution upon a like occasion Psal 119.126.127.128 to be the more closely adhered to and the vindication and observation of such Gospell-rules to be managed with so much the more zeal after the example of Christ himself who as well as the Psalmist was even eaten up with the zeal of his fathers house John 2.16.17 when he found corruption crept into it IV. Quaere Whether did not the Church at Rome in the Apostles daies and so also the Church in Galatia hold Church-communion with some who were not baptized considering 1. That the Apostle to the former writeth thus Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death Rom. 6.3 and to the later after the same manner thus For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ Gal. 3.27 2. That this Particle as many as used in both places is in such constructions as these alwayes partitive distinguishing or dividing the entire number of persons spoken of some from others by the character or property specified or at least supposeth a possibility of such a distinction Respon 1. I cannot grant the Querist his assertion viz. that this particle as many as is in such constructions as these alwayes partitive though I grant that many times it is for when the Apostle saith 1 Tim. 6.1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own Masters worthy of all honor doth he thereby suppose or imply that there were some servants who were not under the yoke or that there were some servants who were not to count their owne Masters worthy of all honour both which must be supposed notwithstanding if this form or manner of speaking as many as be alwayes to be understood partitively or as dividing the entire number of persons spoken of which yet to suppose who sees not how absurd it would be Object If it be said this exhortation Let as many servants as c. doth intentionally respect so many believing servants as were under the yoke and that therefore in respect of other servants who were not believers it is partitive Answ If so then the answer is that so do those expressions used Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 intentionally only respect those at Rome and in Galatia who did believe and were baptized and therefore is partitive in respect of others the Inhabitants of those places dividing those of these churches from others dwelling in the same places who were not of these churches so that if that objected should be granted yet we shall gaine as much or more by it one way then we shall lose by it in the other 2. The coherence consulted will evince the expressions so many of us as and as many as to comprehend all those persons of whom those churches did consist For consider unto whom does the Apostle speak Rom. 6.3 does he not speak to the whole church
ought rather to be appropriated to persons professing the Faith then unto Infants and not the contrary as the Qâ—erist would have it and the reason hereof is because Baptisme is more edifying both to the Bâ—ptized themselves and also to others when administered to persons professing the Faith then when to Infants And this must needs be so because Infants by reason of their want of understanding and Faith are not capable of receiving that Spirituall edification by Baptisme not of improving it unto their Spirituall advantage as those are that have the Use and Exercise of understanding and Faith too Nor is the administration of Baptisme like to be so taking with others that are but Spectators either as to the informing of their judgements or moving of their affections when applied to a Creature as an Infant is expressing no knowledge of God or Jesus Christ nor Love or Obedience to him or any desire to his wayes as the same would be when administred to a Believer who by his voluntary submission to that Ordinance Preaches to men his beliefe in Jesus Christ as Dead Buried and Risen againe And his exepectation of Remission of sins through Faith in his Name and their own desires and resolutions of giving up themselves wholly unto Jesus Christ unlesse you will suppose there is no difference betweene zeale and no zeale in this behalfe which cannot be supposed without contradicting the Spirit of those and the like Scriptures Mat. 21.32 with Luke 7.29 30. 2 Cor. 9.2 2. I cannot be of the Querists minde I confesse that Circumcision and Baptisme are the same in Spirit and Substance though differing in the Letter Because circumcision was no signe or resemblance of the Death Buriall and Resurrection of Christ and of Mens Death Buriall and Resurrection with him which yet the Scripture makes to be the spirit of Baptisme Rom. 6.3.4 5. Col. 2.12 And therefore this reason is no reason either why Baptisme should rather appropriately belong to Infants rather then any others or indeed that it should belong to them or all though Circumcision did 3. Whereas the Querist directs us diligently to compare Rom. 4.11 with Marke 1.4 Luke 3.3 c. out of which to finde that Baptisme and Circumcision are one in strength and substance of Spirit I confesse I have diligently considered these Texts and till I did diligently consider them was of the Querists mind herein but by a diligent considering of them am now of another minde I suppose the Querist would have us to conceive from these Scriptures that Circumcision was a Seale of the Righteousnesse which comes by Faith and Baptisme a Seale of the Righteousnesse wich comes by Repentance and therefore the same Spiritually But what relation soever Baptisme hath to Repentance as indeed I no where finde it called a Seale of the righteousnesse of Repentance yet confident I am that when the Apostle calls Circumcision A Seale of the Righteousnesse of that Faith which Abraham had before he was circumcised hee does not describe the common nature of Circumcision as he had done in those words imediately before where he calls it a Signe which agrees with Gods own Denomination of it when he first instituted it and therefore most likely adequately to answer the common end and use of it But hee describes Circumcision in these words A Seale of the Righteousnesse c. as that which it was peculiarly to Abraham For 1. It is not called a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith indefinitely but onely A Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which HE HAD And 2. A Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised And then 3. The end wherefore Circumcision became such a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Abrahams Faith and it was this THAT hee might be the Father of all them that believe And were not these things in respect whereof Circumcision was a Seale peculiar unto Abraham onely Or did God ever give Circumcision as is said he gave to Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 7.8 to any other as the Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which he had before he was Circumcised or to ratifie and establish him the Father of all that should afterward believe If not why should we thinke Circumcision was in common a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith to other men as long as the reasons wherefore it is so called are peculiar unto Abraham alone The Apostles scope here was as will appeare in the Context to prove that Circumcision did contribute nothing in the businesse of justification and this hee proves in that Abraham was justified before Circumcised and not onely so but his very receiving of Circumcision from God upon these tearmes hee did receive it was an evidence or demonstration that Abraham was justified in the sight of God before hee received it and that he did receive it for such an end as that he might stand declared under this Seale of God as a Man of such high acceptation with God as to be thereupon called and accounted the Father the famous example and patterne of all those that should believe And if Abraham did receive Circumcision as a Testimoniall of that love which God did beare to him before as Nehemiah sayes that God found his heart faithfull before him and entered into Covenant with him thereupon Neh. 9.8 then it could not be the procuring cause of Abrahams acceptation with God This construction of the word then so directly answering and accommodating the drift and Scope of the Apostle I see no reason to embrace any other that is contrary to it For to understand the Apostle as speaking of Circumcision in the common nature of it as a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith seemes to mee rather to disaccomodate the Apostle in his intendment then otherwise Since those with whom Paul here disputes might rather thereby be confiâ—med in their Opinion of the necâ—ssity of Circumcision unto Justification since things writings for example are not authentick till they are Sealed and therefore should Paul have told them that Circumcision had been the Seale of Justification might not they have inferred that therefore justification could not be compleat without it 3. Should wee grant that which the Querist would have viz. That Circumcision and Baptisme were the same in Spirit and Substance which yet we may not grant yet that would by no meanes follow thereupon which the Querist supposeth viz. That Baptisme is and Circumcision was most edifying when administred to Infants Or else that Circumcision was ordered by God unto the Spirituall losse and detriment of those to whom it was enjoyned For this Assertion cannot be true unlesse you will suppose that which is manifestly untrue viz. That there is no mean betweene most edifying and none at all or which is more that there is no mean betweene MOST edifying and Spirituall losse and detriment For Circumcision might have been edifying as administred to Children to the first or second degree
of Edification and yet neither be most Edifying nor yet matter of Spirituall detriment unlesse the comparatives of Lesse and More were not in use in those days I will willingly grant that the whole ministration of Moses was edifying to a degree and therefore Circumcision also though administred to Infants in some respect or other but I shall withall deny that it or Circumcision as administred to Infants was Most edifying for then it should have remained still as the Apostle saith Heb. 8.7 If that first Covenant had been faultlesse then should no place have been sought for the second It was then because of that little low and meane degree of Spirituall benefit or edification that was to be had by Circumcision as administred to Infants or by other Rites or Oâ—dinances of the Law that the same were abrogated and made void as is most evident also by that other saying of the Apostle Heb. 7.18.19 For there is verily a disanulling of the Commandement going before for the weakenesse and unprofitablenesse of it for the Law made nothing perfect If so is it not most unreasonable to say that the Law or any part of it and particularly Circumcision as administred to Infants was most edifying Or if it were most edifying according to the 〈◊〉 of Gods Dispensation for the time then being is there any shew or appearance of reason in it that an administration to Infants must be most edâ—fying now under the Gospell because such a thing was the most edifying way which God was pleased to vouchsafe the Church in her non-age under the Law when as it is plaine that as edifying as it was it was disanulled for the unprofitablenesse of it 4. What ever the confidence of the Querist is to the contrary yet there is not onely a colour of reason but the substance or reason also why Baptisme should not be so edifying as to its end â—hen administred to Infants as Circumcisian was and might be as to its end when it was administred to Infants because Circumcision was no such transient act as Baptisme is but such as remained a permanent signe in the flesh as a visible matter of signification and instruction to the party circumcised all his dayes Gen. 17.13 which is a thing that no man can affirm of Infants Baptisme XXIV Querie Answered That the Baptizing of Infants in the Apostles dayes is not sufficiently or at all signified by those Scriptures which mention the Baptizing of housholds Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 will sufficiently appeare 1. Because the housholds whose being Baptized is recorded being onely but three it may with as good probability be affirmed that there were no little Children in them as that there were and in that respect we are upon equall ground with our friends in denying what they take liberty only to suppose 2. If there were Infants in those housholds yet the word House or Houshold in Scripture frequently imports not all and every individuall Soule in the house but either the major part or so many of the house which according to common reason are to be supposed capable of those affirmations that are made concerning them 1 Sam. 1.21 22. Gen. 50.4 35.2 2 Sam. 3.1 Jer. 35.3.18 Mat. 10.13 12.35 John 4.53 Acts 18.8 10.2 Josh 24.15 2 Tim. 4.19 Rom. 16.10 11. And accordingly must those Scriptures be understood where housholds are said to be Baptized 3. In that it is said concerning one of the three housholds whose Baptisme is recorded That the Word of the Lord was spoken to them and that they believed Acts 16.34 and of another that they addicted themselves to the Ministery of the Saints 1 Cor. 16.15 with Chap. 1. v. 16. It is evident that either there were no Infants in those housholds or else that when they speake of housholds they meane onely such of them as had attained the age of so much understanding as to doe heare and believe such things as were incompetible to the capacity of Infants or little Children To the reasons moving the Querist to thinke Infants were Baptized when these housholds were Baptized I answer 1. That God hath not left the Precept and perpetuall example of Circumcising Infants as a pit uncovered for Believers to fall into by Baptizing their Children by giving no hint of the alteration of his minde in that behalfe For in that hee hath in the New Testament abolished the use and practice of Circumcising Infants its cleare hee hath abolished the Law by which Circumcision of Infants was enjoyned But hee hath done the former Acts 21.21 1 Cor. 7.19 Gal. 5.2 Therefore the latter And therefore considering that the Law of Circumcision as all other Mosaicall Rites being disanulled I cannot but wonder that any man should build any thing upon it for the Baptizing of Infants Is not a repealed Law and no Law of the same consideration as to its being any ground of practice But may wee not much rather conceive that since God did make a Law against mans opening or digging a pit in his field and not covering it to prevent the miscarriage of Man or Beast in falling into it Exod. 21.33 that then surely he himselfe would never have left the Precept and perpetuall example of Baptizâ—ng Beleevers as a Pit uncovered for Christians to fall into by nâ—glecting to Baptize their Children till they repent and beleeve without giving the least notice of his mind and will to have any other then such Beleevers to be Baptized if yet it had beene his minde that Children should have been baptâ—zed 2. That which the Querist offers to render children to be Beleevers in Scripture-sence is insufficient as to the entitling of them to Baptism or to cause us rationally to conceive them included in their number who in the housholds aforesaid are said to have beleeved For 1. If it should be granted that children may be called Beleevers not because they doe beleeve indeed but because they are in like state and condition with Beleevers in respect of the love and favour of God and their Title to the Kingdome of Heaven which yet is all the Querist argues from Mat. 18.6 Yet what is this to the proving of them actuall Beleevers or such as imbraced the Gospell or were made to beleeve by teaching which yet were that kinde of Beleevers onely unto whom Baptisme was or was to be administred for so much as appeares throughout the whole New Testament But 2. The truth is the little ones which are said to beleeve in Christ Mat. 18.6 cannot with any congruity of reason be supposed to be any such little ones as Infants are Because they are described by an Act which presupposeth not only the Faculty but the Use Act and Exercise of the understanding for so the Act of beleeving in Christ does by which they are described which yet as all men know is incompetible to Infants And therefore we must suppose either 1. That the Child which Jesus called to him Ver. 2. was of so much
understanding as rendred him capable of beleeving and it was such a Child as came upon the call of Jesus or else 2. That the little ones ver 6. which are said to believe are not the same with that little Child mentioned ver 2. And there are these two reasons why they should not be thought the same 1. Because ver 2. speakes of one Child onely in the singular number but ver 6. speakes of little ones in the plurall number and that too not under the appellation of Child or Children as before but of little ones 2. If we compare this passage with the other Evangelists as Mark. 9.42 Luke 17.2 It will bee evident as it is rendred by them that little ones were not little Babes or little Children properly so called but the Dâ—sciples of Christ whom he frequently calls little ones and sometimes little Children John 13.33 2. But that which is further added by the Querist why Infants can upon no tollerable account be excluded when it is said of whole Housholds or Families that they were dipped though it should be supposed they were in no sence capable of believing is I confesse to mee seasonable and it is because they were as capable and in some respects more capable of being dipt then Men as if their being capable de facto to be dipped must needs argue them capable de jure of the Ordinance of Baptisme as well as Men Such a capacâ—ty not onely Infants but other Creatures also have as well as Men and if this had been all the capacity requisite no doubt but Children had been as capable as any yea and other Creatures too 3. Is that a good reason why we should thinke Children were Baptâ—zâ—d with the housholds before mentioned because wee ought not to contend with God or reject any part of his Counsell or Will because onely somewhat sparingly and with some scantinesse of evidence discovered in his word Nay rather since the Will of God is herein manifest that persons professing the Faith were the subject of his Baptisme all the while the Scriptures and the Hâ—story of things then were in composing let no man contend with God because he hath not framed the Scripture to his mind or opinion nor goe about to force the Scripture to speake that they have no minde to speake or suppose when God hath delivered his Mind plainly That yet he hath thoughts and counsells of another nature more comporting with his minde as Baalam sometime thought in another case 4. The Qâ—erist supposes severall other Tenents to be imbraced upon weaker and lesse lightsome grounds then such as are given for Infant-Baptisme but that hee should mention the admission of women to the Lords Table for one of these tenents is I confesse matter of wonder to me for there is both precept and example upon which this tenent is grounded but neither the one nor the other for the baptising of Infants and therefore how the ground for this should be more lightsome then for the other is that which passes my reason to comprehend For matter of precept for admitting women to the Table of the Lord we have it in these words Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11.28 For I doubt not but the Querist well knowes that Man in this place is the common gender signifiâ—s the kind and not the sex and therefore women to be every whit as much concerned therein as men For example we have it Acts 2.42 compared with Acts 1.14 and 2.16.18 For in the former place we finde the three thousand that were added together with those to whom they were added continued in fellowship and breaking of bread In the other places we finde that among those Disciples to whom the three thousand were added there were Women and Hand-maids of the Lord and therefore it is every whit as plaine from this place that women did break bread as that men did And when it 's said Acts 20.7 That the Disciples came together to break Bread upon the first day of the weeke why should it be understood of men any more then women in as much as women are Disciples as well as men unlesse haply it be said there is particular mention made of Paul and Eutychus And now let the Qâ—erist produce us more lightsome grounds then precept and example for his sprinkling of Infants or else forbeare this comparison XXV Querie answered If a baptismall sprinkling of an Infant as the Querist's expression is which is as much as to say a sprinkling by dipping bâ— no more the Ordinance of Baptisme then another common action is as I verily presume it is not till it be proved to be of a dâ—vine appointment then the baptismall sprinkling the Querist speakes of varies the case of baptising one after this sprinkling no more then the baptising of one after the doing of any Ordinarie and common action and therefore it might with as bapti-reason in my opinion have been demanded whether the much sing of one who hath been so and so nursed so and so attended so and so attired in his infancy be any where countenanced in Scripture by particularity or expressenesse of precept or example as whether the submitting to a baptismall dipping after a baptismall sprinkling be so countenanced But as touching particularity of precept or example in such cases I have answered more largely to querie 1.7.8.22 And whereas the Querist further demands Whether they doe not presume as much or rather more upon their owne judgements and understandings in making Infant-Baptisme a meere nullity the Scripture giving no such sentence against it as they do who make it an Ordinance of God or a meer and necessary administration of an Ordinance I answer No they doe not Because they doe not proceed upon their owne judgement onely but upon Scripture-ground who rejâ—ct every administration which is obtruded as necessary which hath no footing in the Word of God For every Plant which the heavenly Father hath not planted is to be plucked up Mat. 15.13 though every such Plant which men have or shall plant upon their owne judgements onely as Infant-Baptisme crosse in Bâ—ptisme Surplice upon the Priests back and many others be not particularly mentioned in Scripture yet it is sufficient that we have that generall warrant to reject aâ—l that is not of Gods planting But now they that shall practâ—se Infant-sprinkling as an Ordinance or as a necessary Administration of an Ordinance of God without warrant from God they plant and not God which plant is to be rooted up and rejected by those that will side with God against the corruptions and superstitions of men And therefore whereas the Querist makes that a reason of the practise of Infant-Baptisme viz. because as he sayes Infants at least of Believers are no where excluded by God from part and fellowship in that administration it is nothing but what hath been and with as good a shew of
meaning is that the offer and tender of Salvation did belong unto them and their children and to all a far off and the good of it to as many as God should call Though there be in Scripture severall Discoverie of the gracious councell of God concerning little children yet where ever any termes of grace and salvation are offered or promised upon the taking place of something to be believed or done by the creature there the Promise or Offer of Grace is alwayes to be understood to respect not Infants but persons having the use and exercise of their reason and understanding Deut. 11.1 2. Mark 4.9 23. and consquently not to Infants and if the Promise did not belong to Infants as Infants then no Baptisme upon account of the Promise The things here promised are the remâ—ssion of sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost for those are the things the Apostle does ascertaine them by the Promise Now this Promise of remission of Sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost is either absolute and without condition or else it is only conditionall for betweene these there is no mean If absolute then the remission of Sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost were promised to all the Jewes and their children without any condition at all whether they did repent and were baptised or no but this I think no man will affirme If the Promise then was conditionall as you see it must needs be then none had right to the Promise that is to the things promised but those that had performed the condition for take away the condition of the Obligation or Promise and the Obligation ceases to be now the condition of the Promise is here clearly set by the Apostle to be if not Repentance and a being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for if any knowes how upon good ground to divide them herein let it so be yet I am sure Repentance is Repent and be baptised c. and ye shall receive c. that is and thereupon ye shall receive c. And if Repentance was the condition of the Promise here mentioned by the Apostle then I am sure the children of these Jewes could no more have right to the Promise here made untill they did repent then the parents themselves could and consequently no more right to Baptisme upon account of the Promise then they had Which thing is so evident and cleare that I shall wonder if any rationall man shall not discerne it if he will but give his reason and judgement full scope to consider it XXXV Querie answered Here the Querist demands Whether God doth smell in the assemblies of those which he sayes judge themselves the only duly baptised persons under heaven with any such pleasure or delight as he smelleth many the Assemblies of those who are called unbaptised or are they filled with the glory and presence of God at such a rate or are there any such manifestations of the spirit there or are the powers of the world to come so active and busie in the Church meetings of the one as they are in the other Had the Querist given us to understand in what respects he speaks these things and by what he makes judgement when and when not such appearances of God as he speakes of are vouchsafed men in their Assemblies we might have knowne the better how to have satisfied his demand If he judge of the presence of God and the activity of the powers of the world to come in this case by those effects which the ministration of the Gospel in such or such Assemblies works in men in causing them to deny themselves in their worldly interest not seeking the great things of this world but being content to lose the favour and respect of men the love of relations and to expose themselves to the censures hard thoughts evill speakings reproachings revilings scoffings laughings and oppositions of men that they might approve themselves faithfull to God and likewise in causing them to seek the honour of God and good of Men in dispensing the Gospel freely and perswading all to a close and intire conformity thereto both in their drawings nigh to God in the matters of his house and worship and in their deportment and carriage towards men in common conversation I say if judgement shall be made of the presence of God with his pâ—ople by such effâ—cts as these which yet were the great tokens of the presence of his grace in the fiâ—st times of the Gospel then doubtlesse the Querist needed not to have made a question of it where these are most visible Or if he will estimate the presence of God we speak of by those glorious successes which he is pleased to give unto the meetings Ministery and endeavours of his Servants in bringing in great numbers and multitudes both of men and women to be obedient to the Faith according to the Doctrine and Order of the Gospel then I shall desire him to cast his eyes abroad in the Land and then tell us by whose hands the greatest part of those many Churches that are separated from the nationall way have been planted especially in those places where not long since scarce so much as a face of Religion was to be seene As concerning many of those of whom such Churches do consist it is very true that that which our Saviour speaks of the Ministry of the Prophets disposing and preparing a People for the hands of the Apostles and for that Gospel-mould into which they were to cast them may aptly enough be applyed to the Ministry of the Baptists in planting and building of Churches of such materialls as were in part prepared to their hands John 4.37 38. Herin is that saying true One soweth another reapeth I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour Other men laboured and ye are entred into their labour But the Lord hath been pleased not onely to use them as his workmen to polish some living stones which were in part hewne before and for the building them up into spirituall houses putting them into the right order and way of worshipping God perfecting as to this that which was lacking before but hath also so wonderfully prospered his word in their mouthes in turning of men from darknesse to light and from the power of Satan unto God in severall the dark places of this Nation that I confesse I have not heard of the like testimony given by God to the endeavours of any other sort of men in these dayes and surely such things as these were wont to be accounted signes of the presence of the Lord with his people Acts 11.21 And the hand of the Lord was with them and a great number beleeved and turned to the Lord. Neâ—ther can it reasonably be thought that the Scriptures are as a sealed Booke among these Men whilst such effects are produced by their opening and pressing of them Well may it be indeed that the Scriptures are not dished and carved out
of this that they are in such a condition cannot be the adequate reason of Mens admitting them to Baptisme because the reason of the ones participation must be the reason of the others admission of them to that partâ—cipation and Gods reason of appointing Baptisme to be administred to men must guide and limit men in their administration of it in respâ—ct of the persons to whom they doe administer it But now that persons being in a happy condition already is not the full and adequate reason why God would have them baptizâ—d but rather that they might be yet in a better and more happy condition is most apparent from the end of all Lawes and Ordinances of God g ven unto men and therefore this among the rest viz. the further good and benefit of men to be promoted by thâ—m for otherwise they would be no argument or token of his love to them And why else should God impose the use of them upon his Creature Certainly it is not because God stands in any need of them or of their using of them but because his Creature hath need of them and may be bettered by them Deut. 10.13 Mark 2.27 Job 22.3 35.7 8. If then the good of men that is a further good be the reason why God would have them Baptized then Faith becomes requisite here unto upon thâ—s account viz. not to declare them in good condition already but because it is that qualification or mean without which the ordinance will doe them no good without which the end of Baptisme is not attainable unlesse we will needs be of that Popish Opinion to thinke that the Grace of God and good of the Ordinance accrues meerly by the worke done which opinion it s very probable gâ—ve the first being unto Childrens Baptisme Faith then is to be insisted on in persons to whom Baptisme is to be administred not for Faiths sake nor yet simply as it is declarative of their being in a happy condition in whom it is but rather as it is declarative of this viz. that those persons in whom it is and that by means of it are in a due capacity to receive that good by baptisme which God intends men in it and so the proper subjects of it 5. That it seems which much inclines the Querist to think that Faâ—th was insisted on by the Apostles as necessary to be found in those to whom they administed baptisme only as declarative of their being in a good and happy condition and which would not so have beene insisted on by them could they have come to the certaine knowledge of that their good condition any other way I say that which it seemes inclines him thus to thinke is this because otherwise hee cannot tell how to conceive that Christ should be a meete or duly qualified subjâ—ct for this administration hee having no such Faith as the Apostles requâ—red in those whom they baptized nor does he think that any man will presume to say that he was baptâ—zed either contrary to or besides the rule or minde of God touching persons meete to be baptized espâ—cially considering that himselfe renders this account of his desiring of and submitting to baptisme viz. because it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse Mat. 3.15 To which I answer I will not indeed presume to say that Christ was Baptized either contrary to or besides the rule given by God touching persons meete to be Baptized But yet it will not therefore follow that Johns knowledge of the good and happy condition that Christ was in in respect of Gods love to him was the only and adequate reason and ground of his administring baptisme to him For though all the ends and reasons of administering Baptisme to others did not meete or were to be found in Christ to render him a meete subject of Baptisme as viz. Repentance for Remission of sins yet there were severall things in Christ obvious to John besides his being in the favour of God which in common with others rendered him a meet and capable subject of baptisme As 1. The confession of his Faith or which is the same the declaration of himselfe to John after such a manner and upon such terms as by which John did perceive him a person meet to be baptized for otherwise how should John come to know that hee was such an one for till he came to be baptized of him it seemes he did not know him to be the Son of God as he himselfe testâ—fies John 1.31.33.34 And howâ—ver if John knew that Christ was the Son of God either by his confession or otherwise he knew also that he did beleeve himseâ—fe so to be which very faith being found in another viz. of believing Jesus to be the Son of God rendered him a meete subj ct of baptisme according to common rule as we see in the Eunuch the profession of whose faith and upon which Philip did bâ—pâ—â—zâ— h m was but this I believe that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God Acts 8.37 And why should not the same faith which rendred another duly capable oâ— baptisme render him capable of it in like manner 2. Another common reason of adm ssion to baptisme found in Christ was his professed desiâ—e to ob y the righteous Law institution or declared Will of God in being baptâ—zed though perhaps in other respects he had not that need of it as others that received it had Suffer it to be so now saith he to Iohn i.e. forme to be baptizâ—d by thee for thus it becomes us i.e. himself and others to fulfill all righteousnesse or every Lâ—w or Precept of God whereof this of Bâ—ptisme was one And though John as it seemes otherwise judgâ—d Christ to have no need of his baptisme yet upon this profession of Christs desire to obey God therein and his declaring it necessary and comely for him so to doe John did baptize him for the Text saith Then he suffered him Mat. 3.15 And I desire it may be observed that the true reason of Christ his being baptized is here rendered and that is not his being in the love and favour of God as the Querist supposes but partly his desiâ—e to fulfill and observe the same lâ—w himselfe which was imposed upon other men and partly because of that meetnesse or comlinesse that was in such an act of obedience or conformity to the Will of God as that was which may wâ—ll shame those who thinke themselves exempt from water baptism becâ—use they have attained more otherwise then those new borne babes in Christ were wont to have attained at the time of their taking up baptism Christ though hee had not that need of Bapâ—â—sm as others had yet he dâ—sired to shew himself as obedient as any in stooping though it had beene to the lowest ordinance and least command of God 3. That account which Christ had now given of his knowledge faith and desire to obey God might well be a reason for John to conclude that some good and blessed effect would redound to Christ upon his taking up that Ordinance of baptisme as indeed there did for there upon the holy Ghost descended upon him in the likenesse of a done and likewise a voyce from the Father declaring his high contentment in him saying this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Mat. 3.16.17 And this reason of Iohns administring baptism to Christ was much of the same nature with that ground upon which other men and women were wont to be baptized For their declared qualification of their Knowledge Faith and Desire to obey God was still a ground to him that did administer baptisme to believe that the ordinance would not be in vaine to them but a means of much blessing And therefore unlesse some such qualifications as these could in some measure be found in Infants to render them capable suâ—jects of baptism as well as Christ theris nothing at all to be inferred from Christs being baptized to justifie the administration of baptisme to them Neither on the other hand is there any thing duly to be argued from Iohns admâ—nistering baptism to Christ to prove that a profession of faith and a willingnesse to obey God is not necessarily required in all persons whatsoever to whom baptisme ought to be administred The premisses then considered it is so far from being as evident as the Sun at noon-day that all persons and particularly Infants who may be known to be in the love and favour of God without a profession of faith are without faith or a profession of faith as regularly and compleatly quallified for baptism as the loudest professors of their faith under Heaven as that the quite contrary thereunto is evident if not as evident as the Sun at noon-day which any but those that are blind may see yet evident enough to be discerned by considering men And thus though I have not said all that might have been given in by way of answer to these Qâ—eries for then perhaps as much might have been bestowed upon one as now is upon them all yet I hope by what is said there are such hints of light delivered as by a rationall improvement wherof the Reader may easily come at ample satisfaction touching the cases of conscience therein debated FINIS
audaciousnes in any man once to imagine If so then what is more plain then that the Commission of Christ to them was to teach and baptise first and to admit into Church fellowship thereupon and not otherwise as is visible in that prime example of theirs Acts 2.41.42 Then they that gladly received his Word were Baptized and the same day there was added unto them about three thousand souls And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in Prayers Where you see they were first taught by Preaching secondly did gladly receive the Word by which they were taught thirdly were baptized fourthly were added unto them viz. the Church ver 47. fifthly continued stedfastly in the Apstles Doctrine and fellowship c. Addition to the Church then and fellowship in it did follow baptism and not go before it according to the actuated commission of Christ Jesus And why should any servants of his then desire to vary from it unless they presume themselves wiser then he and hope to finde a greater good in their own way then in his 3. Baptism must needs precede the enjoyment of Church priviledge in Church fellowship in the Apostles dayes because it was then as it ought still to be a means of planting men into Christ or into the body of Christ the Church Hence they were said to be Baptized into Christ Galathians 3. vers 27. and to be baptized into his death Romans 6. v. 3. and to be planted together into the likeness of his death upon that accompt ver 5. of the same chapter And what does a planting and a planting together import but the first puting together of Christians in order to their growing together in Christ and yet all this is done by Baptism And may you not therefore as well suppose trees to grow together before they are planted together as to suppose Christians to grow together before they are planted together and yet planted together they are by Baptism not into this or that particular Church but into that one Church of Christ which is distributed into severall parts and particular Societies Hereupon it is that Baptism is called one of the Principles or begining Doctrines of Christ and likewise part of the Foundation Heb. 6.1 2. And what house stands without its Principles or is built without a foundation Nay the Apostle 1 Cor. 12 13. doth plainly declare Baptism to be of so constant and universall a use as to the inchurching of persons of all sorts ranks and degrees that were incorporated at all in his time as that none came into the Church but through this door For he sayes they were all Baptized into one body i. e. Church body whether Jewâ— or Gentils bond or free And if any man can name any persons that were neither Jews nor Gentiles neither Bond nor Free then I will confess those possibly might be brought into the Church without Baptism But otherwise though they were Jews and had been formerly entred in their Church by circumcision yet when they became of the Gospel Church it was not without Baptism Or if Gentles a people sometimes a far off yet by Baptism upon their beleeving were brought into capacity of the same enjoyments with the Jews If free as Masters yet not admited without Baptism if bound as servants yet made equally capable of the same Church priviledges by Baptism For so he sayes again Gal. 3.27 28. As many of you as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentle bond nor free male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus i. e. all having thus put on Christ are become all one in him Some indeed seem somewhat to doubt whether the Apostle speaks of water Baptism when he sayes That by one Spirit we are all Baptised into one body or whether he does not rather speak of the Baptism of the Spirit without water Though these indeed are the doubtfull thoughs of some contrary to the generally received opinion of men upon the place yet I must do my honored Querist that right as to quit him from fellowship in that opinion and to acknowledge that he not long since in a discourse upon the same words did teach the Auditory to understand by being Baptized by one Spirit into one Body and by being made to drink into one Spirit as is exprest in the latter part of the verse that the Communion which Beleevers have with the holy Spirit in the two Ordinances Baptism and the Supper of the Lord is intended by the Apostle and this he did without doubt to me according to the truth For what else can be intended by drinking into one Spirit but the Saints communion in Spirit in and by the Supper drinking by a Synecdoche being put both for eating and drinking If so why should we not as wel understand the fiâ—st Ordinance Baptism in its proper sence for water Baptism in the former part as the latter Ordinance the Supper in its proper sence in the latter part of the verse Neither can we reasonably undeâ—stand the same thing to be intended by being Baptised by one Spirit and by drinking into one Spirit which yet we must do if a being indued with the Spirit were all that is here meant for they are said to be Baptized into one body but to drink into one Spirit and surely Baptizing and drinking here are no more the same then the Body and the Spirit are the same into which they are said respectively to be Baptized and to drink But cleerly the Apostle seems hereby to intend to minde these Corinthians how that by means of the same spirit working upon all their hearts they became members of the same body through Baptism and that being of the Body they came to have communion in Spirit or with the Spirit in the supper And that which will yet further serve to evince that it is not a Baptism with the spirit but a Baptism with water that is here meant is this because the spirit is here set forth by the Apostle as the Agent or working cause and Baptism as the effect and it is ridiculous to make both cause and effect the same thing It is true indeed the scripture doth speak of a being Baptized with the spirit but when ever it does so it still declares either Jesus Christ or God the Father as the Agent Baptizing with the spirit but never as making the spirit both the subject matter wherewith and also the Agent whereby men are Baptized in the same Baptism See for this Mat. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Luke 3.16 Act. 1.4 5. with Luke 24.49 Acts 11.16 The premises therefore considered I hope it will sufficiently appear and that to the satisfaction of any indifferent man that in the primitive times none were admited to Church-communion without Baptism and if so have we in these dayes reason to do any other wise Ought not that which was a reason to them not to admit
Church-members into Church-fellowship without baptism to be a reason unto us likewise to steer the â—ame course unlesse we will say those Gospell rules by which â—hey ordered themselves in those times were binding only to Christians of the first agâ— of the Gospell but not to us now â—nd if so then farewell all Goâ—pâ—â—â— Obligations for if we may â—ake liberty to cast away one Law of Gospell Order and Worship then why not two and so three and in the end all â—o which indeed these lâ—sser beginnings do truly tend and I would to God it might be more considered and laid to heart Querist How can this ever be proved that there were no believers unbaptized in the Apostles daies Respon I know none that does affirm any such thing as that a beâ—ever was not at any time while he was a believer unbaptized â—ny doubtlesse men were believâ—rs first and then were baptiâ—ed after they began to believe But if the Querist intends â—hus how will it be proved that no believer in Church-felâ—owshâ—p was unbaptiz d Thâ—n the answer is that it is proved by those and the like Scriptures lately quoted where it s said in â—ffect that all of all â—orts â—â—â—ks and dâ—grâ—â—s that were of the â—ody were baptized into that body and if â—ll were of the body by it then none were without it Querist Be it granted that thâ—re wâ—â—â— no believâ—â—◠〈…〉 the Apostles daies upon what ground nâ—â—wâ—â—◠〈…〉 practise â—ow queriâ—â— be justified 〈◊〉 maintained 〈…〉 certainly know and can satisfie themselves 〈…〉 had been such believers in these times 〈…〉 unbaptized or unâ—â—â—â— baptized â—y those â—â—ly 〈…〉 have declined sâ—ch communion with them as that speâ—â—â—â—â— Respon Believers now are doubâ—â—â— no 〈…〉 believers were then I do not mean 〈…〉 nuâ—â—â—â— and if so then the same ground that did satisfiâ—â—apâ—â—zâ—â— believer then in not joyning in Church fellowship 〈…〉 unbaptized though they diâ— beâ—â—eve 〈…〉 for they did believe before they were baptized and yet were not admitted into Church communion till after baptized as was proved above will serve to satisfie baptized believers now touching the lawfulnesse of the same practise which is the will and appointment of Jesus Christ that so it should be for in that we find such a thing practised with approbation of the Apostles we may well conclude it to procâ—â—d from their directions and instructions and consequently from the Lord himself as we are taught to infer 1 Cor. 14.37 II. Query Whether can it be proâ—ed from the Scriptures or by any argument like to sâ—tisfie the conscience of any tender and considerâ—ng Christian that the Apostles or other Christians in their daies would have dâ—clined Church communion with such persons whom they judged true believers in Christ only because they had not been baptized after a profession of their believing Respon It does not only appear that the Apostles and other Christians would have declined Church-communion with believers because not baptized but it appears they did do it for it sufficiently appeares that men and women did believe before they were baptized Act. 2.41 8.12.37.38 18 8. with many other places And I hope it is proved to satisfaction in my answer to the first Query that believers were not admitted to Church fellowship then till after baptized their believing notwithstanding if so what is a not admitting lesse then a refusing to admit them to such communion The reason why the Querist seems to conceive that the Apostles and other Christians would not have declined Church-communion with believers only for their want of baptisme runs thus Querist Considering that the Apostle Paul expresly saith That in Jesus Christ i. e. under the Gospel or profession of Jesus Christ in the world neither circumcisiâ—n avaâ—â—eth any thing not uncircumcision but saith which worketh by love Gal. 5.6 And again That circumcision is nothing nor uncircumcision is nothing but the keâ—ping of the Commandements of God 1 Cor. 7.19 meaning that under the Gospel neither did the observation of any externall Rite or Ceremony Circumcision by a Syneedothe Specie being but for all kind of externall Rites or ceremonies avail or contribute any thing towards the commending of any person unto God nor yet the want of any such observation discommend any man unto God or prejudice his acceptation with him but that which was all in all unto men and which availed any thing in and under the Gospel that which being found in men rendred them accepted and approved of God and the want of it disapproved was such a kind of faith not such or such a kind of ceremony or such or such a kind of baptism which by the mediation or intervening of that heavenly affection of love uttereth and expresseth it selfe in keeping the Commandements of God Respon 1. What does the Querist mean when he says that under the Gospell the observation of any externall rite or ceremony avails a man nothing towards the commending of him to God nor does the want of it prejudice his accepâ—ation with him does he mean that it does not avail him in any sense as one would suppose that were minded to take him in the worst sense since his assertion is indefinite but surely this is not his meaning since this would render the Ordinances of the Gospell Baptisme and the Supper unprofitable and vaine and things but of like indifferency as were those meats of which the Apostle saith That if a man eat of them neither is he the better or if he eat not neither is he the worse 1 Cor. 8.8 But I presume rather that he meanes that they availe not comparatively or els in the businesse of justification our what then will it follow that because these externall rites baptism and the like do not avail unto mens Justification when they are observed that therefore they are not necessary unto Church-communion for did the externall Rite of Circumcision under the Law which is the thing by which the Querist calculates the validity of baptism under the Gospell availe any more to justification thâ—n baptism does now and yet how irrelative soever it was to justification yet it was so necessary as to Church-communion as that Church-communion waâ— not to be had wâ—â—hout it Gen. 17.4 Exod. 12.48 if so then how can the Querist estimate the usefulnesse and disusefulnesse of baptism as to Church-communion by Circumcision as he does and not conclude it necessary to Church-communion as well as Circumcision was But I demand how the Apostles or other Christians in their times would have known or have been able upon good ground to have concluded that such persons had truly believed in Christ unto justification and had been meet to be admitted to communion with them who should if any such had been have refused to obey Christ in submitting to baptism whereby they were to make proof that they did believe in him in good earnest Sure I am that a refusing of Johns baptism was taken for a declared rejecting the counsell
ridiculosity as this Querist Or is there the softest whisper or gentlest breathing in Scripture that a true Church of Christ cannot be constituted no not of the soundest Believers in the world unlesse they have been baptised after their believing how or after what manner soever they have been haptised before Respon If Baptisme have been administred according to Gospel-rule to men who by profession appeared or seemed true Believers when they were baptised though at the time of their baptizing they were not so indeed in the sight of God it is not so farre as I know necessary to their being of a Church to be baptised againe when they come truly to believe But if persons before they did believe have not been baptised at all with any Baptism that will hold weight in the ballance of the Sanctuary but only with such which essentially differs from Scripture-Baptisme both in respect of the Subject and externall forme of Administration as Infant-Baptisme doth in which respects it is of no more validity then no Baptisme at all then it is necessary that such persons should be baptised after or upon their believing in order to their Union and Communion with the Church And that this was the constant and for ought appeares to the contrary the universall practise of the Apostles and Primitive Believers and that in pursuance of the commâ—ssion of Christ and therefore ought to be the resolved practice of Believers now from which no pretences should turne them aside is not only whispered and gently breathed but loudly declared by many Scriptures lifting up their voice together in this tâ—stimony as you may see in my answer to the first and third Queries QUERIE XIII Whether is an errour or mistake about the adequate or appropriate subject of Baptisme of any worse consequence or greater danger then an errour or mistake about Melchisedech's Father as viz. in case a man should suppose him to have been Noah when as he was some other man Respon I would likewise demand of the Querist whether there would be any more danger for a man to list Souldiers in the name of the Parliament of England who hath no Commission so to doe then there would be for him to mistake the name or person of a man the knowledge of whom doth nothing at all concerne him If there be then I shall not doubt to affirme that there is more danger for a man to invocate the name of Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and in their name to say I baptise thee such or such a one when neither Father Sonne nor Holy Ghost have given him Commission so to doe which yet is the case indeed the crime of mistaking the true or right subject of Baptisme then there is in mistaking the man that was Melchisedechs Father For the one is a counterfeiting or feigning of a Commission from Heaven and the fathering of an untruth upon or the speaking of an untruth in the name of the Lord to provoke him to anger and the other viz. to suppose Melchisedechs Father to be Noah in case he were some other man would be an errour only of lesse import as viz for a man to go about to make himselfe wise above that which is written in a businesse that concernes him not to know and wherein his ignorance would not prejudice him but help him in the application of that resemblance which the Apostle makes between Christ and Melchisedech Heb. 7.3 QUERIE XIV Whether may not the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme as it is stated by the brethren of new Baptisme in opposition to the judgement and practice almost of the whole Christian world justly be numbred amongst those questions which the Apostle calls foolish and unlearned and adviseth both Timothy and Titus to avoid as being questions wich ingender strife and are unprofitable and vaine 2 Tim. 2.23 Tit. 3.9 Respon 1. If the Querie had been whether such a question as this viz. who was Melchisedech's Father whether Noah or some other man or whether the law of Circumcision in the equity of it be not yet in force as to the intituling of Infants to Baptisme and to be as a Standard by which to judge the observation of Gospel Rites unavaileable as to the commending of a man to God I say if the Querie had been whether such questions as these are not to be numbred with those that are unlearned unprofitable and vaine I could easily have consented in the affirmative because the Apostle in that place quoted by the Querist Tit. 3.9 doth point at these questions about Genealogies and strivings about the Law as specially intended by him And what questions or strivings about the Law if not whether Circumcision were not yet in use under the Gospel since the same Apostle in the same Epistle chap. 1.10 calls those of the Circumcision vaine talkers and vain talkers or vaine talke or such questions as were unprofitable and vaine agree well enough to meet in the same persons 2. But that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme if stated according to truth though in opposition to almost the whole world called Christian or if but agitated and debated in order to the finding out the minde of God thereabout should deserve to be numbred with those foolish and unlearned questions which are unprofitable and vaine I cannot believe Because the appropriate subject of Baptisme is essentiall to the Ordinance it selfe neither is that any more the Baptisme of Christ which is applyed to any other subject then he hath appointed then that would be the punitive or remunerative Justice of the Parliament in case another man should be punished or rewarded by him or them whom they intrust with the executive part instead of him whom the Parliament hath commanded to be so and so dealt withall or then that would have beene Gods Circumcision if any instead of his Males should have circumcised his Females And surely if the true being and administration of Baptisme and the fulfilling of the command of Christ thereabout does depend upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject of Baptisme then doubtlesse an earnest enquity after and serious debates about the appropriate subject of Baptisme can be no foolish or unlearned question neither unprofitable nor vaine unlesse we will suppose true Baptisme it selfe and the command of Christ thereabout to be unprofitable and vaine which to question whether it were would be indeed a question unprofitable and vaine whatever wisdome or learning otherwise might seem to be in it But as touching the reasons which seem to induce the Querist to conceive that the aforesaid question ought to be numbred with transgressors 1. It does not follow that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme is therefore unprofitable unlearned foolish and vaine because upon debates about it strifes contentions evill surmisings divisions and revilings and the like have occasionally taken place in the world no more then it will follow that because such things as these
it since we read of very foule evills in some of the primitive Churches themselves but doe not finde the sound party exhorted to separate from the corrupt but to proceed against them in a Church-way for their cure by admonition conviction and excommunication in case of obstinacy XVIII Querie answered What is said to the next precedent Querie will be a full and pertinent answer to this and therefore shall say no more to it XIX Querie answered To this I say that whatever else a company of true Believers have done yet if they have not done that which is necessary upon Scripture-account to render themselves a true Church according to Gospel order then it is not unreasonable for a Christian to deny them to be such a Church But yet for all that it does not follow that such a denyall renders them but as a rabble rout of the world because unbaptised Believers are a third thing neither prpoerly of the rabble rout of the world nor yet formerly of the Church as a man that having served an apprenticeshâ—p and is not yet made free of the Company of which his Master is neither servant nor freeman in the interim but have so far left the world as that they want nothing but an orderly induction to be of the Church Nor can it be concluded that because such have diligently enquired after the minde of God and have sought direction from him hereabout that therefore the way they are in must needes be right any more then that those that practise contrary to them in this particular upon like diligent search and seeking of God must needs upon that account not be in the wrong for they cannot both be in the right and yet both search and seek for the rule remains the same and will not bow at any mans intreaty and that 's it by which the one and the other must be tryed XX. Querie answered To this I answer 1. I have already said and now say it againe that a man may not depart from much lesse bid defiance to a Church because that Church cannot say Amen to every notion or conceit of his Nay I will say more he may not though that Church does not agree with every sober and savory apprehension of his supposing them still to be a Church duly so called from their due constitution 2. Though there is no example in Scripture of any mans being baptised after the profession of his faith who had been baptised before in his infancy because when the Scriptures were written there was no such thing as the baptizing of Infants practised by which to give opportunity of such an example yet if Infant-Baptisme cannot be proved to be that Baptisme which Christ requires his Disciples to submit to and consequently is none of his Baptisme but the Baptisme of Man then Infant-Baptisme and no Baptisme are of one and the same consideration and if so then there is example and precept enough in Scripture for such Believers to be once baptised who never have been baptised before and therefore the case is not so plain as the Querist supposes that there is no precept or example which warranteth the practise of the Children of after-Baptisme as he calls them But the Querist hath given himself an Answer to this Querie by the matter of his 7. and 8. Queries to which I referre him for further resolution in this XXI Querie answered Answer 1. If by Christians the Querist meanes no more then true Believers in Christ Jesus then I know none that so magnifie the Ceremony or externall Rite of Baptisme as to judge none Christians without it nay the truth is it is because we judge the Querist and others true Believers that we do perswade them to be baptised But if by Christians he meanes such as according to the Word have put on Christ then we must say that those that by being baptised into Christ have not put on Christ are not yet such Christians as they ought to be Gal. 3.27 And yet it does not follow that they who so say do stumble at the same stone of danger and perill of soul at which the Jews stumbled if they were Jews when they urged and prâ—ctised circumcision as necessary for justification Gal. 5.2 because they urged and practised that for necessary which was now abolished we that which is commanded and remaines in force we urge Baptisme to be necessary as a precept of Christ and necessary as a means of salvation they perhaps judged Circumcâ—sion as other works of the Law meritorious according to the Querists owne declared judg-ment upon another occasion And therefore I doubt the Querist does not deale so kindely with the Ordinance of Baptisme nor the Baptists themselves as he should doe in that he puts the one but much what in the same capacity with Circumcision as it was at that time when Paul said of it If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and in that he yokes the Baptists who onely urge Baptisme as one of the precepts of Christ and a meanes of salvation as the Scriptures themselvâ—s doe with those that urged the abrogated Ceremony of Circumâ—â—sion as necessary unto Justification as the Querist himselfe supposes Truly I doubt the comparison in both respects is odious with God whatever it is with Men. XXII Querie answered That which will be very well worth our noting here in the first place is how the truth which we plead hath gained a faire and ample acknowledgement even from the Querist himselfe in this Querie though he oppose it in others For he does not only demand whether there be any precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of any person after many yeares profession of the Gospell but also whether there be any precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of any person at any other time SAVE AT OR ABOUT their first entrance upon a profession of Christ And not onely so neither but farther demands Whether there be any competent ground either in Reason or Religion why either such a thing should have beene practised by Christians in the Apostles dayes or why it ought to be practised by any in these dayes By which I am sure he sayes as much to the condemnation of Infant-Baptisme as lightly can be spoken in so few words and in substance as much as ever any man did say in opposition to that practise For if there be neither precept nor example in Scripture for the baptising of any person at any other time SAVE at or about the time of their first entrance upon the profession of Christ nor yet competent ground in Reason or Religion why it should otherwise be practised then certainly there is neither precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of Infants nor yet any competent ground why such a thing should be practised and the reason is because Infants in their infancy can make no profession of Christ nor doe they in their infancy make any entrance upon a
profession of Christ Neither let any man think that I wrong the Querist in wresting his words contrary to his intention For though I believe that which I infer from them was no part of his intention yet I doe not wrest his words but onely infer from them that which must be true if that which he layes downe querie-wise for a truth be a truth And it is a thing not unusuall for persons who plead the cause of any errour in Religion at one turne or other to utter that which cuts the throat of their own tenent But now to answer to that which the Querist intends indeed 1. If there be no example in Scripture of any mans being baptised after many yeares profession of the Gospell it is because there is no example in Scripture of any such sinfull negligence in Believers as to continue many yeares in the profession of the Gospell without being baptised if there were any lingering and delaying in this case they were awakened to their duty as many Believers have now need to be And now why tarryest thou Arise and be baptised Acts 22.16 If then Believers in these dayes have been more remisse and negligent in yeilding obedience to Christ in this command of his then Believers were in the Apostles dayes well may it serve to humble and to shame them but by no meanes to encourage them to persevere in that neglect 2. Christ Jesus himselfe would be baptised because he would fulfill that law of righteousnesse which enjoyned Bâ—ptisme Mat. 13.15 though othâ—rwise he had as little need of it as the greatest he that thinks his long standing and great attainments in Christianity should privilâ—dge him from it and therefore methinks as such have any tendernesse in them lest they should be found neglecting any righteous precept of the Gospel or any of that zeale that was in Christ to fulfill all righteousnesse or any such love to Christ as to tread in his steps should not have their hands out of this businesse upon any pretence whatsoever 3. Cornelius had beene a long time a fearer of God and it is probable had knowledge of Johns baptising or of Christs baptising long before in as much as he was famously knowne among the Jewes for he is said to have a good report among all the nation of the Jewes Acts 10.22 and therefore it is not unlike but he might as well know what was done among the Jewes as they know what was done by him besides Peter speaking to him and those with him saith That word I say you know which was published throughout all Judea and began from Galilee after the Baptisme which John preached c. Acts 10.37 and yet notwithstanding his long profession of the feare of God and notwithstanding he had not been baptised when he had knowledge of others being baptâ—sed yet such were Gods respects to this upright man that rather then he should be any longer without a more particular knowledge of the Gospel and without that Ordinance of the Gospel-Baptisme he spares not to send an Angel to him to direct him to Peter Acts 10.4 5 48. 4. He that is baptised though not till long after the time in which he began to beleeve does not by being baptised then fall back from perfection to imperfection from that which is more spirituall to that which is more carnall as the Querist supposes because he shall not thereby lose any thing he had before of that which is spirituall but shall be sure to make a faire addition thereby unto his spirituall stock if he doe it heartily as unto Christ and afterwards make that spirituall improvement of it of which it is very capable 5. The Ordinance of Baptisme is as well matter of obligation as signification to oblige and hold a man fast to the service of Jesus Christ as to instruct him in the things of the Gospel upon which account Paul presses the improvement of it upon the beleeving Romans Rom. 6.3.4 5. so long after they had begun to beleeve as that their faith by that time was growne famous throughout the whole world chap. 1. ver 8. And what hath not even the strongest Christian himselfe need of all the holy bonds and ingagements of the Gospel to engage and binde him faster and faster to Christ and to presse him more and more forward in his way 6. Baptisme as well as the Table of the Lord is rememorative yea in some respect more for the Supper properly is but rememorative of the death of Christ whereas Baptisme is rememorative and declarative of the Death Buriall and Resurrection of Christ And therefore the Qâ—erists reason being built upon this mistaken supposition that Baptisme is not rememorative as well as the Table of the Lord is invalid as to tender Baptisme any more unnecessary to men of long profession then the Supper it selfe is unnecessary for them 7. What ever else they have professed I am sure they have not professed so much and so far as they ought who by being baptised into Christ have not professed the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ and their owne Death Buriall and Resurrection with him 8. There can no more reason be given as I conceive why Baptisme should cease to be a duty to a believer because he hath omitted it in the properest season of it viz. the time of his new birth then why Circumcision should cease to be a duty to the Israelites having omitted it many years after the eighth day of their Age which was the proper time for it and yet we see such an Omission in them did not cause Circumcision to cease to be a duty to them though perhaps the ground of their Omâ—ssion was much more approveable or at least excusable before God then the ground of that Omission of Baptisme of which we speak can well be conceived to be Josh 5.7 9. An Omission or neglâ—ct of Baptisme by the Believers let it be under what pretence soever it will is guilty of an unkindnesse to God and to Jesus Christ in that they doe not Justifie God in the face of the World in that as well as in any other way and in that they doe not put on the Lord Jesus in Baptisme as the first and best approved Believers did Luke 7.29 Gal. 3.27 10. Such Believers as nâ—glect Baptisme upon a supposall they have no need of it because of their long-standing in Christianity are unmercifull to their owne soules in cutting themselves short of such a meanes or spirituall accommodation as Baptisme is and doe offer injury both to that Wisdome and Goodnesse of God which consulted their good in that Ordinance They reject the Counsell of God against themselves in not being Baptized Luke 7.30 XXIII Querie Answered 1. If the Law of Edification ought to over-rule all Lawes and Precepts concerning spirituall Church-administrations as the Law of Salus populâ— ought in things civill as the Querist supposes and takes for granted from Cor. 14.26 Then the Administration of Bâ—ptisme
other Scripture they are or if the Querist will grant that children are hereby excluded Communion in the Supper then we desire him if he can to shew reason why such a requiring of faith in persons to bee baptised does not as well exclude children from Baptisme as from the Supper there being no other Scriptures that doe any more warrant the baptising of children then the admission of them to the Supper of the Lord. XXIX Querie answered That dipping is of the essence and necessity of Baptisme I conceive there is good reason to believe But that they are selfe-Baptisers who by going into the water dispose their bodies for a buriall under the water by the hands of the Baptiser I do no more believe then I believe they are selfe-Murderers or selfe-Slayers who lay their bodyes downe and their necks upon the block when they are to be executed Nor have I seene or knowne any to convey all but the head under water in order to their being baptised or dipped nor do I judge it convenient so to doe unlesse a shallower water cannot conveniently be come at though I believe withall that so the body of him who is baptised be buried under water by him that does baptise it does not at all varie the case as to the thing of Baptism whether a man goe lesse or more into the water the Scripture placing the thing not in a mans going to the knees or neck in water but in his being baptised or buried in water XXX Querie answered I demand of the Querist whether God in the institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. did any more prescribe or determine all circumstances essentiall to Circumcision then God then Christ have determined all circumstances requisite to Baptisme in the Commission given by them to baptise John 1.33 Mat. 28 19. Did God command Circumcision So God so Christ have commanded Baptisme Did God appoint what persons should be circumcised viz. every male child among the Jewes so hath Christ who shall be baptised viz. such of the nations as shall be taught or made Disciples Did God appoint the eighth day for Circumcision Christ hath appointed the time of Baptisme viz. though not such or such a day yet that it should follow mens being discipled or taught without any long intermission as the very words of the Commission doe import and Scripture examples conforme to this Commission doe shew Did God direct what part of the body should be circumcised viz. the flesh of the fore-skin So Christ hee hath appointed the subject matter to be Baptized under this word or expression THEM Baptizing them i. e. Such persons of the Nations as shall be taught not this or that part of them but THEM even them themselves by which personall expression when applied to washing or dipping in Scripture is wont to be signified not the washing of this or that part as Hands Face Feet or the like which are wont to be particularly mentioned when no more is intended but a totall washing or dipping as very many learned Men though friends to Infant-Baptism doe also render the word Baptize to signifie Did God declare for what end circumcision should serve viz. For a token between him and his people So Christ in Commissionating his Disciples to Baptize in or as it is rendred from the Greeke into the Name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost declared that Baptisme should be a solemne putting or planting of Men into the Father Son and Spirit or into a professed expectation of Salvation from and of the service of and subjection to the Father Son and Spirit Nay I may say the Commission for Baptizâ—ng is more particular and expresse then that for circumcising for here it is directed by Christ by whom or by what hands Baptisme shall be administred viz. Dâ—sciples but it is not prescribed by what hands the Males should be Circumcised nor yet with what instrument as viz. whether with a Knife or sharp Stone or the like And therefore there being in the Commission of Christ to Baptize as much yea in some respects more particularity of subject and manner of Administration as was in Gods Command to Circumcise and the same might be said if compared with the Passover or Supper of the Lord the Querist doubtlesse had no reason rashly to charge those with making themselves wise above that which is written or with obtruding upon the consciences of men an institution of their own in the name of the Ordinance and Institution of God Who undertake to determine particularity of subjects or manner of Administration in Baptisme which yet he does But I would demand of the Querist whether he doth not determine particularity of subject and manner of Administration in Baptisme when he Sprinkles such and such Infants in that form and manner which hee uses therein and whether hee doe this of his own head or by vertue of any Institution or command of Chirst If he will say he does it by verture of an Institution or Command from Christ then at least in his opinion there must be a commission from Christ found in Scripture which prescribeth such circumstances as hee Judges essentiall to that administration as well as there is for the essentialls of Circumcision Passover and Supper of the Lord if so why does hee suppose there is no such thing to be found in Scripture Or if hee will say there is no such Commission in Scripture as does determine particularity of subject and manner of Administration in Baptism as hee must hold or else hee is to blame for changing those who ever they be with making themselves wise above that which is written c. That doe prescribe and determine particularity of subject and manner of Administration in Baptisme But as I say if hee will say there is no such Institution or Commission which is equivalently the same then does not hee make himselfe wise above that which is written and obtrude upon the consciences of these that joyne with him an institution of his own in the Name of an Ordinance and Institution of God when hee undertakes to determine Infants particularly to be the subject of Baptisme and Sprinkling in the Name of Father Sonne and Holy Ghost to be the manner of Administration and accordingly practise the same XXXI Querie Answered 1. Though it should be granted That many if not the generality of those that have entred into the way of new Baptisme as the Querist miscalls it it being indeed the old way of Baptizing Have received their precious Faith and other Graces under the dâ—spensation of their Infant-Baptisme yet this would be no more a reason obliging their continuance in their old wonted forme supposing there is yet a more excellent way then it was or would have beene to those who were wrought upon in a saving way under the Popish and after that the prelaticall forme to have continued still their abode in their Tents 2. It is like no good use would be made of it by
some should I become so much a foole as to glory of what I assuredly know touching the Spirituall increase which God hath vouchsafed many of his servants under this Dispensation But this I may say that more then one of a thousand though I beleeve the Qâ—erist does not know one of a thousand of them and therefore can be no competent Judge of the growth of their thousands but that more then one of a thousand ingaged in this new Alias old way of which the Querist speakes have since their entrance into it added much more then the breadth of the least haire of their head unto their former growth or stature in Christ is a truth of which the Querist would make no doubt at all as now hee does had hee but taken their former and present Spirituall Dimensions with such a measuring Reed as that wherewith John did measure the Temple of God and them that worship therein Rom. 11.1 But however it is good for every Man to thinke soberly as the Apostle speakes in an other case both in commending and discommending and not to stretch himselfe beyond his own line in measuring 3. To the Querists further demand I answer that possibly some may be worse since they came under this Dâ—spensation then before though I must say I know not one such except such who have quite forsaken the way and it is no marvell if they are grown worse nay this rather turnes to a Testimony for that way then against it in that when Men grow bad the yoke of Christ becomes too strait for them any longer to weare and the company too holy for them to indure But as for the decayes of sâ—me in the way if it strengthen not its claime as to be from God so neither does it at all weaken it any more then those unruly and disorderly walkings of some in the Apostolicall Churches did argue the way of those Chuâ—ches not to be of God Alas if such pleas as these were valid where are there Men of that order and forme that could avouch their way to be of God But if the old way of Independency be indeed free from all spots of this kinde they shall by my consent throw the first stone at the Men of this new way Well may this way of managing the controversie between us occasion indeed those evill surmisings alienation of affection and vilifyings of which the Qâ—erist speakes Q 14. but will contribute little towards the finding out the truâ—h but rather the contrary upon which account I shall forbeare what otherwise might have beene retorted XXXII Querie answered What the Learning Worth and Humility was of Johannes Oecâ—lampadius Johannes Denkius and Johannes Gaster in Luthers time I know not who as the Querist informes us repented of their weaknesse as having beene surprized with a religious conceit of the necessity of new alias old Baptisme But this I know that it is a very rare thing for men of such great learning as these are represented to have been meerly by a suâ—prisall with a Religious conceit so farre to deny themselves of the accommodations of their former way wherein they inherited the respects of Men and the warme influences of the World as to expose themselves to the hatred opposition and persecution of the times except their convictions from the Word of God have been very potent and operative upon the Conscience And whether these men did returne back to their former form accompanied with the same humility and worth with which before they left it is more then I know or then the Querist does informe us in or then I am bound to beleevâ— since learned men as experience of all Ages shewes have been no more temptation-proofe and free from backsliding to imbrace this present World then other Men. But as for those of late among our selves of like Character except it be such as have repented of their worth and humility as well as of their new Baptisme as the Querist does not name any so I have not known or heard of any except one or two Ministers who have repented for a good living sake as possibly those other learned men might doe and yet I am given to understand that one of those hath againe repented of that his Repentance XXXIII Querie answered Here the Querist supposes that Baptisme is no more the Baptisme of Repentance for the Remission of sins then Circumcâ—sion was the Circumcision of Repentance for Remission of sins or at least that the one may be truly so called as well as the other and that therefore though Infants cannot repent that yet they are no less capable of Baptism then they were of Circumcision But I deny that which the Querist supposeth viz. that Circumcision might as well and truly be called the Circumcision of Repentance as Baptism the Baptism of Repentance 1. Because his reason upon which hee builds his Supposition is unsound being this viz. because according to the Apostles definition of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 it is for substance and import of matter the same with Baptisme But that neither Circumcision and Baptisme are for import of matter the same nor yet that Rom 4.11 does import any such thing is that the demonstration whereof I have briefly asseyed in answering the 23. Querie where the same thing was alleadged by the Querist to which I refer the Reader 2. If well observed it will appeare that the reason why Baptisme is called the Baptisme of Repentance for Remission of sins is such as would by no means sute with such a denomination of Circumcision and consequently that Children are not as capable of Baptisme as they were of Circumcision For the reason why Johns Baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance for Remission of sins as in the place quoted by the Querist Mark. 1.4 was because Repentance was the qualifying terme upon which John prached Baptisme as meete to be received and upon which those received it accordingly that were Baptised by him As the Covenant given Abraham is called the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 7.8 bâ—cause probably Circumcision was the tearm by and according to which the seed of Abraham were to be adjudged in the Covenant and rightfull partakers of the benefits and priviledges of it and therefore called the token between God and them of his being in Covenant with them and they with him Gen. 17.11 and the uncricumcised of Abrahams Seed are said to have broken the Covenant Ver. 14 or broken it down or made it frustrate as Ainsworth renders it i. e. dissolved the terms or conditions of it upon which account God would have them cut off from his people i.e. at least excluded the priviledges of those that kept his Covenant by making good the condition on their parts But that repentance was the qualifying term of Johns Baptisme as Circumcision was visibly the qualifying term of Gods Covenant appeares both by Johns Preaching and the peoples receiving of Baptisme By Johns preaching for it s said that he Preached the
by these men with such straines of humane Art and Oratory as thâ—y may be by some others but we know who it was who though hee had as himselfe sayes Tongues more then many others yet did decline â—he perswasible words of Mens Wisdome in his Preaching the Gospell to men lest their faith should have stood in the Wisdome of men and not in the Power of God 1 Cor. 2.4 5. And I am sure that may be truâ—y said in the vindication of these which Paul was faine sometimes to speake in his own vindication when dispâ—raged by some of the flanting Preachers of those Times 2 Cor. 11.6 viz. But though I be rude in Speech yet not in Knowledge I should not have mentioned any thing of this nature but that there was a kinde of necessity for it but if I have plaid the foole in this confideâ—t boasting as the Apostle speakes you know who hath compelled me to it XXXVI Querie answered Here I confesse I cannot but wonder at the over-sight of the Querist in that he brings Mark. 6.44 John 6.10 compared with Mat. 14.21 to prove that both Women and Children are to be understood when men onely are named when as indeed his quotations serve to prove the quite contrary For whereas Marke and John in the places before mentioned report the men that did eate of the five Loaves and two fishes to be about five thousand men Mathew hee reports the persons eating hereof to be about five thousand men besides Women and Children So that Mark and John take notice onely of the number of the men in their relation of the Miracle whereas Mathew though he does exactly agree with them as touching the same number of men yet he intimates that there were Women and Children that did eate besides the five thousand men By which it evidently appeares that though Women and Children were joyned with the men in the same action yet that where John and Marke mention the men onely the Women and Children are not to be understood as comprehended in that number which as I say is the contrary to that for the proofe whereof those Texts were alledged And therefore this is so farre from being any ground to conceive that Childrens being Baptized is meant when Men and Womens onely is mentioned as that it is a ground to conceive the contrary XXXVII Querie answered Here the Querist supposes that though it should be proved that there were no Children Baptized during the Apostles dayes that yet it would no more follow from thence that Children ought not to be Baptized now then it would have followed that because the Israelites omitted to curcumcise their Children for forty yeares Josh 5. that therefore it was not lawfull for them to Ciâ—cumcise them afterwards To which I answer that it is granted that the one would no more follow then the other if there were a like command for the one as there was for the other And therefore I marvell that the Querist should so contrary to this in other Queries argue the non-necessity of a mans being Baptized if he have but passed the time of his first entrance upon the profession of Christ as he does Qu. 22. But why the Querist shâ—uld suppose that the Baptizing of Children now should be more necessary then it was in the Apostles dayes I know not neither does he nor as I believe can he give us any account Something indeed hee alledges as a reason such as it is why possibly Christ the Apostles might omit the Baptizing of Children in their time though otherwise lawfull and that which they had been bound to doe had not such a reason interposed and it is this viz. Because Paul sayd I was not sent to Baptize but to Preach the Gospell meaning as hee expounds this saying that Baptizing was not onely not the Principall but not any considerable end of his sending but the publishing of the Gospell Which reason he further amplifies thus If he were not sent to Baptize neither one age nor one Sex or other neither could he be sent to Baptize Children and if not hee then neither Christ nor the rest of the Apostles in the sence declared and then what marvell if whilst sent about matters incomparably greater they should not be so intent upon things of a secondary and lighter consequence as to persecute them to the uttermost of what they lawfully might To all which I answer 1. I cannot consent to the interpretation which the Querist gives of those words Christ sent me not to Baptize c. When he thereby would have us understand that for Paul to Baptize was no considerable end of his being sent of Christ if by Baptizing we understand Baptizing either in his own person or by seeing it done by some other hands Which latitude notwithstanding the Querist allowes For there is no doubt but that for him to cause Baptisme to be administed to men when they did believe was a considerable end of the Apostles sending as well as his preaching the Gospell that men might beleeve and therefore they are joyned in the Commission thus goe yee therefore teach all Nations Baptizing them c. When therefore he sayes Christ sent him not to Baptize doubtlesse hee means that the injunction did not lie upon him so much to administer Baptisme with his owne hands for that is the thing of which hee was speaking as to Preach the Gospell because that being a worke that might be done by an ordinary Disciple hee was not otherwise obliged in that case but to take care that it should be done if not by himselfe yet by some other Acts 10.48 Peter commanded them to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord possibly by such assistants as the Apostles were wont to take with them and not unlike for that very purpose as well as for other causes Acts 13.5 15.38 Just as it was in the case of Ministering to the poore it lay upon the Apostles as the care of all the Churches did to take care that Deacons should be chosen for that worke but that they should be burdened with a personall attendance upon that service though sometimes they undertooke it seemed to them an unreasonable thing seeing they had other worke to attend which could not so well be done by other hands as that might Acts 6.2 3 4 But if Baptisme had been so inconsiderable a businesse and so little concerning the Apostles to take care of as this reason of the Querist imports one would thinke they should not have made such hast as Paul and Silas did to Baptize the Jaylor and his house not only the same houre of the night but even whilst those cutting lashes and stripes which they had newly received were fresh upon them Nor would Annanias have hastened Paul as he did to be Baptized before he did eate or drinke when as he had now fasted three dayes Acts 9.9.18 19 22.16 Surely if the like case should fall out in our dayes we would
say God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice 2. That the Bâ—ptâ—zing of Children was not so necessary in the Apostles dayes but that the Apostles did defer the Baptizing of them if not so long as the Israelites did defer Circumcision Josh 5. yet that they did defer it till they came to give account of their Fâ—ith I willingly grant but that they did so long suspend the Baptizing of men after they beleeved I cannot beleeve because I finde the contrary and yet if you observe the reason is no otherwise a reason why though if Childrens Baptisme had beene lawfull the practâ—ce of it might have beene forborne in the Apostles dayes then that the Baptizing of Beleevers themselves might have beene forborne and yet it seemes that could not be forborne upon any such pretence For can wee lightly imagine that the Apostles hands should at any time be fuller of worke then when they had those many thousands before them and such an advantagious opportunity of Preaching the Gospell as then presented it selfe Acts 2. and therefore if they might have used such a liberty of deferring Baptisme as the Querist imagines upon account of more impoâ—tant affaires lyâ—ng upon their shoulders why should they have put themsâ—lves upon any such straits as to Bapâ—â—zâ— three thousand the sâ—me day they converted them Doubâ—â—eâ—t the opportunities of maâ—y weekes would have beene little enough according to the zâ—ale of ouâ— Age especially if Baptisme be thought so inconsiderable a thing as to be done by leisure 3. If the Baptizing of Infants had been any part of the Will of God or of his institutions in the Apostles dayes I cannot so easiâ—y thinke but that the Apostles notwithstanding their more weighty affaires would in some time of their lives or other have found time and opportunity of fulfilling that part of righteousnesse as well as others or how ever would have enjoyned others this practâ—ce or else surely they would not have answered the Commission of their Master whose injunction was that they should teach the Beleevers to observe whatsoever hee had commanded them Mat. 28.20 And therefore to what purpose is there in this case mention made of those cases wherein a man may breake a Law and yet be blamelesse or will any of those Scripture instances the Querist points to agree any better with the case in hand then harpe and harrow Mat. 12 3 4 5. The Priests in the Temple killed Beasts for Sacrifice on the Sabbath because commanded which otherwise had not been lawfull Ergo The Apostles might lawfully forbeare Baptizing all their dayes though a duty commanded having other worke to doe of greater moment though they had opportunity of doing both this and that The Disciplâ—s plucked Eares of Corne on the Sabbath and David did eat the shew bread in case of necessity to sustein hunger and save life Ergo Christ and the Apostles might omit Bâ—ptizing all their time though they had no such necessity of other ingagements upon them but that they might either doe it themselves or command it to be done by others unlesse wee will suppose they had not time and leasure to give out such a command where they came which yet we find they sometimes did Acts 10.48 John 4.2 as they did also in other cases in appointing that to be done by others which they could not so well attend themselves Tit. 1.5 Without peradventure the misunderstanding the Apostles intendment in that expression of his Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospell hath provâ—d a snare to many in these days to thinke more mâ—anly of the Ordinance of Baptisme then ever the Apostle thought For doubtlesse it was not the Apostles drift in those words to bring downe the esteeme of baptisme and to magnifie Preaching but partly to shew how little reason any had to glory in that they had been Baptized by his hands rather then by such and such but more especially to satisfie them as touching the reason why though he converted all or most of them to the Faith as 1 Cor. 4 15. that yet he himselfe Baptized so few of them as he had said 1 Cor. 1.14.16 and his reason is not fetched from the non-necâ—ssity of Baptisme for wee shall finde that he tooke care to have them Bâ—ptized presently upon their beleeving Acts 18.8 but from the non necessity of having it dispenced by his hands and he further gives this account why he did not Baptise them himselfe but set others to doe it not because he wanted time and opportunity to doe it but lest any should say that he Baptized in his own Name XXXVIII Querie answered 1. Whether the Principle of the Children of new alias old Baptisme which puts them upon Baptizing beleevers as the Apostles did be a By-way or the Principle of the men of old alias new Bâ—ptisme which puts them upon Baptizing Children be the By way let the Scriptures judge or at least be the Rule to judge by there I am sure the Children the Querists speakes of find that practiced which answers their Principle if the Querist and the Brethren of his way cannot finde theirs there too but onely fancy to themselves they can fetch it about with a long Arme let them looke to it lest their way doe not prove at last a By-way and in the meane time that which leads them into many other By-wayes By-thoughts By-sayings which will be found too light in the ballance of the Gospell and which will turne to no good account in the day when God shall try every mans work of what sort it is 1 Cor. 3.13 2. As for counting all persons not of our way uncleane and unholy I have already accounted with the Querist in some other Queries for those expressions and have shewed him how he hath miscast the reckoning I would faine have him to know that we can call and count some of mens wayes and practises unclean and unholy and yet not so judge of their persons as to a totall uncleannesse Doe we not know that Asa and Jehosophat were Servants of the Lord in their times and did approve themselves to a good degree of uprightnesse towards God in taking away the high places and the groves of the Idols 2 Chron. 14.5 and 17.6 and yet for all that were to blame and it is left on record as their blemâ—sh that they did not also take away the high places which the people had erected for the worship of the true God 2 Chron. 15.17 20.33 to save themselves the labour of going to Jerusalem the place which God had chosen to place his Name in whither they ought to have gone Deut. 12.5 In like manner we doe acknowledge that ye have well done and doubt not but God hath taken it well at your hands in that ye have advanced to that degree of Reformation at which ye have arived but I must needs say it yet remaines a blemâ—sh upon you that you suffer amongst you any of those wayes
the Apostollicall writings are written of baptism is apparent that Baptism was Administred to none by the Apostles but those of whom they concerning their regeneration made no doubt Page 21. Cassander in libello de infantium Baptismo It is certain that some believers in time past have withholden baptisme from their children untill they were grown and could understand and remember the misteries of their faith yea also counselled not to administer baptism as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth In same Page Zwinglius in his Book of Articles Artic. 18. In the old time children were openly instructed who when they came to understand were called Catechumens i. e such as are instructed in the word of salvation and when they had imprinted the faith in their Hearts and made Confession thereof with their Mouthes they were admitted to Baptisme Page 25. Lodovicus vives in Augustinum de civetate dei Lib. 1. Cap. 26. No man in times past was brought to be baptâ—zed but those who were come to their full growth who having learned what it concerned of their own accord desired the same Page 31. Luther in his book of Annabaptisme acknowledgeth that it cannot be proved by sacred Scripturâ— that Childrens baptism was institutâ—d by Christ or begun by the first Christians after thâ— Apostles Page 20. Rupertus Tuitienfis lib 4 de divinus officiis cap. 18. In former times the custom in the Primitâ—ve Chuâ—ch was that they adminâ—stred not the Sacrament oâ— Regeneration but only at the feast of Easter and Penticost and all the children of the Church which throughout the whole yeare through the word were MOVED when Easter came gave up their names and were the following dayes till Penticost instructed in the rules of Faith rehearsed the same by their baptism and dying thus with Christ rose again with him Page 15. Justin Martyr in oratione ad Anthonium Pium I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves to God after that we are renewed through Christ Those amongst us that are instructed in the faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live accordiâ—g to the same we do admonish to fast and pray for the forgivenesse of their sins and we also fast and pray with them And when they are brought by us unto the water and there as we were new born are they also by new biâ—th renewed And then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Iesus Christ and the holy Ghost they are washed in water Note that this Author is one of the first extant after the Apostles dayes Take also a few instances of such who though borne of Christian Parents yet were not baptized till instructed in the Faith Page 16. Erasmus and Wicleuius in vita Hieronomi ex ipsis Scriptis collecta Hieronimus borne in the City Sydon of Christian Parents and brought up in the Christian Religion was baptized at Rome in the 30 yeare of his age Also Paulinus de vita Ambrosij Nauclerus Chror Gener. 13. Ambrosius borne of Christian Parents his Fathers Name was Ambrosius and his Mothers Name Marcelina remained instructed in the faith unbaptized till he was chosen Bishop of Millain at which time he received Baptism of a Catholick Priest Likewise Nauclerus Generat 14. Anno Dom. 391. Augustinus the Son of the vertuous Monica being instructed in the Faith was baptized when hee was about 30 yeares of age at the Feast of Easter Moreover Idem Generat 14. Constantinus the Emperour born of Helena the Christian Queen was by Christian Priests converted to the Faith and was baptized by Pope Silvester Historia tripartita lib. 1. Bibliorum de Trinitate Theodosius the Emperour borne in Spain his Parents being both Christians was even from his youth instructed and educated in the Catholick Faith who faling sick at Thessalonia was by Achalio Bâ—shop of the City baptized and thereupon recovered of his sicknesse Page 21. Pontius the Son of Markus a Christian was Catechised and instructed in the Christian Religion and afterwards was baptized by Pontiano the Bishop Page 22. Nazarius the Son of a Christian woman called Perpetua imbraced and followed his Mothers Religion even from his tender age who being Catechised instructed by Lino the Pope received also Baptism Also Tecla and Erasma Daughters of Valentinian a Christâ—an of Aquilea were in the dayes of Nero the Emperour instâ—ucted in the Faith by their Father and brought up in the Feare of God who being Catechised by Harmagora were baptized in a running water And now let the Reader judge whether these Testimonies against the practise of baptizing Infants of old have not much more in them and are worthy of much more credit theâ— Mr. Philpots Testimony for it together with Austin and Ierom to help him XL. Querie answered 1. Whether faith or the profession of Faith be the only or best ground whereon to build a Baptismall administration we shall not need to dispute it is sufficient that accordiâ—g to Scripture it is such a ground as without which baptism was not administred to any that we can finde in the Apostles dayes and therefore we say neither ought it now so to be 2. If the Querist thinks that the Apostles did insist upon believing or a profession of believing in such men and women as were baptized by them onely for want of better grounds as supposing there were better to be had let him but prove it and I will think so too Or else for my part I think they had no reason to expect better then those which were every way sufficient or then such as God had appointed for that puâ—pose or if God did appoint any oâ—her why does not the Querist produce us a copy of that order or Appointmâ—nt of God 3. The Querist puts the Question whether Faith or a Profession of Faith in order to Baptisme were insisted on meerly as or because such in their absolute or possitive nature or whether not rather in respect of their relative natures and properties To which I answer that for my part I am of the Querists minde as unto this that it is altogether irrationall yea indeed I thinke a thing so irrationall as never entred into any mans head to thinke that Faith or a profession of Faith should be required of men in order to Baptisme simply for Faith sake or meerly for profession sake 4. But though we are not so absurd as to hold Faith necessary to Baptisme only for faiths sake yet it does not follow that then we must needs hold with the Querist that Faith is no otherwise or in no other respect to be insisted on as nâ—cessary to Baptisme but onely as it is Significative or Declarative unto the Baptizers and others of the happy estate of those in whom Faith is as being persons in the Grace and Favour of God For if persons being in a happy condition as touching Gods love to them be not the adeqâ—ate reason why he wouâ—d have them Bâ—ptizâ—d then the knowlâ—dge
reason may be pleaded by the Papists for many of their superstitious customes and traditions for neither are they by name excluded the parts of Gods worship But we say that Infant-Baptisme and what ever else is obtruded as necessary in the Worship and Ordinances of God which he hath not made so by some word of his or other is by vertue of that generall rule which warrants the plucking up every Plant that is not planted by God to be rejected by men as will-worship and the serving of God according to the precepts of men Col. 2.18.23 Isa 29.13 XXVI Querie answered 1. I might here observe the discordancy and incongruity of this Qâ—erie with severall that have gone before it For whereas this renders the neglect of Baptisme so dangerous as that the heavy hand of God may well be feared as the punishment of such a sinne yet severall other precedent queries have rendered it so veniall a sinne as that it would be unreasonable for the sake thereof to barre any from Church-communion 2. But to answer directly I suppose it will not be denyed by the Baptists queried but that Baptisme is as necessary and of as high esteeme with God under the Gospell as Circumcision was under the Law and that they who neglect it whose duty it is to submit to it the Qâ—erist I mean and other Believerrs have cause to feare the displeasure of God as well as those who neglected Circumcision under the Law But where there is no Law there is no transgression and where no transgression no feare of wrath if then there is no command from God to baptise Infants as there was to circumcise them or if there be the Pedobaptists were never yet so kinde as to shew it us then there is no cause to feare the like danger for the forbearing of the one as there was for neglecting of the other 3. But though there be no cause to feare the displeasure of God for forbearing to baptise Infants yet if there be the same cause for us to feare the displeasure of God for doing that which he hath not commanded as there was for his people under the Law in like case then there is just cause for those to feare the displeasure of God in one kinde or other who though they do not offer strange fire which God commanded not as did Nâ—dab and Abihu whom the Lord slew Lâ—vit 10.1 2. not transgresse the Order of God as Vzza did who dyed before God 1 Chron. 13.10 with chap. 15.13 yet doe as truly and really doe that as a service to him in sprinkling their children which he hath not commanded as they did the other XXVII Querie answered Whether the Israelites were blamelesse under the omission of Circumcision for fourty yeares together upon account of that bodily inconvenience or danger the Querist speakes of I know not I leave it to him to determine But that a being dipped over head and eares in water in obedience to a command of Jesus Christ should be a tempting of the providence of God as to the endangering of either life or health I cannot believe because more then frequent even constant experience teacheth the contrary Nor do I believe there is the like danger or difficulty attends this dipping as did the circumcising of those Israelites Josh 5. after they had omitted it forty yeares and yet the danger and difficulty notwithstanding God would have it done What ever the danger might be for a man to be dipt upon his owne account I shall not speak but I am very confident God hath not made a snare of Baptisme and unlesse we will conceive that God takes lesse care to preserve his people now in the times of the Gospel from such inconveniences as these feared in the way of serving and obeying him then he did to preserve his people from those hazards they exposed themselves to in obeying him under the Law Exod. 34.24 there will be no cause for any man to feare the miscarriage of his life or health in the hand of Jesus Christ and in the way of obeying him he that rebuked the Windes and the Seas for his servants sakes can rebuke the feared cold and though ease slayeth the foolish yet whoso harkeneth unto me saith God Prov. 1.32 33. shall dwell safely and shall be free from the feare of evill And how can he trust God with the keeping of his soule in well doing 1 Pet. 4.19 that cannot trust him with the keeping of his body in well doing Little does he think who ever is turned aside by this Lyon in the way what peace and satisfaction a mans experience of the uprightnesse and cordialnesse of his heart to God will produce him when notwithstanding the danger which flâ—sh and bloud will suggest in the case he can in love and obedience to his Lord and Master Jesus Christ throw health and life and all into the hands of God XXVIII Querie answered 1. If the Querist will suppose that those Scriptures which require faith or the profession of faith in those that are to be admitted to Baptisme are to be understood onely of men and women who are capable of making such a profession and that they are no more exclusive of Infants then the Apostles Injunction 2 Thes 3.10 If any will not worke let him not eat is exclusive of Infants in the point of eating wherein he intends men onely and not children then I desire him to shew us what Scriptures those are that doe speak of the baptising of infants and not of men and women professing the faith if those doe not for if such Scriptures as require faith in those that will be baptised doe no more intend children then the foresaid Injunction of the Apostle doth then there must be some other Scriptures that do intend Infants when they speak of baptising or else there are no Scriptures at all that doe speake of Childrens Baptisme if there be any other why are they not produced if there be not why is the world troubled with these disputes as if there were 2. Why does not or may not the Querist as well suppose that those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so let him eat of that Bread and drinke of that Cup are no more exclusive of Children then those are He that will not worke let him net eat or then those are which require a profession of faith before Baptisme For may not any man that will give himselfe liberty and scope to puzzle mens understandings without plaine Scriptures as well deny that children are debarred Communion at the Table of the Lord by this Text which requires a man to examine himselfe in order to his approach thereto as to deny that children are debarred Baptisme by those Scriptures that require faith in men and women to render them capable of Baptisme if there be any difference let us understand it or if children be not here excluded the Supper then shew us by what