could wash my hands as clean that way as you could wash yours by dipping them into the water and I should not count her a Slut that would so wash her hands when they were foul Our experience therefore you see tells us that there is as effectual a way to wash our dirty-hands by pouring water upon them as by dipping them Besides unless you rinse or rub as well as dip you will not easily make clean work of it and if this your similitude hold you must not only dip the person you Baptize but you must rinse or rub him too to signifie his cleansing You take away the cavils of unseemliness from dipping by saying It is the fruit of â—â—â—rnal Wisdom Unbelief and shunning the the Cross and so no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ c. I Answer Were it apparent from Scripture that Christ had ordained Dipping and himself so practised it as you affirm I hope through the Grace of Christ many of his people would not count it undecent as now they do And there must be clearer light to convince them that are considerate of it than any you have yet held forth And I much wonder that you who will not admit of Consequences concerning Infants-Baptism which are far more rational and certain should content your self with such uncertain ones as you have brought for dipping I would only recite out of Mr. Cobbet p. 212. what he saith out of Nicephorus lib. 13. cap. 19. of the flying of the Women naked being beset with armed-Men as they were to be Baptized and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a Woman when to be Baptized Then as to the hazard of health you say known experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination You will not be offended I hope if the experience of some others be set against yours It is more than probable that some have presently upon it fallen into a Fever which cost them their lives And I could tell you of some Eye-witnesses credible-persons who saw both the Baptizer and the Baptized in danger of drowning and had very probably been both drowned if one had not leapt in from the bank in his Clothes and relieved them both I would not have mentioned these things had not your words required an answer for it is Truth and Peace that I aim at and not Contention and bitterness To your Chapter V. pag. 253. I Answer Having as I trust given satisfactory Answers to what you have said and in some measure evidenced and confirmed the contrary-truth those several mischiefs absurdities and contradictions cannot justly be charged upon our practice I shall mention them very briefly having spoken to most of them amply before Only I must tell you that the Errours you charge our Doctrine and Practice with do not naturally and perse follow from them but they are accidental to them as far as they are Errours They are the Errours of Persons only not of our Doctrine nor of our Practice according to our Doctrine And therefore you injuriously charge them upon our Doctrine Practice It is fallacia accidentis As for what is Truth in any of them we own and have proved it before but the most of them you falsly charge upon us Let those that own what is Erroneous in their Expressions make them good if they can or rather repent of them Our Assertion of Infant-Interest and Baptism will stand without them 1. Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an altering of the Order of Christs Commission as hath been proved but it is acting according to his Commission Disciples we have proved them to be and so by Christ's Commission to be Baptized Repentance and Faith visibly-professed at least should precede in grown-persons not so in Infants but their Baptism and being Externally in the Covenant of Grace is to engage and stir them up to seek to God for Repentance and Faith And this Answer will undermine all the rest of your absurdities mischiefs and contradictions It 's no changing of the subjects that Christ hath appointed Nor a frustrating of the holy and Spiritual Ends of Baptism but a means to attain them if it be rightly-improved Nor doth it invert the Order by sprinkling or pouring water upon the face Nor doth it naturally and of it self introduce any Errour or false Doctrine We do not hold that it is to take away Original Sin Nor that it doth of it self work Grace and Regeneration yet we dare not limit the Lord that he should not work it then or at any other time when he pleaseth And that it was an Apostolical Tradition we own it no otherwise than from their writings and practice recorded in the Scripture If any make it an unwritten Tradition let them please themselves with their own fancy Nor doth it maintain that Children have Faith though it is beyond your reach to say this or that Child hath no Faith secret things belong to God But that they are Disciples of Christ and in Christ's School we have proved though they have not yet learnt one Letter That all the Infants of Inchurched-Believers are Externally in the Covenant of Grace and federally-Holy I have proved and you cannot prove it to be an Errour or false Doctrine Nor doth it defile and pollute the Church either by bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling neither capable to perform Duties nor enjoy priviledges Those words Saints by calling if you mean such as have Actually answered the call of Christ in his word at least in the judgment of Charity respect only-Adult-persons who are immediate-Members and not Children who are Mediate Members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as middle persons appointed of God to convey them into that Estate and Relation This distinction will free the Church from pollution of which more hath been said before We do not hold that a Church is gathered or made up only of Infants but of grown persons who alone are able to perform Duties But Infants are capable of enjoying Priviledges Is it not a Priviledge for God to be their God Externally in Covenant To be under a promise of God's Circumcising the heart and to provide them outward means for that End Some of your perswasion have held that they have great priviledges They are then true matter of the Church as visible in their kind and do not pollute and defile it By your Argument the Children of the Jews must be false matter for they were no Saints by calling nor could they perform duties yet they were mediate members of the Church and a part of that holy-people as hath been shewed Nor doth it lay a Foundation of Ignorance and prophaneness but the Contrary as I have abundantly proved Nor is it a confounding World and Church together nor bringing the World into the Church and turning the Church into the World You will see the contrary if you impartially-weigh what I have said before This reasoning of yours is as much against Children
dispensed to Abraham and his Family with respect to a visible-Church-Estate and by that Covenant so dispensed by God and received by them they became the Church of God 4. That the natural seed and Children of Abraham and the rest of the members of that Church in his House were externally and ecclesiastically within that Covenant of Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 which is meant not only of his Spiritual Seed but also of his Church-Seed in their Generations v. 9. 5. That Circumcision was then by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory-Seal of that Covenant under that Ecclesiastical Dispensation 6. That the Male-Infants of those inchurched Parents were then signed and sealed with the Seal of Circumcision as well as their Fathers 7. That it is the same Covenant of Grace that was made with Abraham as to the substance of it that is now come upon us Gentiles 8. That there are Temporal Blessings included in the Covenant now as well as Spiritual 9. That now in these Gospel-days there is an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of this Covenant as well as there was heretofore to the Church in Abrahams Family whereby visible Gospel-Churches are constituted 10. That Children of an Inchurched-Parent are now within the External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation of this Covenant mediate members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as well as heretofore the Church-Seed of Abraham 11. That Baptism is now by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory Seal of the Covenant under that External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation instead of Circumcision of old 12. That all the Legitimate-Infants of Inchurched-Parents being Disciples and mediate-Members ought to be baptized as well as Infants of Old were Circumcised God having now enlarged his Grace and given such a Seal as Females might partake of as well as Males and Infants as well as their Parents A friendly Answer to H. D. about Infant-Baptism CHAP. I. IN Page 105. of your Book you say we shall find both Example and Command for Women's receiving the Lords Supper and in Pag. 106. you say Let but as good Proof appear for Infants-Baptism and it shall suffice I shall now essay by the Lord's help to make as good Proof appear if not better that is clearer 1. The Example you bring is out of Act. 1.14 we read say you That Mary and other Women were gathered together and that these Women with the rest of the Disciples were alltogether in one Place and continued stedfastly in the apostles-Apostles-Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers Acts 2.42 44. It being expresly said that all that Believed were together You take this to be an evident Example that Women received the Lords Supper therefore that there is ground in Scripture to admit them but that there is not the like Example of any Infants that have been Baptized In Answer to which I shall first premise four Things in general and then Answer more particularly 1. I am not against inchurched-Women's-receiving the Lords Supper any more than against inchurched-Men but do believe they have an equal right unto it whil's they continue in a right estate in the Church But 2. This Example that you bring and the Command also as afterwards I shall shew is not express nor so clear as you make it to be 3. That there is as much room for Objections against it as there is for Objections against the Baptizing of Infants as I hope I shall make appear and that there is as much evidence and clearness for the latter as you judge to be for the former 4. All the evidence that your Example and Command will afford you for Womens receiving the Lords Supper you must deduce by way of consequence and that very darkly too from what you bring And if so I hope you will use the same candour integrity and right Reason in allowing what will rationally follow from the Scriptures that shall be produced for the Baptizing of inchurched-Infants Veniam dabimus petimusque Vicissim Now more particularly to your Example 1. It is not here expresly-said that these Women were Believers Act. 1.14 but you must gather it by consequence from this and other Scriptures compared together 2. That this Assembly was not the same that is not mentioned Acts 2.42.44 For this was to constitute a new Apostle in the room of Judas and wâ—â— somewhat before as appears Acts. 2.1 The other is spoken of the multitude of Jews and Gentiles converted afterwards when the day of Pentecost was fully-come and the Spirit given in that miraculous gift of Tongues 3. Here is no express-mention that those Women were in and of that great Assembly Acts 2.42 44. who continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and Prayers How do you know but that they might be dead or sick or upon some other occasion absent as Thomas was before John 20.24 As here is nothing exprest to the contrary so nor any thing expresly affirmed that they were present 4. Nor is there any express-mention of any other Women in that great Assembly Acts. 2.42 44. though afterwards there is Chap. 5.14 when the number was increased If it be objected that Sapphyra is afterwards mentioned Acts. 5.1 2. I Answer neither doth that expresly and directly prove your Assertion For 1. It is not expresly said that she was a Member of the Church though by consequence we may gather she was 2. If she were It is not said that she received the Lords Supper for she might be dead before she received it 3. You cannot say she was one of those that are spoken of Act 2.42 44. for she might be one of those that were afterwards converted to the Christian Religion Cap. 3. and Cap. 4. when the number was much increased Chap. 4.4 to five thousand Men. 5. The words upon which you lay the stress of Womens receiving the Lords Supper here are in express-terms against you though you take them expresly for you your words to prove that those Women did receive the Lord's Supper Acts 1.14 with Acts 2.42.44 are these It being expresly said say you that all that believed that all that believed were together Let us now fairly-examine the Greek Phrase and we shall find it expresly of Men and not of Women I doubt not but you know the Gender of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresly limit it to men and not to Women As if he had said all the Men that believed were together continued in the Apostles Doctrine c. and in breaking of Bread And if you examine the rest of the Chapter Acts 2. You shall find it spoken expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and to men and not women yea some of them the same men that are said to believe and to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread In v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Man heard them speak not woman In v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
have superstitiously abused grosly-Idolized The third place where that word is used is in Acts 14.21 which gives no smal light and confirmation to what we have said Cum Evangelizassent Vrbi illi Discipulos non paucos adjunxissent Beza It 's rendred in our Bibles when they had Preacht the Gospel to that City and had taught many In stead of which I shall read according to the Greek They having Evangelized that City and Discipled not many but a sufficient and meet Company or number both for Quantity and Quality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is laid the foundation of a Gospel-Congregation with a sufficient number of such persons as were meet and fit for it The word implies both And for both which sufficient reasons may be given This sence of this Scripture is 1. Most Exactly suitable to the Greek words 2. Most distinct and Rational and avoids Tautologie which the other doth not They first Evangelized the City i. e. preached the Gospel to the Citizens so that divers were seasoned with it and did savour of it were leavened with it and converted by it Math. 13.33 Then they Discipled them that is directed and disposed a meet and sufficient number of them into a Church-Estate who might be fit to receive others into Fellowship with them 3. This sence is most suitable to the Context The City Derbe where these things were done was the Period and non-ultra of that Progress of Paul and Barnabas From hence they returned back to Lystra Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia where they had been before Acts 13.14 This was not that Antioch in Syria from whence they were sent forth by the Church Acts 13.1 2 3. And it is said that in this their return they by the vote and suffrage of the Churches in choosing Ordained them Elders in every Church see the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 14.23 per suffragia creassent Whence it is manifest that they not only Preached the Gospel to them in their Progress for their Conversion but also Inchurched them when they were Converted Else how could it be said that they Ordained them Elders in every Church if they had not constituted these Churches before This is not intimated in any other Word than that in v. 2 1. which we have rendred Discipling them And it being mentioned expresly at Derbe which was the Period of their Progress is to be understood to all the Rest intimating that what they did there they did also before in those other places wherein were those Churches to which in their Regress and Return they ordained Elders and from thence returned and at last sayled to Antioch viz. in Syria from whence by the Holy Ghost they by the Church there had been separared and commended to the Grace of God for the work which now they had fulfilled Acts 14.26 All these being put together do give in a considerable-evidence to the truth of what I have asserted Their Discipling of a meet and sufficient number was the Inchurching them into a Gospel-Congregation a building them together as living stones into an Holy-Temple in the Lord Eph. 2. ult 1 Pet. 2.5 into an house of God to offer up spiritual Sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ All this work they fulfilled suitably to their Commission given by Jesus Christ which is the thing we were to evidence from Math. 28.19 which is the fourth place in the New-Testament where that word is used Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them c. This Text of Math. 28.19 which contains Christs Commission being thus expounded and cleared gives us light to expound the same commission laid down in other words by the Evangelist Mark Chapt. 16.15 16. 1. Go ye forth into all the World not into Canaan only and Preach the Gospel to every Creature that is not only to the Jews and Israelites but to the Gentiles also that they may be converted and believe And for this end Christ promised them his Spirit to he present with them in the work of their Ministry to Convince the World that is the Elect of God among the Gentiles aswel as the Jews of Sin Righteousness and Judgment Joh. 16.8 This is the first thing implied in the word Discipling Matth. 28.19 but is not all that is implied in it as hath been already shewed for the word Disciple hath somewhat more in it and is of a larger signification than the word Believer By this their preaching Adult and grown persons belonging to God's Election should be brought to believe in Christ which hath more in it than meerly to be taught the Doctrine of Faith 2. Being made Believers it was their duty now to look after Baptism 3. But that they might regularly attain it it was their duty to enter into a Gospel-Church-Estate to be first Discipled and then to be Baptized Thus these two Scriptures do help to expound each other Preaching the Gospel to every Creature to bring them to believe shew's that there is more in the Word Discipling than constituting a visible Church And the word Discipling shew's that a visible-Church-Estate should ordinarily and orderly come between the believing of such Converted-Persons and their being Baptized Obj. If it be objected that Mark saith nothing of a Gospel-Church-Estate to come between Believing and being Baptized but of Believing only Sol. I Answer 1. Neither doth Mark speak any thing here of teaching them to observe all things that Christ hath commanded as Matthew doth yet we may not thence infer that they should not be taught to observe them because he saith nothing of it 2. Nor doth Matthew say as Mark doth He that believeth and is Baptized shall he Saved he that believeth not shall be damned which yet we may not deny to be true because Matthew saith nothing of it 3. It is sufficient that the Evangelist Matthew doth speak of Discipling before Baptizing We should take it as a singular mercy of God that hath so exprest himself in Scripture that we by the gracious help of his Spirit comparing Scripture with Scripture may come to see his mind therein and may find that in one Scripture which is not mentioned in another Having thus explained these Texts which contain Christ's Commission and in particular concerning Baptizing I thus Argue Proposition Disciples are by Christ's Commission to be Baptized Assumption Children of Inchurched-Parents are Disciples Conclusion Therefore Children of Inchurched Parents are by Christ's Commission to be Baptized The Proposition is in the Text Matth. 28.19 Disciple-Baptizing them The Assumption will be cleared out of Acts 15. thus Propos These on whom the false teachers laid the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses were Disciples Acts 15.10 with v. 2 Assump But some of those on whom they laid the yoke of Circumcision after the manner of Moses were Children of Inchurched Parents Conclus Therefore Children of Inchurched-Parents are Disciples The Assumption which alone is questionable I thus prove If
themselves to Sin and Satan and the World Doth not God tax the Israelites Ezek. 16.20 Thou hast taken thy Sons and thy Daughters whom thou hast born unto me saith the Lord and these hast thou Sacrificed c. And thou hast slain my Children v. 21. And how were they the Lord's but by virtue of his Covenanting with them in their Parents v. 8. and not only in common by Creation Here was something that was not common to Heathen-Children And this will agree with our Interpretation of that Text 1 Cor. 7.14 of federal Holiness but not with your Inference which you would fasten upon us as an absurdity 4. Hence again this federal Holiness of Infants of Inchurched-Parents doth not necessitate an owning of the Doctrine of falling from Grace as you infer for when we say They are federally Holy we do not take it for Inherent-Holiness and sanctifying Grace Therefore they cannot fall from what they never had But we grant they may fall from federal-Holiness by their sinful slighting rejecting or mocking at the Covenant and Heirs of the Promise as Ishmael and Esau did I shall therefore return your Argument upon you when you in your way Baptize Adult-persons upon certainty of Regeneration and infallible Inherent-Holiness which you pretend to and your Argument against us implies so much and then afterwards they fall away as your own experience will tell you then it is your opinion and interpretation that holds the Doctrine of falling from Inherent Grace and not ours For many who are Baptized in your way do fall away and are never renewed again unto Repentance I cannot therefore concur with your reading nor Interpretation of that Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 You say it should be read thus The unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctisted to the Husband And you say the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometimes signify so and give an instance in Acts 4.12 where it is translated among Men you say it should be to Men. But by your favour you must give us a clearer Proof before we can receive it That the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies among is apparent in sundry Scriptures Take one for all Col. 1.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To whom God would make known what is the Riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles viz. more generally and more particularly among you Colossians which is Christ among you the hope of Glory So I rather read the words than Christ in you The word is the same in both And this will give us light to the other Acts 4.12 No other name given among men Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and God hath appointed that he alone should be preached among Men that those that should be saved might believe on him and others left without excuse This is English proper enough and suitable to other Scriptures and therefore not to be translated and tied up to the Word To to maintain your opinion and overthrow the genuine sence of the Text under debate Nor is there any reason why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be rendred To Gal. 1.16 It 's very proper and Emphatical and I scarce ever heard or read that Text applied and opened by our English Divines but they insist upon the propriety of it It pleased God not only to reveal his Son To me but In me That we may find out the true and genuine sence of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 I shall consider the Apostles scope and his manner of arguing which I find elaborately opened by Mr. Cobbet the sum of which I shall give you with some little Addition thereunto Amongst other questions propounded to the Apostle by the Church of Corinth this was one Whether persons being unequally yoked the believing party might abide with the Infidel and with a good Conscience might continue cohabitation and conjugal-Communion This he begins to Answer v. 12. forbidding the believing-party to reject or depart from the Infidel if the Infidel were willing to continue and that for four reasons 1. Because Inward and outward Peace is furthered by such cohabitation v. 15. 2. Because thereby an opportunity might be had of gaining the Infidel-Party to the faith v. 16. 3. Because Christians are bound to be content with their calling v. 17 c. 4. Which is first in the Text but I put it last to avoid repetition Because from such cohabitation and conjugal-Communion no pollution of Conscience ariseth to the believing-party but on the contrary a Sanctification of the Infidel not only To but also In the believing Party v. 12 13 14. In this lay the great weight of their scruple and therefore the Apostle backeth and confirmeth this reason with another which the Church of Corinth that sent to be resolved in the Case could not deny but did own The reason lies in these words Else were your Children unclean but now they are holy That is if the unbelieving party were not sanctified in the believing one your Children would be unclean but now they are holy as you cannot deny therefore it must needs follow that the unbelieving party is sanctified in the believing one I shall open the words by answering 1. Negatively 1. By Sanctified here is not meant made Holy by inherent Grace That might possibly be the issue of it afterwards but it was not so at present for if it had then the Question would have been needless 2. Nor by Sanctified here is meant a being made a lawful Husband or a lawful Wife for that they were before and there was no scruple concerning that They were lawful Man and Wife when they were both Infidels as your self do acknowledge Marriage-fellowship was honourable and the Bed undefiled yea even among Indians and Pagans Heb. 13.4 They had a lawful civil use of each other when they were both of them Infidels and that could not be denied when one of them was a Believer If therefore a lawful use only were intended by the word Sanctified then one of these two absurdities would follow 1. That either there is nothing in this Text peculiar to the Believing party which is directly cross to what the Apostle affirms The Vnbelieving Husband is sanctified in the believing Wife c. Or 2. That Infidel-couples are sanctified each in other for they were lawful man wife when both of them were Infidels How cross are these to the holy spirit speakingin by the Apostle 2. Positively By Sanctified in the Believing Husband and in the Believing Wife are these two things meant 1. That the believing-party had and might have a sanctified enjoyment and use of the unbelieving The civil enjoyment and use of each other in a conjugal way was lawful when they were both Infidels but now one of them is a Believer that believing party hath a Sanctified enjoyment and use of the unbelieving One. The Infidelity of the one doth not make that conjugal use which before was lawful to become defiled