e. to preach the Gospel to every one that will hear us and to bring up our Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord And what tho the Church be thus always gathering does not Mat. 28. 19 20. warrant this Practice to the end of the World and if you do not thus gather your Children to Christ they will never be Christians by your Crossing and Sprinkling them 4. Your talk of excluding Infants from the Covenant is answered before and proved untrue what you add of our introducing of despair of the Salvation of Infants shews your Self-contradiction For now you seem to make Infant-Baptism so necessary to Salvation that if they be not baptized we must despair of their Salvation Than which what can be a more erronious Consequence of your Doctrine of Poedo-baptism 5. It is apparent that our Doctrine makes the Covenant established by Christ better than yours whatever you say here to the contrary not only because we assert the Grace of God in the Business of Salvation to extend to Infants more generally than you do But also for that it shews God has not imposed any Ceremonies upon them as he did upon the Jewish Male Infants of eight days old Whilst your Doctrine makes your Crossing and Sprinkling them of such importance as that if it be denied them despair of the Salvation of Infants is genuinely introduced pag. 74. As if God had tyed the Salvation of all the Infants in the World to a Ceremony Thus does your Doctrine make the Covenant established by Christ worse than the Law of Moses for under it the greater part of the Infants of the Jews were saved without being Circumcised to wit all the Females and all the Males under eight days old But you have no hope for Infants Male or Female tho but of a day old if it be not sealed with your pretended Baptism Lord whither will Men go when they forsake thy Word They will make Christ an Impostor if Infants be not capable of Baptism See Mr. Taylor 's Book pag. 72. n. 5. 6. You say Our Doctrine equals the Children of Christians with the Children of Turks c. But we have shewed the advantage to be on the part of the Children of Christians And what if God willing to magnify his Mercy and Goodness has provided a Saviour for the innocent Babes dying in Infancy throughout the World What need this trouble any Body must our Eye be Evil because his is thus Bountiful We know that he hath concluded all under Sin that he might have Mercy upon all And if God hath not Mercy on poor dying Infants so as to save them all by Christ pray shew what Mercy he hath upon them Sure it had been a Mercy they had never been born but not one Iota of Mercy to be born only to cry dye and go to Hell Can you think that such Doctrine befriends the Covenant of Grace I think not 7. To what you say or have said about the Form of Baptism you much mistake us if you think we do not baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost The Article of our Faith which you point to was not written as I conceive to teach any to dispense Baptism in different Forms of Words but to shew that the Name of Son is to be taken as he is our Lord and Saviour Yet let me tell you that I can shew it under the Hand of some now in your Ministry that says Matth. 28. 19. does not impower any to use that Form of Words in Baptism and shews also that the Learned are not agreed in that Matter However I am one with you as to the use of the Form there set down and no other Of the manner of using Baptismal Water 1. Mr. Taylor grants the Mode of Baptizing is laid down by our Saviour and expressed in the Word Baptizontes baptizing them Mat. 28. 19. Now this is very well and I am glad he has done this Holy Ordinance so much right as to acknowledg Christ to lay down in his Commission Mat. 28. 19. the Manner or Mode in which it ought to be performed But then I am sorry to see my good Friend so soon forget himself as in the very next Page to tell us that the Mode of Baptizing is an indifferent thing left to the Prudence of the Church whether to dip or sprinkle Neither of them being commanded nor either of them absolutely forbidden by the Precept of Baptizing What shall I say to this If Baptizontes be the Precept for Baptizing and yet commands nothing neither to dip nor to sprinkle nor absolutely forbids either sure then we keep no Command in doing either nor do we break any in omitting both Pity it is that Men to uphold their own Tradition should thus fight against both Scripture and Reason For if our Saviour by the Words baptizing them command nothing then its best to do nothing if he command both dipping and sprinkling then both must be done if he command but one of these then but one of them must be done Let him chuse which he will he must chuse but one But yet he tells us otherwise pag. 76. for saith he The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equally admits of both Significations as is granted by the best Criticks And quotes chiefly Mr. Walker's Doct. of Bapt. p. 60. to p. 64. For answer I say if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do equally signify dip and sprinkle then unless we will be unequal we must do both or else shew which of them may lawfully be omitted As for Mr. Walker's Book I have seen it and observed that he plays with the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till he makes their Signification altogether uncertain and sets the Learned together by the Ears about the meaning of these Greek Words And indeed according to Mr. Walker no Man can certainly know when he hits right upon the thing to be done in Obedience to this Precept Baptizing them As if our Lord should leave his Apostles and they leave us to guess at his meaning in a Passage wherein he commands nothing certainly And yet to go round again however we use Water in the Name c. we can hardly go besides the meaning of Christ For if we dip the Subject in the Element of Water we are right if we sprinkle it upon any part of the Body for you can assign no one part more than the other we are right still if we dip the Head only or only the Foot we are right if the Head or Breast or Hand only be sprinkled still we are right Now who can think that our Saviour should use an ambiguous Word which is to guide us in matter of Fact Do not Men that thus deal with the Word Baptize make him the Author of all our Contests in this Case And assuredly Mr. Walker has run many a one into a maze about the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I am sorry to see
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
Jewish Washings which are expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Danvers further shews And sure I am that Rom. 6. and Col. 2. is so very clear for our way of baptizing that the Learned of your way do grant these Places allude to the ancient way of baptizing which say they was by dipping the Party into the Water 4. What you say of your Sprinkling to be as significant as Dipping is not true for indeed unless it be commanded to signify the Death Burial Resurrection of Christ and our Mortification and Vivification it can signify none of these things Otherwise every time you wash your hands might signify what is signified in your Baptism yet you will not say it doth so And the same Answer may serve to what you say of Sprinkling and Dipping being equally obliging for unless God hath given them to oblige they have no obliging Nature or Virtue in them 5. What you say of the Searcity of Water can be no Plea for you that have no want of it whatever it may be for them that have it not But sure where God gives not Straw he will require no Brick He does not make Baptism so necessary that we shall perish if we cannot but rather if we will not obey him therein 6. Your Surmise that Dipping seems an indecent thing is indecently said both by Mr. Walker and your self seeing it may be done as decently as your Sprinkling for your Talk of transparent Garments shews your unacquaintedness with the right way of Baptizing And know this your ruffling Ladies in their gorgeous Apparel may work upon your pravity of Heart sooner than to behold and humble penitent Sinner cloathed in comely tho mean Garments to be buried with Christ by Baptism 7. To your Objection about the Coldness of the Climate you need but put on the Garment of Love to God and his Truth and act from a Principle of Faith and you need fear no Ill tho this Path may seem to you as the Valley of the Shadow of Death Yet if any Person be really weak of Body and cannot be satisfied to delay as I confess that may be dangerous there may such care be taken as in the Eye of Reason no Inconvenience need be feared And if the Water be frozen as you object surely he that will allow us to thaw that for our natural will not blame us if we do so for our spiritual use 8. Does plunging or dipping take away the Understanding Why not more now than in Christ's Time And is it so necessary that the Understanding act in the Duty I marvel then why you baptize Persons as you call it when they are asleep 9. What you say of the great Labour of dipping and the Impossibility for one Man to baptize 3000 in one day and that it is therefore unreasonable to think the Apostles did dip all that they baptized c. I answer First you grant then that they dipped some that they baptized prove now that they sprinkled so much as one and the Dispute is at an end Secondly But Sir what need was there for one Man only to baptize the three thousand Acts 2. 40. Does not Mr. Walker himself suppose that there were of the hundred and twenty Disciples eighty two in a Ministerial Capacity to wit the Seventy two besides the Apostles Surely they might easily baptize three thousand in a few hours But you will now prove the Lawfulness and Reasonableness of Sprinkling let us hear what you say 1. You now make Sprinkling not only equally signified in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to be more congruous with its genuine Signification your reason is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Derivative can admit of no larger Signification than its Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find say you in the History of Nebuchadnezzar when like a Beast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was wet with the Dew of Heaven But for Answer 1. I say this Place in Dan. 4. will never prove that Sprinkling is more congruous to the genuine Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Dipping For Nebuchadnezzar being seven Years to live with Beasts out of Habitation or House was sufficiently washed especially being probably naked too so that this kind of wetting holds some resemblance with plunging in Water there being no part free from the Water thus rained upon Nebuchadnezzar In which respect it seems the Septuagint renders or expresses his lying open to the Snow Hail Rain or Dew so long a time by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 2. My Answer is That the Greek here is Hyperbolical and not properly to be understood and our Translators knowing this did not as I suppose translate the Word according to its proper Signification our Language not well bearing it in that case but according to the thing which was to befall Nebuchadnezzar And it seems very disingenuous for you to conclude from this Hyperbole that Sprinkling is more congruous to the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than Dipping tho in so saying you contradict most of the Learned that have interpreted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I am sure and you know it much better than I can tell you for my Learning is nothing when compared with yours that our Lexicons Dictionaries and Grammars do make the prime Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a dipping as they do who dye Colours and Scapula does not make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify Sprinkling at all 2. What you say in your 2d 3d 4th and 5th Particulars is answered before but here you say The Church was never confined to that Mode of Dipping but had several Ways of baptizing dipping or sprinkling c. I answer What Usages the Church has had is not the Question but the Ground of her doings is the matter of our Enquiry But yet I will venture to say she was always confined to dip if she kept that Ordinance according to Christ's own Example which I think is a better Expositor of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than any Lexicon in the World 2. The Alteration of the manner of this Ordinance has not only occasioned us to say You that only cross and sprinkle are not baptized but the Muscovites declare the Latin Church to be unbaptized for the same reason For this you may read Daille on the Fathers lib. 2. p. 148. where he tells us The Custom of the Ancient Church was to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in Water as Tertullian Cyprian and Epiphanius testify And this is still the Practice of the Greek and Russian Cnurch at this day as Cassander de Baptismo pag. 193. And yet notwithstanding this Custom is now abolished by the Church of Rome and this is the reason why the Muscovites say that the Latines are not rightly and duly baptized Thus he Nor is this the only
Cause why we think your pretended Baptism a Nullity for your Error about the Subject is more than the other 3. What you say further is to make us believe that Christ did not go into the Water that the Eunuch went to the Water only because the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies ad to But your Conscience will tell you it signifies into as well as to and indeed you grant it and then to what putpose do you quarrel our Translation However we have proved that Christ was baptized in the River and 't is expresly said of the many Thousands which came to Jordan that they were all baptized in the River confessing their Sins Now Sir here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be rendred to the River nor with the River without egregious Folly and then 't is very plain that they were all dipped in the River for it had been absolute Folly to go into the River to sprinkle the Face Hand or any other part of the Body Seeing then they went into the River to baptize it shews it cannot rightly be done without going into the Water and therefore of necessity we must understand Dipping is the only true Mode of Baptizing 4. I marvel how any wise Man can look upon that Text John 3. 23. John baptized in Enon because there was much Water there and so much as think Sprinkling to be a lawful way of baptizing If he will use any of his Wit he cannot but infer Baptism could not be rightly done with a few drops of Water seein John chose Enon because there was much Water there And what tho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify many Waters yet it does not signify many Rivers but by the Noise of many Waters is often meant the Noise of much Water in one Source or Channel However you say the Greek signifies the Confluence of these two Springs Jordan and Jaboc but yet you are unwilling that they should yield so much Water as might suffice to dip in And yet the Scripture tells you elsewhere that Jordan overflows all her Banks at certain times and Lithgow that was at it will give you an account that it is a River sufficient to dip a bigger Man than your self in But here you say is no mention of dipping Yes Sir but there is for when you hear that John was baptizing in Enon he was either dipping or sprinkling The latter would make the Speech absurd and nonsensical the former therefore was his Business for he was dipping in Enon near Salem because there was much Water there Your Church therefore is very much to blame in leaving the Way of Truth and following her own Tradition and is therefore the cause of our present disunion and will be till she turn to the Truth both in the Subject and Manner of Baptism or at least forbear to impose upon us without Authority from Heaven What you add by way of answer to some of our Objections against Infant Baptism is answered in my Reply to Dr. Stillingfleet and Mr. J. Barret which is bound up with my Book of Primitive Christianity and to that I will refer you What you add about Sureties or God-Fathers c. I shall not take notice of at this time and indeed the usage is so odd that Dr. Jer. Taylor well said if it had been God's will to have had them It is to be supposed he would have given them Commission to have transacted the Solemnity with better Circumstances and given Answers with more Truth for if the God Fathers answer in the Name of the Child I do believe it is notorious they speak false and ridiculously And this is even enough to say to such an Innovation But what absurdity is it which being once made a Cannon by learned Men will not find some to daub it up with untempered Mortar Could Men but remember Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10. they would fear to add to or take from the Ordinances of Christ under what pretence of Piety or Prudence soever Thus Sir I have briefly answered your Arguments and hope I have not mistaken your Sence in any Passage I except against And for a Conclusion I crave leave to say That the way to obtain that Unity which is so desirable between the Baptized Believers and the Church of England is not to fall to it by Disputation but by proposing what Abatements may be made about such things as are not mentioned in the Scripture as this of Poedo-Baptism is not or at least what mitigation may be hoped for as to the imposition of such things And on the other side I trust in the Lord that you shall call for nothing from us wherein we may submit without sinning against God but we shall gladly hearken to you In the mean time constant Prayer to God for the Blessing of Truth and Peace and friendly conference between the leading Men on both parts may do much to further so good a Work specially if his Majesty would be graciously pleased to permit such friendly Treaties But of writing many Books there is no end SECT IV. A Plea for the Church-Assemblies of the Baptized Believers MAny and very great has been the Sufferings of the Baptized Believers in this Nation since the publication of the Act entitled an Act to prevent and suppress seditious Conventicles And if the meaning of the said Act be to restrict all Christian Assemblies except the Parochial to the number of four Persons besides the Families where they do assemble We see not how we can with safety to our Souls conform to the Limits thereby prescribed But forasmuch as the said Act pretends only the prevention and suppression of Seditious Conventicles We humbly conceive that those who are free from Seditious Designs in their meeting together to worship God are rationally acquitted from the Imputation of Sedition and consequently no Man can conscienciously prosecute any of us upon that Statute being utterly unable to prove any such Crime against us nor could any ever yet convict us of such an Evil nor by the Grace of God shall they I hope ever be able to do it Upon a due Enquiry it will evidently appear that it is the Lord himself that hath ordered his People to convene or congregate for the better discharge of the great Duties of Prayer Preaching and the Celebration of other his holy Ordinances to which holy Ends he has allowed not four Persons only but the whole Church in any Town or City to come together into one Place among whom also such as do not believe the Gospel are allowed to appear in order to their Illumination and this without any limitation in respect of Number So that it seems to exceed the due Bounds of humane Power to use Restraint where God hath given such gracious Liberty 1 Cor. 14. 23 24 25. Jam. 2. 2 3. Heb. 10. 24. Forasmuch then as God has not given any Power upon Earth to forbid any Christian or such as desire to know Christ to hear his
given to Swearing Lying Drunkenness and lascivious Talking as God knows a great Number of the Members of the Church of England are known to be such your Discipline seems to have no power in such Cases for thus saith one of your own Ministers Who minds Canon 109 that prohibits common Swearers common Drunkards notorious Whoremasters and Whores c. from the blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Do not even Bishops hear Men swear a thousand Oaths and either do not or dare not use any Discipline against them But now if a good Man do not stand up and bow to the Altar at the Name of Jesus when the Creed is read because he dares not pay greater Reverence in a religious way to any Writing than he pays to the holy Scriptures If he dares not use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism nor sprinkle his Child c. then shall he be prosecuted as a great Sinner cast to the Devil and laid in Prison yea he is sentenced already For in Canon 6. thus we read Whosoever shall affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England are superstitious or such as Men who are zealously and godlily affected may not with any good Conscience approve them use them or as Occasion requireth subscribe unto them let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored until he repent and publickly revoke such his wicked Errors 4. Thus as we conceive the Discipline of Righteousness Mercy and Charity established by Christ is laid aside and a Mercenary Court set up holding the Traditions of Men instead of Christ's Institutions in Ecclesiastical Government who also live voluptuously upon the Sins of the People But as for the Reformation of evil Manners or the making Peace and Concord alas it is not sought for nor indeed expected from these Courts And as the Reverend Grosthead said at Rome when he saw all things ruled by Money so may I say of the Courts under consideration O Money Money what wilt thou not do there As for the opprobrious Language prohibited by the Canon we think it uncomely for any to use it tho we dissent from the Ceremonies themselves SECT IV. Concerning Imposing of Ceremonies 1. ALL Divine Ceremonies ordained by Christ or his Apostles we reverence and religiously observe and keep as they were delivered 2. That any Church since their days hath just power to make and ordain Divine Ceremonies to be any necessary parts of the Worship of God we see no ground to believe much less that such Ceremonies may lawfully be imposed under pain of Excommunication Banishment Imprisonment Loss of Estate and Life For tho it is certain God has given power to the Rulers of the World to make change or disannual Laws in point of Civil Government yet we believe all the Power on Earth cannot make one Institute or Divine Ceremony in Religion And therefore we cannot but think the Church of England erred from the Rule of Righteousness in decreeing Rites and Ceremonies which God has not commanded 3. For when we see how sharply fome were reprehended by St. Paul for bringing the Christian Churches in Galatia under some Legal Ceremonies which once had a divine Original and Use in the Church of God as Invaders of the Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free averring also That if they were subject to them Christ should profit them nothing Gal. 5. 1 2. We can see no ground to free the Protestants from Sin who either take up Scriptureless Ceremonies from the Papists or invent Ceremonies themselves but least of all when they force Men will they nill they to conform to such Ceremonies or else to be ejected and delivered up to Satan And surely it was very unreasonable for her Bishops to consent to a Law that pious Men only dissenting in these things from the Church of England should be banished or else hanged as Felons without Benefit of the Clergy And we humbly desire that the Severity of that Law may be considered and mitigated 4. But if it shall be said That the Ceremonies of the Church of England as the Sprinkling of Infants the Sign of the Cross in Baptism bowing to the Altar to name no more at present are not sinful then how shall we be ever able to reprove a Papist for using holy Water bowing to the Image of Christ c. Certainly if we must submit to the Ceremonies of the Church of England in her present Constitution we must submit to theirs too where they have power on their side to enforce them But he that shall impartially consider what a learned Protestant hath said of the Sinfulness of that one Ceremony of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism in his Book entituled Against Symbolizing with Antichrist in Ceremonies will see great cause to avoid touching with any such Inventions however they may be supposed to have had an harmless Use among Christians at the first But who sees not that when such Ceremonies have got the Reputation of Religion upon them and are forced on by humane Laws what incredible Miseries they have brought upon the Christian World How have they lorded it over Kings and Kingdoms over the Estates Liberties and Lives of Christians Who sees not that being thus set up they are sometimes more set by than sincere Faith and an holy Life as if all true Religion and Loyalty too were only to be judged of according to Mens Submission to those Humane Innovations For it is notorious even in this our Land that let a Man but conform to all the Ceremonies he shall live honourably let his Life be never so debauched almost But let a Man refuse these Ceremonies out of conscience to God because they are not from Heaven then he is Envy's Mark let his Life be never so just and harmless Such Effects should lead us to consider what the Causes are And because we are speaking of Ceremonies we crave leave to enquire What means the Ceremony of the Ring in Marriage Why are we forced not only to use it but to use it in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghost The Church of England blames the Papists for saying Marriage is a Sacrament but shall we then make a Sacrament of a Ring Sure you make the Ring as sacred in Marriage as you make the Water in Baptism Such Usages as these we fear give the Papists too much cause to use this Speech A Protestant is but a Papist scar'd out of his Wits It is not then any thing of Prejudice or Obstinacy which makes us to stand off from the Communion of the Church of England but an unfeigned Desire to serve God aright and a godly Fear lest by touching with these unwritten Traditions we should bring our Souls under Guilt in the sight of God Howbeit if any can convince us that the Church of England is justifiable in these things here objected we shall suspect our selves to be mistaken in other things which we here
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-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-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
Peter derives the Title both of Parents and Children from the Promise of God and builds the Title of all the Called of the Lord and of them that were afar off also upon the Promise of God and not upon the Faith of Abraham himself Besides the Promise here is of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and therefore not pertinent to Infants as I have shewed Here is therefore no proof at all of your Minor I think it were better to say that by Faith a Christian knows his Child has an interest in the Covenant of Grace than that his Faith entitles his Child to it I fear this Minor is a very dangerous Assertion and that partly because the Consequence of such an Opinion is to shut out all Infants from the Covenant of Grace who have not faithful Parents to entitle them to it And in truth it seems to swell with too much boldness and carnal presumption but I spare you 2. The Faith of the Jews and Proselites did not entitle their Children to the Covenant of Grace but they themselves being incorporate into that Church-State their Children by express Command from God had a Title to legal Priviledges but the Covenant of Grace for that 's it we dispute tho you leave out the Word Grace in your Argument extended to Infants by God's free Redemption which he purposed for them in Christ from the Foundation of the World or else what shall become of the many thousands of Infants of Unbelievers 3. You can never prove that the Faith of the Jaylor or Lydia either did entitle their Infants to the Covenant for you cannot prove they had any Children And it is so exceeding plain that all that were baptized in these two Families were Believers that I wonder much that you should say that on the believing of the Jaylor and Lydia the whole Families were baptized Pray read Acts 16. 32. to the end and you will find that they that were baptized were actual Believers and capable of being consolated by the Apostles Mr. Taylor 's Argument 10. Those who are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven are capable of Baptism But Children are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore Children are capable of Baptism ANSWER 1. The Major being taken universally for all that may go to Heaven it may very well be denied for Mr. Taylor dare not deny a Capacity of Salvation to some of the Infants of the Jews and yet Mr. Taylor himself does not think they are capable of Baptism for he makes the Faith of the Parents necessary to the entitling them to Baptism which in this Case is wanting 2. That the greater includes the less is not universally true for Women have a capacity to go to Heaven yet they have no capacity to be Bishops which is less than going to Heaven Infants are not capable of the Lord's Table which is less than to go to Heaven Indeed this Argument being admitted to be good would bring Infants to all Privileges in the Church-Militant as well as to Baptism for thus a Man might argue Those who are capable of all the Privileges of the Church Triumphant are capable of all the Privileges of the Church Militant for the greater includes the less But Infants are capable of all Privileges in the Church Triumphant Ergo c. And if it be unreasonable as you say it is to deny the external Sign to those to whom Christ hath granted the internal Grace pray why are you so unreasonable as to deny your Infants the Sign of the Lord's Table seeing you affirm they are regenerate and born of Water and the Spirit But if you were put to prove that Infants whom you sprinkle have the inward Grace which entitles to Baptism you would never be able to make demonstration to your own or any wise Man's Satisfaction for is not the inward and spiritual Grace Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken and Faith whereby the Promises of God are stedfastly believed And what Infant did you ever know thus qualified for Baptism Mr. Taylor 's Argument 11. All who are Believers ought to be baptized But Children are Believers Therefore Children ought to be baptized ANSWER 1. The Minor Proposition that Infants are Believers is not true And I answer in the Words of Dr. Hammond who saith Letter of Resolut p. 297. I shall profess to be none of those that are concerned in the Question Whether Infants have Faith I freely confess to believe that Faith is so necessarily founded in Vnderstanding that they that have not Vnderstanding cannot have Faith whether actual or habitual And Dr. Jer. Taylor tells us expresly Whether Infants have Faith is a Question to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove Thus these two Pillars of the Church of England explode your Argument as an egregious Error 2. And for that place Mat. 18. 5 6. by which you would prove Infants Believers the Learned of your own Church expound it to a contrary Sence and take the little Child that believeth to be a true Christian that hath laid aside all worldly Pride whereby he is become abject in the sight of the World I shall not contend with you about the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 professing my self no Scholar tho Ludovicus Vives useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an Houshold-Servant But it is sufficient to my purpose that you dare not say Infants are actual Believers nay you confess they have not actual Faith And for imputative Faith if there be any such thing yet it can be no Rule for the baptizing any Body seeing it is not revealed to whom Faith is imputed and whilst you say God may esteem Infants as Believers another may as well say he may esteem them as baptized also I say your granting Infants have not actual Faith you can take the word believeth Mat. 18. 6. only by the Figure called Prosopopoeia if you will needs have the Child an Infant of Days And if it be good arguing from hence to the Baptism of Infants then you may argue as strongly for baptizing the whole Creation if you can tell how for it is said to groan expect and wait for the manifestation of the Sons of God and to be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption Rom. 8. 19. We conclude then that it is not a figurative Faith but an actual Faith at least by profession that entitles to the reception of Baptism 3. We do not say that God will impute Unbelief to Infants but only to those that refuse to believe and tho we know Infants are not Believers yet we do not say or think they are Unbelievers they being not capable to sin against God in that case or any else And Unbelief presupposes a capacity in the Subject and means sufficient to believe and yet the Creature refuses to believe The Sin of Unbelief therefore being no way chargeable upon any Infant it follows by necessary Consequence that they have no capacity
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-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.