THE ANTIDOTE Proved A COUNTERFEIT OR ERROR DETECTED AND Believers Baptism VINDICATED Containing An Answer to a Nameless Author's Book Entituled An Antidote to prevent the Prevalency of Anabaptism By HERCVLES COLLINS of Wappin LONDON Printed for William Marshall at the Bible in Newgate-Street where is to be Sold Mr Knowles's Exposition on the whole book of the Revelation price bound 2 s. 6 d. And Mr. Bunyan's Works in Folio price bound 14 s. And Mr. Claridges Looking Glass for Princes price bound 6 d And likewise most of Dr. Owen's and Mr. Beverley's Works MDCXCIII THE Preface to the Unbyas'd Reader WE live in a divided and opinionative Age and mens sentiments of things for the most part being as various as their Complexions Books have their Dooms according to the different apprehensions of their Readers Some Tracts have been applauded more for the Name of the Writers or Opinion they espouse than for any substantial Worth to be found in them Other are too often rejected and decry'd because their Authors are not of their Perswasion tho they have Plain Scripture the most Authentick Evidence for any Gospel-Doctrine or Practise to plead for them Some are the better treated for their Learned and Polite Styles tho they want that which should give them just recommendation namely Truth while Other which have it on their side meet with hard usage and that which is to be lamented from Good Men too because not set off with those Artificial Embellishments which gain so fast upon a Fanciful Generation that Rhetorical Paint passeth for true Beauty But if thou art such an One as the Preface calls thee an Unbyast Reader One who art fully and solely for God not regarding the Names or Writings of Men any further than they accord with the Revealed word of God if thou art free to receive Truth for its own sake and resolvest to hearken only to him that speaketh from Heaven then may it he hoped this Vindication of Believers Baptism will find a cordial Welcome with thee Thou canst not if thou hast read any thing be wholly a stranger to the Controversy about the Proper Subjects and Right Administration of Baptism between those that are for Sprinkling or Pouring of Water upon Infants and those that Dip or Plunge under Water the whole Body of Professing Believers only I do confess on the one hand 't is sad to consider what strife there is for Victory but on the other I rejoyce to see Christ and his Truth Triumph as they do in Believers Baptism Great has been the Opposition made against this Holy Ordinance but greater has been the Defence of it Every Age hath afforded some Testimonies for this Truth but now we are incompassed with a Cloud of VVitnesses Never was any Point more fully prov'd or better clear'd than this has been That one would think our Opposites should either alter their mistaken Practice or be wholly silent But since they still go on in their Error and cease not to argue against this Ordinance 't is necessary it should be guarded from the Attempts of its Assailants The worthy Author of the ensuing Discourse has Travelled formerly with good success in this Field of Controversy and now with no less against him who calls his Book An Antidote to prevent the Prevalency of Anabaptism c. Here thou hast the Cavils and Objections of the Adversary answer'd Infants or little Children prov'd to have no Habitual Faith the dissolution of the Old Covenant-State demonstrated and the Infants of Believers to have no Right as the Seed of such to Holy Baptism In a word the Antidote is throughly examined and proved to be a Counterfeit I shall add no more but my hearty recommendation of this Book to thy Reading desiring of the Lord that thou mayst so Read as to Understand and so Understand that thou mayst Practice London 20th of the 5th Month 1693. Thy Souls well wisher in the Lord our Righteousness Richard Claridge A Plain and Impartial Inquiry into the Antidote and upon Examination found a Counterfeit COULD any have expected less then that this Gentleman's Book in the Body of it should have answered the Title-Page namely Infant-Baptism Vindicated which indeed proves nothing but a Bravado and flourish for if it be Vindicated it must be either because Christ commanded it or some of his Apostles practised it some commended for its Observation or others reproved for its Neglect but not one word of all this appears in his whole Discourse Then how can infant-Infant-Baptism be Vindicated Also he comes as short in the other part of the Title An Antidote to prevent the spreading of Anabaptism he means Believers Baptism Can he stop the course of the Sun the ebbing and flowing of the Water Can he number the Clouds and Stars or weigh the Wind and the Fire or the great Mountains Then he may answer his Title What! is this Man resolved to set himself in a posture of War against God and his Word Doth he think in this to prosper Will he endeavour to prevent the spreading of that which our Lord Jesus Christ hath given his Ministers in Commission to spread He seems to be grieved at our Translation of a Book concerning Baptism from English into Welch but if this be to be Vile we shall be more Vile What can be expected when a Man shall be an Advocate against the Truth HE tel's us of some few Reflections upon some remarkable Passages in a Book of H. C. of Wapping What should be the Reason this Gentleman did not answer that Book He hath not said any thing to the Argument of it but pickt a little here and a little there which he thought he could deal withal but the Argument of the Book is untoucht He calls them a few Reflections he may well call them a few for in 139 Pages he hath not spoken to as much Matter as Three Pages contain As for Argument in his Book it is so little that I was dead to the answering of it a long time not fearing his making many Proselytes to Pedo-baptism nor hinder the spreading of the Truth tho he did his Endeavour but the Book being so full of Scurrility base and abusive Language and he being as it is to be feared blinded with Prejudice when he wrote it could not see his Evil therefore these few Lines are intended in the room of an Oculist to open his Eyes to behold his Error in Judgment and Practice before he leaves the World I have in my Book laid down several Arguments to prove the right Mode or Manner of the Administration of Baptism to be by Dipping not Sprinkling and that the Subjects are to be Vnderstanding Believers not Ignorant Infants I have spoken to above 20 Objections but he doth not pretend to give the least Answer to either what should be the Reason that he did not take Paragraph by Paragraph and answer it fairly like a man of Sence and Reason Some are ready to argue thus and they
are taught of God have the answer of a good Conscience professedly they would have a Right to the Ordinance of Baptism but this Logick will never pass the Schools My Child shall be heir to my Inheritannce ergo he is capable of understanding the signing and sealing of it at eight days old had you said he had been capable of understanding the sealing this Estate over unto him at One and Twenty it had carried more of Truth and Reason in it Why are Children denyed the Lords supper if fit for baptism what are Children believers and kept from the Lord's Table do we ever read it was denied to a true Believer what are Children New Creatures Regenerated Born again and deny them the Elements of Bread and Wine Oh! hard Father of Infants Men as wise as your self gave Infants the Eucharist for several hundred years from some of your own Topicks and will you deny it them all your long harangue about Infants being capable of one Ordinance and not of another is but wind will you say in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper there must be inherent Grace and also Grace exercised but a state of Grace tho not exercised say you is sufficient for Baptism But how doth this Gentleman know Infants are in a state of Grace to qualifie them for Baptism the word doth not help him here and if he conclude so from Charity then there is the same reason to have the same Charity for Children of Unbelievers and more too some times because the Believers Child often falls from a pretended Covenant State Faith Inherent Holiness New Birth Regeneration when the Unbelievers Child abides in all Truly But how comes this Gentleman so bold as to Assert and Print That Actual Grace is not necessary to Baptism Did not Philip call for Actual Grace of the Eunuch before Baptism If thou Believest thou mayest How then can Persons be wholly Passive in Baptism Did the Eunuch go down into the Water and come up out of the Water Did Christ go almost Forty Miles to be Baptised and did it as an Act of Righteousness and yet wholly Passive If you can shew me another Bible where Christ since hath said Persons need not Actual Faith and are wholly Passive in Baptism I may change my mind Whereas he doth Magnify the Lord's Supper so much above Baptism I do Assert what ever is Sealed to a Believer in one Ordinance is Sealed to him in another nay there is more particular words of Incouragement added unto Baptism than to the other 'T is true 't is all comprehended in this This is my Body broken for you and my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins but for Baptism in Acts 2. you have the promise of Remission of Sins and gift of the Holy Ghost In Acts 22. 't is said to Wash away Sins Symbolically Mark 16. Salvation is annexed unto Faith and Baptism the Lord's Supper was never so Dignified as Baptism by the Procession of the Holy Ghost and it is a Symbol of Regeneration and Justification Rom. 6. Do I see my Sins Pardoned my Person Justified God Reconciled my Person Sanctified Heaven assured at the Lord's Supper I behold the same in Baptism there I see my Sins Buried in his Grave as in the other Nailed to his Cross here I behold my Soul Washed in his Blood Justified by his Righteousness Saved by his Death and is not this a Marriage Feast And ought I not to have the Wedding Garment now as at the Table of the Lord BUT this Gentleman tells me I have Written several strange Positions I am not ashamed the World should see them You must know one of the first Arguments of the Church of Rome for Infants Baptism is That it Washt away Origional Sin Now because I say in opposition to that we know a better way to Wash away Original Sin namely The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness This is one of my strange Positions But pray which is most strange this or the applying all those Texts which speak of Regenerated Men and Women unto little Infants and what they speak of the necessity of Faith in them to apply it unto Babes who neither know Good nor Evil. 2dly ANOTHER strange Position is because I say That as Circumcision was the Door into the Jewish Church which was National so Baptism is the Door into the Gospel Church which is Congregational Now this being true in his own Opinion why should it be a strange Position Why Because I will not allow it came in the room of Circumcision Cannot I make two Doors to my House but one must be a Type of another Or rather Cannot I pull down my Old House and Build a New but my Door of my First House must be a Type of the Door of my last The Door of God's Gospel-House is larger than the Door of his Legal House that Door was only large enough for the Jews and few poor Proselyted Gentiles but the Gospel Door entertains all commers Jews Gentiles Barbarians Sythians So that the First Door could not be an Exemplar or Type of the Last Then only Males were Circumcised now Males and Females Believing may be Baptised therefore Circumcision could not be the shadow of Baptism the Subjects that enter the Door are not the same one are Ignorant Infants the other Persons of Understanding Under the Law the Subjects were wholly Passive but now Church Members must be Active in the Operations and Acts of Repentance and Faith not only those called Conformists but the Non-Conformists also have lost the Door and the Subject that should enter the Door for here are they wholly Passive when they should be Active so that the very Essence of the Ordinance is lost here is neither right Form nor right Subject and what are they that enter not in by the Door but climb up and come in some other way into the House READER consider whether this saying of mine be so strange as his which he hath put in two Mercuries shewing I was not the Author of his Book which I would not have been for the World He tells the People I was never guilty in Writing nor Preaching of any such Extensive Evangelical Truths Is not this a piece of Arrogance with a witness How hath he exposed his Profession and Name to the World besides he knows not what my Preaching is nor hath Read I suppose a third of what is written so that he speaks in the dark And whereas he saith I never was guilty of Writing or Preaching such things I hope I never shall Again Is not that a strange Position of his page 25. Because I say John Baptist required Matt. 3. of the Pharises and Sadduces Repentance from dead Works in order to qualifie them for Baptism and Gospel Church Membership every Tree saith the Text that brings not forth good Fruit is hewen down and cast into the Fire HE from hence concludes and tells the World that my judgment is That little Infants because
others Feet believe with others Faith Covenant with others Tongues I am sure Christ went upon his own Feet to Baptism near forty Mile and the Eunuch also and believed with his own Faith and Covenanted with his own Tongue Now for the Conclusion I say Infants are not now Visibly in covenant it not being within my Sphere what they are as to Gods Decrees yet conclude well of all that Die in their Infant State But seeing there are so many Qualifications required individually to Gospel Church Membership your task is to prove that Infants have them or give up the Cause according to your Promise and confess the Covenant of Peculiarity made unto Abraham and his Seed is Repealed Whereas you mention Jeremiah and John Baptist Sanctified from the Womb on Jeremiah our Annotators say I have Appointed and Approved thee as a fit Minister for the Work I have Prepared and Ordained thee for Publick Service viz. not with Saving Grace tho that need not to be excluded and of John the Baptist they say being filled with the Holy Ghost from his Mothers Momb this is true both as to Prophecy which is an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost and also of the Holy Ghost considered as a Sanctifying Spirit Now consider our Annotators lay the great stress of those two Men Sanctified from the Womb upon their being fitted for publick Work for as much as they had insuperable Difficulties which in those degenerate and corrupt Times they must unavoidably Encounter with but what if it should be granted those two Men were not only Sanctified from the Womb That is set a-part to publick Work which the word Sanctified sometimes imports but that also they were Savingly Sanctified in their Hearts Is this a good Argument to prove that all the Infant Seed of believers have Habitual Faith from their Mothers Womb If so how comes it to pass that so many of them Die unsanctified Logicians will tell you its unsafe Arguing from particuliar Instances to general is this a good Argument Solomon was a very Wise man ergo all men are very Wise Sampson was a Strong Man therefore all Men have Sampson's Strength Abraham was a great believerâ— therefore all Men have great Faith Moses was a Meek Man therefore all Men are Meek and all Men Patient because Job was such I hope we shall never have these instances urged any more of John Baptist and Jeremiah for to prove that all the Infant Seed of believers have Habitual Faith SEEING some have queried where you find that Children are forbidden to be Baptised tho you know it is rather your work to prove the Positive That there is a Command for the Baptising of Infants than for me to prove the Negative That there is none for if you would but prove the former you would save me the Labour from proving the latter however I shall attempt it for once TO prove the Baptism of Infants Forbidden ALL positive Commands Prohibit whatever is repugnant thereunto but the Baptism of Infants is repugnant to the positive command of Christ for that Ordinance ergo the baptism of Infants is prohibited The Major is undeniable the Minor I thus prove Iâ— Ignorance be opposed to understanding the want of an act of Repentance Faith and Obedience be opposed to the Act and Teaching be opposed to them not capable of it If a few drops of Water be opposed to a burial in Water In a word if a wrong Subject and a wrong manner of Administration be opposite to a right Subject and manner of Administration then Infants Baptism is repugnant to Christ's Command for that Ordinance and therefore roundly Prohibited for no man of Sense can imagin that our Lord can allow of any Practice repugnant to his own Commission the word all Nations in Matt 28. is referable only to the Teaching of all Nations all positive Commands prohibit whatever is repugnant thereunto We might Illustrate when we are commanded to Worship God in Spirit and Truth it forbids all Ignorant Devotion Formallity and Hypocrisy and when commanded to Worship God all Idols and Idolaty is forbidden to eat bread and drink Wine in remembrance of Christ forbids a belief of his Corporal Presence what need I do any act to put me in remembrance of him who is Corporally Present when God's Word asserts we are saved by Grace it forbids Works as Meritorious so when God Commands Persons that Profess Faith and Repentance to to be baptised it Prohibits all that are uncapable of those Qualifications Take heed of incurring Divine Displeasure by commanding that in the Name of the Lord which he never commanded Oh! what a dreadful Judgment did God threaten against Jerusalem for doing those things which God Commanded them not In offering their Children to Molech in the Valley of Ben Hinnom which I commanded them not saith God neither came it into my mind Jer. 19.5 The Geneva Note on that place saith Whatsoever is not Commanded by God touching his Service is against God's word because not commanded Was not Nadab and Abihu prohibited false Fire when commanded to take Fire from the Altar Is not Tertullian's Notion true every positive Command of Christ includes a Negative by this Argument you may set up a great part of the false Worship in Rome by Interrogating where it is forbidden read Matt. 28.18 Acts 2.37 Mark 16.16 Rom. 6.4 Acts 8.36 37. Acts 10. All which Scriptures shew that Infant Baptism must be Repugnant unto that Baptism which is from Heaven therefore is Prohibited Syllogistical Arguments against Pedo and for Believers Baptism Arg. 1. THAT which hath no Divine Command nor Example none Commended for its Observation nor Reprehended for its neglect cannot be of God or Divine Authority but the Baptising of Infants hath no Divine Command nor Example none Commended for its Observation nor reproved for its Neglect ergo the Baptising of Infants is not of God or Divine Authority Arg. 2. THAT which hath a Divine Command and Example some commended for its Observation and others reproved for its neglect must be of God and Divine Authority but the Baptism of Believers hath a Livine Command and Example some commended for its Observation others Reprehended for its neglect ergo the Baptism of Believers is of God and Divine Authority Mark 16.15 16. Luke 7.29 30. Arg. 3 THAT which was the Practice of the pure Primitive and Apostolick Times about Initiating persons into the Church ought to be the same unto the Second Coming of Christ But to Initiate persons into the Church by Baptism upon a profession of Faith was the Practice of the pure Primitive and Apostolick times ergo to Initiate persons into the Church by Baptism upon a profession of Faith ought to be the same unto the Second Coming of Christ This Argument doth stand Immovable against the Churches for Pedo-Baptism unless they can assign the time and place where Christ altered the Constitution of his Churches and changed the manner of Initiation into them or