say that concerning the baptizing of the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient Proof from the 2d 8th 10th and 16th Chapters of the Acts but as to the baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in Scripture Dr. Taylor saith It is against the perpetual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants for besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them All that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous Dispositions to Baptism of which Infants are not capable and those are Faith and Repentance And not to instance in those innumerable places that require Faith before Baptism there needs no more but this one of our blessed Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be condemned plainly thus Faith and Baptism will bring a Man to Heaven but if he hath no Faith Baptism shall do him no good so that if Baptism saith he be necessary so is Faith much more for the want of Faith damns absolutely it is not said so of the want of Baptism If Paul declared the whole Counsel of God unto the Churches and Primitive Christians and yet never declared or made known to them Infants Baptism Then Infants Baptism is none of the Counsel of God. But Paul did declare unto the Churches and Primitive Christians the whole Counsel of God but never declared any thing to them of Infants Baptism Ergo. The Major Proposition can't fairly be denied and as to the Minor see Acts 20. 27. For I have not shunned saith he to declare unto you all the Counsel of God. It appears by the Context that he concluded he could not be pure from the Blood of all Men if he had not been faithful in this matter i. e. in making known all the whole Will of God to them Paul was the great Apostle of the Gentiles and he spake these words to a Gentile Church viz. the Church at Ephesus and therefore it is the more remarkable God hath by his Mouth made known all things that are necessary for us to know or understand of his Counsel or our Duty See our late Annotators on this Verse God's Decree to save all that believe in Christ or the whole Doctrine of Christianity as it directs to an holy Life whatsoever God requires of any one in order to a blessed Eternity this is that which say they the Pharisees rejected Luke 7. 30. and so do all wicked and ungodly Men who refuse to take God's Counsel or to obey his Command Now Baptism is that part of God's Counsel which the Pharisees rejected against themselves Moreover in Chap. 19. it appears he opened and explained that great Ordinance to those Christians at Ephesus at the first Plantation of the Church there but not a word of their Duty to baptize their Infants nor was there any reason he should it being none of God's Counsel If whatsoever is necessary to Faith or Practice is left in the written Word or made known to us in the Holy Scripture that being a compleat and perfect Rule and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained or left therein then Infant-Baptism is not of God. But whatsoever is necessary to Faith or Practice is left in the written Word or made known to us in the Holy Scripture c. and yet Infant-Baptism is not contained therein Ergo Infant-Baptism is not of God. That the Holy Scripture contains in it all things that are necessary for us to believe and practice in order to Eternal Life is acknowledg'd by all worthy Men both Ancient and Modern and that Infants Baptism is not contained in the holy Scripture we have proved The holy Scriptures saith Athanasius being inspired from God are sufficient to all Instructions of Truth Isychius saith Let us which will have any thing observed of God search no more but that which the Gospel doth give unto us All things saith Chrysostom be plain and clear in the Scripture and what things soever be needful are manifest there If there be any thing needful to be known or not to be known we shall learn it by the Holy Scriptures if we shall need to reprove a Falshood we shall fetch it from thence if to be corrected to be chastened to be exhorted or comforted to be short if ought lack that ought to be taught or learned we shall also learn it out of the same Scriptures Augustin saith Read the Holy Scriptures wherein ye shall find fully what is to be followed and what to be avoided And again he saith In these therefore which are evidently contained in the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith manner of living Hope and Love. Let us seek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour lest a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness Luther saith there ought no other Doctrine to be delivered or heard in the Church besides the pure Word of God that is the Holy Scriptures let other Teachers and Hearers with their Doctrine be accursed Basil saith that it would be an Argument of Insidelity and a most certain sign of Pride if any Man should reject any things written and should introduce things not written Let this saith Calvin be a firm Axiom that nothing is to be accounted the Word and Will of God to which place should be given in the Church but that which is contained in the Law and Prophets and after in the Apostolical Writings It is saith Theophilact the part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture Bellarmine saith that though the Arguments of the Anabaptists from the defect of Command or Example have a great force against the Lutherans for as much as they use that Rite every-where having no Command or Example theirs is to be rejected yet is it of no force against Catholicks who conclude the Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture for the Apostles speak with the same Spirit with which they did write but this of baptizing of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition c. And lastly to close with this Argument take what Mr. Ball saith We must for every Ordinance look to the Institution saith he and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own pleasure and 't is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he taught us If this worthy Man speak Truth as be sure he did and his Doctrine be imbraced certainly our Brethren must never sprinkle nay baptize one Child any more If no Man or Woman at any time or times were by the
know not nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism deal preposterously over-slipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing It appears to me as if God will sometimes make Men speak the Truth whether they will or no and confirm his own blessed Order though they contradict their own Practice thereby Paraeus the same Person saith upon Mat. 3. 5. shews that the Order was that Confession as a Testimony of True Repentance go first and then Baptism for Remission of Sins afterwards What Commission our Brethren have got who sprinkle Children I know not let them fetch a thousand Consequences and unwarrantable Suppositions for their Practice it signifies nothing if Christ has given them no Authority or Rule to do what they do in his Name Natural Conâ—sequences from Scripture we allow but such which flow not naturally from any Scripture we deny Can any think Christ would leave one of the great Sacraments of the New Testament not to be proved without Consequences For I am sure there is no Baptism to be administred before the Profession of Faith in the Commission nor no where else in Christ's New Testament and that Faith is required in the second place as pre-requisite unto Baptism is very plain from Mark 16. 16. They must be Believers none are fit Subjects of Baptism but they that believe and are capable to believe He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved c. not he that is baptized and then believes Take heed you do not invert Christ's Order and if there is no Baptism to be found in the New Testament to be practised before Faith much less Sprinkling or Rantism is there required CHAP. VII Proving Believers to be the only true Subjects of Baptism from the Apostles Doctrine and the Practice of the Primitive Churches WE read that the Apostles according to the Commission Christ gave them preach'd the Gospel of the Kingdom having received the Spirit from on high and began at Jerusalem as he had commanded them and so endeavoured to make Men and Women Disciples i. e. bringing them to the sense and sight of their Sins and knowledg of their lost and miserable condition by Natâ—â—e as being unconverted and without Christ and in Acts 2. where Peter preached the first Sermon that was preached after the Ascension of the Lord Jesus And when they heard this the Text saith they were pricked in their Hearts and saiâ— unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles Men and Brethren what shall we do then said Peter REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost c. And then they that gladly received the Word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about three thousand Souls Pray observe the Footsteps of this Flock I mean the manner of the Constitution of this Church it being the first Church that was planted in the Gospel-days it was the Church at Jerusalem and indeed the Mother-Church for evident it is all other Gospel-Churches sprang at first from this and hence some conceive the Apostle calls this Church Jerusalem above being the Mother of us all said to be above not only because she was in her Constitution from Heaven or by Divine and Evangelical Institution but also might be said to be above in respect of Dignity or Priviledg being first constituted and having the first Fruits of the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit poured out upon them and besides having all the great Apostles at first as Members with her and hence 't is that all other Churches were to follow the Church of God that was in Judea and were commended in so doing and certainly 't is the Duty of all Churches so to walk unto the end of the World. But to proceed Acts 8. we find Philip being by the Providence of God cast into Samaria he preaches Jesus Christ to them and when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were baptized both Men and Women not till they were Disciples and did believe were any baptized Men and Women not Children not them and their little Babes if Philip had so done he had acted contrary to his Master's Commission In the same Chapter we find he preached Christ to the Eunuch also And they came to a certain Water and the Eunuch said See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized ver 37. And Philip said If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst And the Eunuch answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God And they both went down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him There must be Faith or no Baptism thou mayst or thou oughtest 't is lawful or according to Christ's Law i. e. his Commission A Verbal Profession is not sufficient say our late Annotators on this place Philip in God's Name requires a Faith as with all the Heart and not such as Simon Magus had who is said to believe and be baptized vers 13. this was say they the only thing necessary either then or now if rightly understood How was it known saith Mr. Baxter but by their Profession that the Samaritans believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ before they were baptized both Men and Wome and saith â—he Philip caused the Eunuch to profess before he would baptize him that he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Moreover in the tenth of the Acts we find Cornelius and those with him were first made Disciples by Peter's preaching and the Spirit 's powerful Operation and then were baptized Who can forbid Water saith he that thest should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as me And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus that is by the Authority of Christ according to the Commission So in Acts 16. when the poor trembling Jaylor was made a Disciple i. e. did believe with his whole House on the Lord Jesus Christ he was with his whole House baptized so Lydia believed and was baptized Acts 16. 14. the like in Acts 18. Crispus believing on the Lord and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized The Chief Ruler believed with all his House and were baptized he believed his House believed the Jaylor believed all runs in their believing all must by believing be made Disciples or not be baptized Luther saith that in Times past the Sacrament of Baptism was administred to none except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their Faith and knew how to rehearse the same and why are they now See Mr. Baxter in his sixteenth Argument against Mr. Blake if there can be no Example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized
being uncapable of teaching therefore there is nothing in that Commission of Infant-Baptism If they have any other word of Institution or Commission let them produce it we profess we know of none Object Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations Children are part of the Nations therefore may be baptized Thus you see we have Authority to baptize Children from the great Commission Answ Let me have the same liberty to argue and see what will follow viz. Christ commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations but Turks Pagans and Infidels with their Children are part of the Nations Ergo Turks Pagans and Infidels and their Children may be baptized also Sir I will appeal to you is not this Inference as good and as justifiable as yours Come put it to your Consciences Can you suppose any should be baptized by virtue of the words of Christ in the Commission but Disciples only Object Well what though that be so yet we affirm that Infants are Disciples and therefore may be baptized Answ What if we shall grant you that Infants are Disciples which we can never do it being utterly false yet they are not such Disciples that Christ in the Commission requires to be baptized because they were to be made Disciples by being taught and that Infants cannot be said to be we are sure The Lord Jesus hath plainly excluded Infants in his Commission from this Administration according to ordinary Rule for in that he commands the them to Baptize Disciples upon preaching first to them it follows that none but such who are so taught and so by teaching made Disciples are by virtue of the Commission to be baptized Infants after an ordinary rate are uncapble of understanding the Gospel when preach'd and therefore are uncapable of being made Disciples thereby and there is no other way according to ordinary Rule of being made Disciples but by that means And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common speech and in the whole New Testament those only are meant who being taught professed the Doctrine preached by such a one as John's Disciples Christ's Disciples and the Disciples of the Pharisees c. and accordingly the Apostles administred Baptism And in that Christ appoints these to be Baptized we say he excludes all others for the Institution Commission and Commandment of Jesus Christ is most certainly the only Rule according to which we are to administer the Sacrament of Baptism and all other Holy Things and they that do otherwise open a Door to all Innovations and follow their own Inventions and are guilty of Will-worship If you should say Infants are Disciples seminally in and by their Paâ—ents as if Believers could beget Believers â—or Disciples of Christ by natural Generation is absurd and ridiculous the Christian Church being not made up of Persons by meer Humane Birth but Spiritual Regeneration And to say that Infants are born Disciples by the relation to the Covenant and so have the Seal set on them without any precedent Teaching is but an unapproved Dictate as if a Title to Baptism were in its Nature a Seal of the Covenant which the Scripture no where affirms nor is there any Rule for baptizing of Persons because of Relation to the Covenant sith Baptism wholly depends upon a positive Institution Object But you further argue that Infants are called Disciples Act. 15. 10. Because the Yoak laid upon the Necks of the Disciples was Circumcision and Circumcision belonged to Infants ergo Infants are Disciples Answ To this we Answer That there is no colour of Ground or Reason of giving the Name of Disciples from that Text to Infants for tho true they are called Disciples upon whose Necks the false Brethren would have put that Yoak of Circumcision yet what 's this sith Adult Believers of the Gentiles also were required by the Jews to be circumcised as Timothy Act. 16. 3. And tho it be granted that they would have had Infants as well as the converted Gentiles to be circumcised yet the putting the Yoak of Circumcision is not actual Circumcision in the Flesh for that the Jews as well as their Children were able to bear for many Ages But the Yoak of Circumcision is the necessity of it upon Mens Consciences and therewith to oblige them to keep the whole Law of Moses or they could not be saved and this was not that which they would have put upon Children but upon the Disciples i. e. the faithful Brethren in Christ Jesus If Faith and Repentance be required as prerequisite of all them that are to be baptized then none but Believers ought to be baptized but Faith and Repentance is required of all such Ergo c. The Major Proposition cannot be denied without a palpable violation of Christ's Precept and by the same Rule that Infants may be baptized notwithstanding this absolute prerequisite Unbelievers may invalidate the Rule of Christ or render it defective and you give all away to the Enemy The Minor has been sufficiently proved If thou believest thou may'st else he might not that it seems was absolutely necessary Repent and be baptized every one of you Act. 2. 36 37. and those of the Church of England say the same thing In the Rubrick What is required of Persons that are to be baptized that 's the Question Answer Repentance whereby they forsake Sin and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the Promise of God made to them in that Sacrament If there be no Precedent in the Scripture as there is no Precept that any besides such who professed Faith and Repentance were baptized then none but such ought to be baptized but there is no Precedent that any besides such who professed Faith and Repentance were baptized Ergo none but such ought Had Infant-Baptism been any Appointment or Institution of Christ we should certainly either have had Precept or Example in the Scripture to warrant the same but in as much as the Holy Scripture is wholly silent therein there being not one Example or the least Syllable to be found for any such Practice we may be sure it is none of Christ's Ordinance If our Brethren have any Precedent or Example for it let them shew it for we declare and testify there is none as we know of And that there is neither Precept nor Example for Infants Baptism we have it confessed by many of them who were for it Erasmus saith It is no where expressed in the Apostolical Writings that they baptized Children And again upon Rom. 6. Baptizing of young Infants was not saith he in use in St. Paul's Time. Calvin also confesseth it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any one Child was baptized by the Hands of the Apostles Ludovicus Vives saith None of old were wont to be baptized but in a grown Age and who desired it and understood what it was The Magdeburgenses as I find them quoted by Mr. Danvers do
saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Now they affirm that Infants are Believers and therefore are to be baptized Mr. Smythies says Infants are Believers in a sense or else they could not be saved nor have right to the Promises of Christ in the Gospel and if they are in any sense such Believers as are intitled to Salvation they are such Believers as have a right to Baptism if the Estate belongs to a Child in the Cradle the Indentures and Seals of that Estate belong to him likewise the Child of a Believer may as well be called a Believer as the Child of a Proselyte was called a proselyte if God gives Children but the denomination of Believers it is sufficient to entitle them to Baptism Thus Mr. Smythies But how does it appear that Infants are Believers in any sense is there any Argument or Scripture brought by this Man to prove them so to be if he can prove they have Faith and do believe in Christ he will do more than all the Men that ever lived on Earth could do I mean Children as such in common and in an ordinary way to be Believers True nothing is too hard for God to do he that can make an Ass to speak can as well cause a Babe to believe But how does it appear God has given them either the Habit of Faith or the Act of Faith or Faith in any sense to render them to be Believers But 't is intimated they are Believers by their Parents Faith why may not their Parents Baptism serve as well as their Parents Faith and they receive the Lord's Supper for them in their Names also and that be imputed to the Children by virtue of their Parents Faith And what though the Estate belongs to the Child in the Cradle together with the Indenture and Seals of that Estate Is it required the Child in the Cradle should therefore set his Seal to the Indenture is that requisite or would it make the Estate the more firm or sure to him But when you can prove Grace and Salvation to be Hereditary and that the Father's being a Believer and a godly Person all his Children must needs be such too you do your business Secondly But why do you say Children must be Believers or else they can't be saved who told you so Because Faith in Adult Persons is required as necessary in them if they are saved Can't God save poor Infants without they also do believe has God told you he cannot or will not save them except they believe I must confess I wonder at your Ignorance and daring Boldness God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of and what have you to do with the Secrets of God who made you one of his Privy-Council you may as well say unless they repent they cannot be saved from Christ's words Luk 13. 3 5. and that they must be obedient and take up the Cross for these things are required of Adult Persons that would be saved as well as believing Thirdly Prove that God has given Children the Denomination of Believers or if it was granted he hath would it therefore â—ollow they may be baptized certainly no for we read of many who were said to believe they had some kind of Faith and so in some sense had the denomination of 〈◊〉 and yet had no right to Baptism for such ought to have 〈◊〉 Faith or to believe with all their Hearts 〈◊〉 Philip said to the Eunuch Act. 8. who are fit Subjects of that Ordinance or have a sufficient Title to it and would not that believing in any sense you speak of that entitles them to Salvation give them as good a right to the Lord's-Supper as to Baptism Come Sir you can't infer a right to an Ordinance from what grounds you please Baptism depends wholly I say again upon the Authority of a positive Law and express words of Institution and none but such who are made Disciples by preaching or who do actually believe ought from thence to be baptized I wonder what Faith 't is you suppose to be in Infants is it the Faith of the Church as Tho. Aquinas asserts which is intailed upon all within the pale thereof Or is it an Imputitive Faith from the Parents in Covenant as Musculus and others maintain Or is it the Faith of the Gossip or Surety as many of your Church say i. e. others believe for them Have they a justifying Faith as Mr. Baxter intimates or a dogmatical Faith only as in Mr. Blake's Sense Some as Mr. Danvers observes say 't is a Physical some a Metaphysical and some a Hyperphysical Faith. Some say they are born Believers others say they are made Believers by Baptism Now when you tell us what Faith they have we shall the better understand you and give you an Answer A Personal and actual Faith saith Dr. Taylor they have not for they have no Acts of Understanding besides how can any Man know they have Faith since he never saw any sign 〈◊〉 neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly saith he Some say they have Imputative Faith But then so let the Sacraments be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hang upon their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that This saith the Bishop We know there are some argue stifly for Infants having habitual Faith but as the said Doctor saith Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit this strange Invention saith he is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the Men are to be excused unless they had any better Arguments to defend their Practice they are forc'd to confess the Truth in the main viz. That Faith is required of Persons to be baptized and therefore they do what they can to prove Infants do believe But I will conclude this with what the said Doctor further saith And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World. CHAP. XII Containing an Answer to several other Arguments brought for Infant-Baptism Object 1. THough there is