for Faith Neither do we pretend to judg Mens Hearts for tho God has ordered Faith to be a Pre-requisite to Baptism yet we are only to judg of the Profession of Faith not of the Sincerity of it And as it is true as you say that Infants cannot play the Hypocrite so it 's true they cannot play the Christian and therefore not fit for the Duties of Christians of which Baptism is one Mr. Taylor 's Argument 12. They who are capable of the Ends of Baptism may be baptized But Children are capable of the Ends of Baptism Therefore they may be baptized ANSWER 1. If by the Ends of Baptism you mean the Things which concern God's Mercy in the Redemption of Man only then the Major is denied but if by the Ends of Baptism you mean the Things required on Mans part then the Minor is not true for Mortification and Vivification are the Ends of Baptism on Man's part of which Infants are not capable for they cannot put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh nor have they any need so to do neither can they rise to Newness of Life And tho I grant and have often said it that we ought to devote our Children to God in the best manner we can yet to go beyond the Word of the Lord under that pretence will neither profit us nor our Children 2. What you say here of Baptism being a Seal to Infants c. is answered before And surely the word Heathen so often used by you as it imports sometimes an Enemy to God yet being of it self of no ill signification Infants are not so to be accounted Heathens nor doth the word Christian as it imports a Follower of Christ belong to Infants So that this is only a Noise of Words to talk that our Infants are not distinguished from the Infants of Heathens tho I have shewed a difference between them Mr. Taylor 's Argument 13. Whom the Church of Christ ever received to Baptism may still be baptized But the Church of Christ hath ever received Children to Baptism Therefore they may be baptized ANSWER 1. The Minor Proposition is not true and therefore I do deny that the Church hath always received Infants to Baptism And indeed you do not so much as pretend any thing from the Scriptures to prove it but before do honestly confess That infant-Infant-Baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament and therefore certainly it will be impossible to prove that the Church did always receive Infants to Baptism And it is also very observable that Eusebius who wrote the History of the Church for four hundred Years after Christ does not so much as mention Infant-Baptism at all 2. But how then does Mr. Taylor prove his Minor Why his chief Author to that purpose is Mr. Walker in his Book called A modest Plea for Infant-Baptism which Book in that part has been answered by Mr. De-Laune to which I refer the Reader The Sum of which Answer is to prove that all Mr. Walker's Testimonies from Antiquity for Infant-Baptism for the first 300 Years after Christ are either invalid or taken out of forged and spurious Books And it is more than sufficient to ballance Mr. Walker's and Mr. Taylor 's bold Assertion That the Catholick Church hath always received Infants to Baptism by the contrary Testimonies of Ludovicus Vives and Dr. Barlow the first expresly saying In old Time none was brought to Baptism but he was of sufficient Years to know what that mystical Water meant and to require his Baptism and that sundry times The other tells us There is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptism nor any just Evidence for it for about 200 Years after Christ 2. You say That for many hundreds of Years the Question about Infant-Baptism was not moved But this is a great Mistake for Tertullian did question it as an unwarrantable Practice in the beginning of the third Century as is shewed by Mr. Tombes and others who have diligently enquired into the ancient Customs of the Church 3. The first Instance which you bring for the Practice of Infant-Baptism in our Nation is that in King Ina's time about the Year 692 but we can prove it was opposed by the Britain Bishops two hundred Years before this See Fabian's Chron. part 1. fol. 107. 4. You say The deferring of Baptism among the Ancients was not for their questioning Infant-Baptism But sure if they did think themselves too young to be baptized at twenty or thirty Years of Age they could with no reason think their Children old enough for Baptism at seven or eight days old Extremes have undone all they were too slow and you are as much too quick But the proper time for Baptism is when Men attain to the new Birth Baptism is therefore rightly call'd the Washing of Regeneration 5. You seem to hold That Infant-Baptism was lawfully practised by God's People before Christ and even from the Apostles Time since Christ But I wonder by what Law you give us none but Mr. Walker's Book which is very well answered by Mr. De-Laune in his Book entitled Truth defended And I am sure the best Antiquity says nothing for you Mr. Taylor 's Argument 14. That Doctrine which introduceth many Vnchristian Consequences is erroneous But the Doctrine of the Antipoedobaptists Introduceth many Vnchristian Consequences Therefore the Doctrine of the Antipoedobaptists is erroneous ANSWER 1. The Minor Proposition is not true for our Doctrine in the Case of Baptism is true and Truth does not introduce any erronious Consequences Now that our Doctrine is true appears thus Because it fully agrees with your Text Mat. 28. 19. even as it is expounded by your self in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Going to disciple all Nations instruct them in the Principles of my Religion and then being Disciples baptize them This you say and this we say the only difference is We do as we say but You say and do not You therefore must needs be in the Error in this case 2. But let us hear what you have against our Doctrine First you say It opposeth the whole Current of Scripture nullifies many Scripture-Promises and Privileges and destroys the Covenant of Grace as the premised Pages manifest But I hope the premised Answers do manifest the Charge which you bring against our Doctrine to be very unjust And seeing you are the Men and not we that have changed the Ordinance of Baptism you may justly fear the Censure of the Prophet Isa 24. 5. for breaking the everlasting Covenant See the Place and consider it seriously 3. You say Our Doctrine introduceth the World into Gentilism or Heathenism and makes Christ's Church always gathering and never gathered But how can you say this seeing we are for the teaching or discipling all Nations and every Person in the Nations as they are capable and God gives his Ministers opportunity and we take the same way to do this which the Apostles used according to our Ability i.
Mr. Taylor to follow him But sith he refers me also to Mr. Leigh's Crit. Sac. He shall do well to mark what he saith even as quoted by Mr. Walker p. 36. the reason says he why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put pro Lotione mundatione is because such as are immersed that is dipped come out of the WATER washed or cleansed So then to Baptize is to dip the Subject in the Element in the Name c. and that which is no small but a most importent Confirmation of that Mode and only that is the Baptism of Christ's own Person for Mr. Walker cannot deny that the Greek in Mark 1. 9. being rightly rendred in English is thus read Jesus came and was baptized of John INTO JORDAN and therefore he may be confident he was not sprinkled for it would be nonsence to say he was sprinkled into Jordan but good sence and plain truth too to say he was dipped into Jordan And yet for all this Mr. Walker fights stoutly both against Truth and Reason leaning only upon the single Authority of Bernard and will have Sprinkling to be meant or signified by the Word Baptize as well as Dipping And Mr. Taylor says the same tho many learned Writers contradict them both But it shall suffice here to set down two both equal in Learning and Vertue to these our present Opposites The first shall be that truly Famous Man Dr. Jer. Taylor in his Rule of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. If you would attend to the signification of the Word BAPTISM signifies plunging in Water or dipping with washing And saith Keckerman Immersion not Aspersion that is dipping not sprinkling was the first institution of Baptism as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. Syst Theol. But for all this Mr. Walker pretends Antiquity for Sprinkling and it is strange to see what learned Men will say when they are set to defend Error We will but touch two of his most ancient Instances that you may see the bottom of the business 1. He goes as high as the second Century and takes an instance of sprinkling from the service of the Daemons that is Devil-Gods but why so Because he supposes the Heathen used sprinkling in the Service of their Daemons in imitation of the Christians Practice But the truth is it 's more to be feared that unwary Christians did fall to imitate the Heathens for we are told so in effect even by a learned Popish Author which for the plainness of the Testimony I will here faithfully transcribe He saith This chief Chair of the Church being translated from Antioch to Rome He Peter and his Successors were very careful and vigilent to reduce the Christian Religion being as yet indigested unpolished and little practised and the Professors thereof into better Order and Vniformity out of the Law of Moses which Christ came not to abolish but to fulfil out of the Civil and Politick Government of Romans Greeks and Egyptians and out of both sacred and prophane Rites Laws and Ceremonies of other Nations but most especially by the wholsom Doctrine and Direction of Christ Jesus and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit See a Book called The Manners Laws and Customs of all Nations pag. 151. Behold here the Springs of Human Inventions and Ceremonies Mr. Walker's second Instance is a Story of one sprinkled with Sand instead of Water the Water being scarce and the Party like to dye but alas they could not dip the Sick into the Sand and however their Zeal may be commended their Action is not to be commended at all It shews their Folly for it 's better to be without a Ceremony when we cannot possibly have it in God's way than to set up our own Devices in the stead and place and use of it For I will saith God have Mercy and not Sacrifice And thus we shall leave Mr. Walker to consider his Sandy Foundation for his sprinkling Infants 2. Mr. Taylor says Sprinkling cannot nullify Baptism and therefore our dissenting Brethren are to blame to make our Baptism to be essentially corrupted and not to be accounted Baptism because not performed by Dipping To this I answer When our Saviour commanded to baptize he commanded but one not divers kinds of Actions and to do that which is not only contrary to his own blessed Example in this very thing but also such an Act as cannot with any equity of Speech or good Sence be called Baptism is to err essentially in the performance of it And so great is the difference between Dipping and Sprinkling that such as sprinkle Infants dare not speak as they act when they pretend to baptize No they dare not say I sprinkle thee in the Name of the Father c. which they might well say if the word Baptize does equally signify dipping and sprinkling We are not therefore to blame to labour to have this Ordinance kept as it was delivered for sure if it be our Duty to keep God's Ordinances it 's our Duty to keep them as they were observed by Christ and the Primitive Churches And so far as the manner of doing this command of Christ is essential to the Ordinance dipping is of the essence of it without which it cannot be called Baptism Again All the Scriptures which command to baptize do expresly command to dip the Party to be baptized and therefore Mr. Taylor is to blame to say There is not one place of Scripture which in express Words commands Dipping pag. 59. Yea Sir your Text Matth. 28. 19. commands Dipping For were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated into plain English it must be rendred by dipping And I pray Sir consider whether you could not with a good Conscience translate it so And on the other side Whether your Conscience would not accuse you should you translate the Text Teach all Nations sprinkling them I dare say no Man dare thus read the Text. Why then do they thus act Shall we speak one thing and do another So speak ye and so do ye as they that shall be judged by the Law of Liberty to wit the Gospel 3. What you urge from the Legal Washings has been answered by the Learned of our way and particularly by Mr. Danvers who says I have carefully examined all the Places in the Old Testament where the word Dipping or Baptizing is mentioned and do find it is expressed by the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Minceus and Dr. Hammond observe The Septuagint do render the Word Tabal in the Hebrew by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with all the Translators both the Latin Dutch Italian French and English do translate to dip the Word rendred Washing being another Word as the following Scriptures inform you Gen. 37. 31. Exod. 12. 22. Lev. 4. 6. 17. 14. 6. 16 51. Levit. 9. 9. Deut. 33. 24. John 3. 5. Numb 16. 18. 2 Kings 5. 14. I cannot think therefore that you can conscionably parallel Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 11. with the
Discipline which Christ ordained to continue in all Churches to the end of the World But the Church of England does believe hold and maintain such Things as are evidently and actually destructive of that Christian Liberty wherewith Christ hath made his Churches free and of that sacred Baptism and holy Discipline which Christ ordained to continue in all Churches to the end of the World Ergo It is lawful just and needful to maintain a prudent and friendly Separation from the Church of England in her present Parochial Constitution Supposing the Major is not to be denied by any Christian we shall endeavour to make good the Minor To begin with Sacred Baptism It is evident from the Scripture and partly from the Confession of the Church of England that the Things prerequisite to Baptism on the part of every one who is to be joined with the Church Militant or to be baptized are these 1. They ought to have the Gospel preached or some way made known to them 2. To believe the Gospel 3. To repent of Sin And 4. Willingly to put on Christ in Baptism Or to express it in short They are first to be dead with Christ and then secondly to be buried with Christ by Baptism Now that the Church of England does hold such Things as are evidently and actually destructive of this Baptism may in our Judgment be thus proved 1. She believes holds and does teach others to hold That all or the very most of her Church-Members are regenerate without hearing the Word of God without Faith without Repentance or any Knowledg of God and so believes what neither we nor any Body else can understand to be true and errs in Faith 2. Yet she does not believe that her Members are regenerate at all till she cross or sprinkle them with Water neither does she know because she has no ground to believe that Infants are thereby made anew so as to become the Children of God and Heirs of Heaven and believing this without possibility ordinarily to know it to be true she errs in Faith 3. She believes and maintains that those ought to be baptized whom she knows do not cannot believe nor repent nor in any measure know God nor any Duty of Religion and herein she errs as we conceive concerning the Faith 4. She believes and maintains that Sponsors do believe and repent for Infants or that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sponsors and believing these things and teaching her Youth to believe them without any ground from the Word of God she believes amiss or errs in Faith 5. She holds that Persons may lawfully be baptized when they are asleep and does actually pretend to baptize Infants when they are asleep which we think verily must needs be a very great Error both in Faith and Practice 6. She believes holds and maintains that Crossing or Sprinkling is a lawful way of Baptizing when indeed it is no Baptizing at all Insomuch as those that use that Mode dare not speak as they act saying I sprinkle thee in the Name c. their Conscience bearing them witness that the sacred Act of baptizing in the Name c. cannot be expressed by the word Sprinkling They therefore believing what they know is not true in this matter must needs err in Faith as well as in their Practice And this Error has in a manner destroyed the way of Baptizing used by John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 7. Thus tho we grant that the Church of England is no less zealous for the Doctrine of Baptism than our selves yet it is apparent to us that she hath accidentally lost this holy Ordinance both in respect of the Subject and Manner of it and in the due Use and End of it which was not appointed nor fitted to receive new-boru Infants into the Church Militant And by this unwarrantable Change she has defaced the State and lost the Praise of a true Church 1 Cor. 11. 2. because she has not kept this Ordinance as it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles but hath rather suppressed it and much oppressed those that labour to restore it to its due Use and Practice in all Churches which is a great Aggravation of all these her Errors in Faith and Practice concerning Sacred Baptism SECT III. Concerning Discipline WHat manner of Discipline the Church of Christ ought to observe is sufficiently declared Matth. 18. 1 Cor 5. 2 Thess 3. Tit. 3. and other places And it is very well expressed by a Minister of the Church of England in his Defâ—nce of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England in these Words The manner of proceeding in Excommunication is first by gentle Admonition and that once or twice given with the Spirit of Meekness even as a Brother if the Fault be not notoriously known and next by open Reprehension afterward by publick Sentence of the Church to put him from the Company of the Faithful to deliver him to Satan to denounce him an Heathen and a Publican if no Admonition will serve and the Crimes and Persons be very offensive Thus he And to this Discipline we can heartily subscribe it being indeed the very same which is religiously observed by the Baptized Believers in this Age and Nation But where now shall this Discipline be found in the Church of England Does any one Assembly or Court of the Church of England observe it Or does she not practise that in her Courts which is too evidently destructive of it For so far as we can understand instead of this brotherly Admonition Men are clandestinely presented and accused and often excommunicated for they know not what What Man is now taught or bound by any Order of the Church of England that in case his Brother trespass against him by defaming his Reputation offering Injury to his Person or by wronging him in his Substance to take that brotherly Course prescribed to all Christians Mat. 18. Or if he would take this Course what Congregation is empowred or allowed to hear or determine the Strife as Sin is in such cases committed against God We see not how it is possible for the Offended to do his Duty in an orderly way to the Offender if he go about it he shall probably be derided both by Teacher and People So far is he from obtaining Justice against the Offender in any Congregation of the Church of England because the ancient Discipline is an unknown thing to the People generally And for want of this Christian Government are Men continually exposed to Suits and Troubles in Courts of Law wherein the Poor can have small Help as it is written Eccles 5. 8. old Translation If thou seest the Poor to be oppressed marvel not for one great Man keepeth touch with another and the mighty Men are in Authority over the Poor 3. But that which is more grievous We do not see that open Prophaneness can be met with or suppressed by your Discipline For suppose a Man be
mention not Now may it please the God of Heaven to put it into the Hearts of the Guides of the Church of England to consider these things 1. That none of these Ceremonies about which we differ from them are required of Christians in the Holy Scriptures And that therefore 2. To enforce them by Excommunication and Penal Laws upon the Consciences of Men is more than God requires of you or any Body else And surely if the making these things necessary to our Communion were but removed so that Things which are not delivered in the Word of God were left at liberty we should not stand at so great a distance from the Church of England as now we do For tho we are verily persuaded that these Things objected against by us are Errors and therefore prudently to be amended yet we believe the imposing of them is a thousand times more offensive in the sight of God and more grievous to the Souls of Men because as we conceive God's Authority is then usurped by Man and Mens Fear towards him is then taught by the Precepts of Men. And yet we know and indeed must confess that many Things as to the more convenient performance of Religious Services in a Church-way are left to the Prudence of the Church guided therein by the general Rules in the Word of God and some Things also which are not of the Essence of Christianity will seem doubtful to some and clear to others And therefore there will be a continual Necessity of brotherly Forbearance one towards another in some sinless Ceremonies as many Things may be so esteemed whilst not made the Boundaries of Communion and forced upon Christians against their Consciences For Example tho Sitting be the most safe Gesture at the Lord's Table because nearest to Christ's Example yet if any in Humility and of Devotion to God think it their Duty to receive kneeling this surely cannot justly offend any Christian And thus also bowing at the Name of Jesus being left at liberty when where and upon what occasion the Conscience of a Christian may be most pressed to do it need not offend any tho it is apparent such bowing is not the meaning of the Text Phil. 2. 10. And the same may be said of well-composed Prayers so that still such Forms be used as a matter of Christian Liberty and not imposed by Law as necessary And could Things be managed with such Moderation as certainly the State of the Inhabitants of this Land does much call for it in a friendly and brotherly Spirit 't is hoped our Animosities would abate and Charity would endear all that are upright towards God one towards another tho labouring under many Weaknesses or dark Circumstances But whilst one Party stands up with a Sword in their hand or with power to thrust Men into Goal and rifle their Estates unless they will all submit to their Will and Pleasure not only without but perhaps in some things against the Word of God the pretended Rule to all Protestants in Matters of Religion this lays a Necessity upon all that are of Noble and truly Christian Spirits to testify against such Cruelty and unmanly Proceedings and to assert the true Christian Doctrine and Liberty and Christ's Sovereign Authority only to make Laws for his Church as such altho for so doing they suffe the Loss of all Things which are dear to them in this World and therewithal to stand off from the Communion of such unreasonable Men as have not learned to do to others as they would have others to do to them under their differing Opinions when in a state of Subjection to those who differ from them Thus much briefly of the Reasons or Causes of our Separation We will now consider what Mr. N. Taylor brings to make good Poedobaptism And the rather because he says he has defended infant-Infant-Baptism both by Scripture and Reason Let us hear how he doth this Mr. NATHANIEL TAYLOR' 's Fourteen Arguments for Infant-Baptism considered and answered BEfore we answer his Arguments we will take notice of some of his Concessions And 1. He saith Baptism of Water is not absolutely necessary to Salvation pag. 2. 2. He tells us St. Paul joins the Word of God with this Baptism in order to the purifying Christ's Church that acting on the Soul and this terminating on the Body And that St. Peter's Assertion is clear that it is not Water purifying the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God that saveth pag. 7. 3. He tells us also That the premising the Word DISCIPLE Matth. 28. 19. implies none to be capable of Baptism who are not Disciples of Christ and Members of the Church pag. 10. 4. And further That Christ would have his Ordinances performed by an external Administration wherein the subject might be in the nearest capacity of understanding pag. 81 82. 5. He grants That Childrens Baptism and Church-Membership are not mentioned in the New Testament pag. 51. From all which a Man may very fairly argue and conclude against Infant-Baptism thus If Infants are undoubtedly saved without Baptism and are Members of Christ's Church without Baptism and that the Word of God must act upon the Soul in true Baptism so as that the Subject of Baptism must have the answer of a good Conscience And if none be capable of Baptism till they be Disciples of Christ according to Matth. 28. 19. and ought to be in the nearest capacity of understanding what is done in the external administration of Baptism And if Infant-Church-Membership and Baptism be not mentioned in the New Testament then Infants ought not to be baptized But all this is true saith Mr. Taylor Therefore I conclude Infants ought not to be baptized And thus his Book I will not say as he may be soon blown away but it may seem to be soon answered And his learned Title very unsuitable For how shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is not mention'd in the new Testament can that be Orthodoxal Baptism which is not mentioned there Sure this is incredible But let us hear his Arguments by which he undertakes to vindicate infant-Infant-Baptism both by Scripture and Reason Mr. Taylor 's Argument 1. If our Christian Privileges be as great as the Jews were then our Children are rightly baptized But our Christian Privileges are as great as the Jews were Therefore our Children are rightly Baptized ANSWER Because Mr. Taylor says he offers his Reasons for Infant-Baptism in order to a composure of Differences and I do believe he means as he says I shall therefore endeavour to answer them with all Love and Sincerity as becomes a Christian And I say 1. That upon a fair Distinction both Propositions may be denied For if the Question be of external Privileges only then whether we respect outward Advantages in the World or Rites and Ceremonies in the Church pertinent to Infants the Minor is to be denied for the Jews were under a sure Promise
were not Disciples whom they would have Circumcised for 't is said They taught the Brethren except they were Circumcised c. they could not be saved But you cannot imagine that they taught Infants If Acts 15. be diligently read it will expound it self for vers 19. the Disciples are said to be such as from among the Gentiles were turned to God And all that are called Disciples vers 10. are called Brethren and as such they are written unto by the Assembly vers 23. And the Epistle is said to be read to all the Multitude meaning of the Disciples who thereupon are said to rejoice for the Consolation Sure these were no Infants 2. But you say They are Disciples in that tho Man cannot teach them yet God can and may Well I thank you for your Ingenuity It is true as you say Man cannot teach or make Infants Disciples and then to be sure they are not intended by our Saviour to be made Disciples by what he says in your Text Mat. 28. 19. For all that are to be made Disciples by that Commission are to be made such by Men So that you are evidently besides your Text in all that you say to this Argument and you are beside your own Exposition of your Text also which I will here set down as you give it pag. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Going to Disciple all Nations instruct them in the Principles of my Religion and then being Disciples baptize them So that there is a Discipleship pre-existent to Baptism and indeed the premising the Word DISCIPLE implies none to be capable of Baptism who are not Disciples of Christ and Members of his Church These are your Words 'T is true you say Infants will be proved to be Disciples But surely not by saying as you do here that God can make them Disciples or teach them For it is no good arguing from what God can do to say he has done it or will do it For God can of the Stones in the Street raise up Children unto Abraham but I may not therefore say the Stones in the Srreet are the Children of Abraham You say indeed that God hath given several instances of his teaching several from the Womb but you can neither name the Persons nor shew us what he taught them however if you could such miraculous Operations are not given for general Rules God once taught a dumb Ass to speak and to reprove a Prophet but it would be bad arguing from this instance that Asses are Disciples And yet this is a clearer instance of God's teaching the Ass than you can give of his teaching any Infant 3. But seeing you put Infants Discipleship upon the account of God's teaching them you must have some competent ground to believe that he has miraculously taught them before you baptize them or else you destroy your Exposition of the Text which avers That there is a Discipleship pre-existent to Baptism And when you shall shew me the Infant whom God hath taught or made a Disciple I believe I shall not oppose your Baptizing that Infant and this is as much as you can desire 4. But you say further That God hath promised to teach Children What Sir in their Infancy Let us see your Proofs Isa 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the Peace of thy Children John 6. 45. It is written in the Prophets and they shall be all taught of God Every Man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me Certainly had you read those Texts with their Coherence and considered that our Saviour himself in the latter expounds the former you would never have imagined that God here promises to teach any Infants much less all the Infants in the Christian Nations for it is very apparent they that are taught according to these Scriptures have heard and learned of the Father so as to come to Christ And indeed the meaning is that God speaking to us by his Son who is very God 1 John 5. had now made good that gracious Promise Isa 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the Lord. But you have another Text Acts 10. 47. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy-Ghost as well as we Now he that reads this place will easily see that the Persons here spoken of were only such as were assembled to hear Peter in whatsoever they should be commanded of God and that the Holy-Ghost fell on all that heard the Word Which place therefore can with no shew of Reason be brought to prove that Infants are taught of God However when you shall find an Infant that has received the Holy-Ghost as well as the Apostles then for my part I shall not forbid Water that you should baptize him provided you first be baptized your self 5. You will have Infants to be Disciples because Christ you say commands the receiving of them in his Name and you quote Luke 18. 16 17. Mat. 19. 13. Luke 9. 47. I have carefully read all these places but can find no Command to receive Infants in the Name of Christ much less to receive them by Baptism It is true Christ called a little Child unto him and said Whosoever shall receive this Child in my Name receiveth me Now this Child was able to know what Christ said and is no fit Instance to prove an Infant of eight days old to be a Disciple of Christ neither does this Text call this Child a Disciple but the Disciples are distinguished from it And yet it and so any little Child may be a good Precedent even to Disciples to learn Humility and Simplicity by and so may a Lamb or a Dove serve to teach us to be humble and harmless yet they are not therefore Disciples Neither can the receiving this Child or any other in like case be understood of receiving them by Baptism for then you may read the place thus Whosoever baytizeth a Child in my Name baptizeth me but this is both false and absurd And besides he that is baptized may be rather said to receive Christ than he that baptizeth in that Action Or would you make our Saviour to say He that baptizeth an Infant in my Name receiveth me If so I would know by what Authority you take the word receiveth for baptizing in the first place and in the second for something else Surely if to baptize an Infant in the Name of Christ be a receiving of Christ it 's an easy thing to receive Christ especially for the Priest who pretends to baptize Infants daily But sure it is as much the Duty of other Christians to receive Children in the Name of Christ as the Priests for the Word is Whosoever shall receive this Child in my Name and therefore it cannot be meant of baptizing them and then these Scriptures prove not your Argument at all 6. You urge that Infants are Members of Earthly Kingdoms and I grant
teach Thus these two Pillars of the Protestant Reformation are so far from deriving their Call to the Ministry through the Papacy as some late Protestants pretend to do that they do utterly reject any Ordination which comes from them Nor was Luther and Beza ordained after they came from the Papists Mr. Stub's Occas Quaer But Beza is said to defend his Call to the Ministry by Instances of those that were called extraordinarily as Isaiah Daniel Amos Zecharias c. These things premised we may assume that either of these ways as approved by our Reformers respectively could we go to defend our Call to the Ministry as well as they Being first many of us ordained by those who received Ordination from you and some may run with you to Bishop Cranmer who was ordained by the Papacy and then proceed till we come up to Clemens or Lucius and so to St. Peter And as for the pretence of Beza or Luther about their extraordinary Call it 's not impossible for us to give as fair a Demonstration of it as either of them specially if we take the Rules given by Mr. Beza to judg of such a Call by to be cogent viz. good Life sound Doctrine and the Election of the People But to be plain we do not very well like either of these ways Not the first it is so sordid as that the Papists themselves in deriving their Call through the Papacy are forced to take it from so many false pretended Popes or Diabolical Popes even Witches and Devils incarnate by their own confession that they make but a lamentable Succession of it in the end And especially if Stapleton may be regarded tho a Papist who tells us That it is not a bare and personal Succession but lawful Succession which is a note of a true Church and defineth that to be lawful Succession when not only the latter succeeds into the void rooms of those that went before them being lawfully called thereunto but also hold the Faith which their Predecessors did Now let this Rule be honestly stood by and we are sure the Papists shall never be able to prove a Succession of many points of their Faith and Doctrines from the Apostles whilst the World stands and consequently neither can the Protestants derive a lawful Succession from them We like not the second way for we will not compare with Isaiah Daniel Amos nor Zechariah in respect of their immediate Mission But this we say That our Call to the Ministry is no otherwise extraordinary than our Call to believe the Gospel is so or as it stands clear from all the idle Ceremonies used by Papists or others in their Ordinations or as it is ordered as near as we can according to the Word of God And is the sacred Word of Power to beget us to God and by the assistance of his Spirit to make us his Children or Christians and is it not of Power or Authority sufficient to enable us to worship God in his own Ordinances which were made for Christians and not Christians for them This seems justly ridiculous We make no doubt but that it 's easy with God and no extraordinary thing to raise a People to himself in a Nation where all have corrupted the way of Christianity or lost the State and Praise of a true Church meerly through his Blessing upon the reading and diligent searching of the Scriptures I speak of a Nation where the Scriptures are received as that is our case The Truth is all the ways of God's Worship are in the Word made ready for us and laid at our Doors and we do but take up gladly what others let lie as useless things that they may hug their own Devices But now to silence a Papist for ever which some will think to be a difficult undertaking do they not allow even by the Pen of the Learned Bellarmine chap. 7. that even an Heathen that is not baptized may administer Baptism in case of Necessity And this they esteem a valid Baptism And why then may not we when God hath opened our Eyes to see any other Truth as well as that enter upon the dutiful observance of it in the best way we can our Circumstances especially the case of Necessity being considered For is not Necessity as good a Warrant to take up the practice of or to restore one Truth as well as another Certainly one Ordinance is as sacred as another and where Churches are setled ought to be dispensed in the most honourable way and by the most fit Instruments even Christ's Ministers Wherefore till the Papists shall recal their opinion about Baptism and prove a Succession as necessary to Baptism as Ordination they can with no shew of reason insist upon the necessity of Ordination to be founded upon Succession But further It 's evident from the Scriptures Acts 13. that a Succession is not necessary to true Ordination for tho the Apostles were yet living it was not thought necessary that they should impose Hands upon Barnabas and Paul but this is done by gifted Men or the Prophets that were in the Church at Antioch The only question here to be resolved is Whether this laying on of Hands was for Ordination The Papists do hold it was some Protestants deny it but some Protestants do affirm it Mr. Churchman in his History of Episcopacy tells out of Chrysostom That tho Paul was an Apostle neither of Men nor by Men yet as for the Work to which he was separated ask the said Father saith he and he will tell you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was the Office of an Apostle and that he was ordained an Apostle here that he might preach the Gospel with greater Pewer And certainly that he had not the Apostleship before may be made manifest by that which followed after But tho some Protestants doubt whether this were Paul's Ordination tho the matter is clear of it self yet here is the Ordination of Barnabas without all question and then it is evident that there was an Interruption of Succession in the case of Ordination even in the Apostles Days and therefore by no means to be held to be necessary in our Days who are so far removed from the times of the Holy Apostles that in vain do Men think to find a clear and undoubted Succession of any one Ordinance from them Wherefore we may safely conclude that where the Truth of the Gospel is received with the Gifts of God's Spirit as that was the case at Antioch there is a sufficiency of Power on the Persons so gifted with the advice of the Church to send forth or appoint Men to the work of the Ministry altho 't is true this course is most warrantable in the case of necessity and in no wise to be done in contempt or wilful neglect of that way which is more ordinary and regular Howbeit to tye all Power of Ordination so strictly to the Persons of Men ordained by such as were ordained by