Salvation is annexed to Faith and Damnation is the Punishment of Unbelief Baptism therefore is not absolutely necessary to Salvation nor its want absolutely exposing Souls to Damnation 3. This would be to tye God to means and to make it in Mans Power to Save or Damn whom he pleased For if it be impossible any should be saved without Baptism then would it follow that it is Baptism more than Gods free Grace that saves Ephes 2.8 and that it is in the Power of the Minister by Baptism to save whom he please and by denying it to damn whom he will Yea then this Ordinance will be supposed to confer Grace Ex Opere Operate which Assertion detracts from Gods Glory disagrees with Truth and is injurious to Souls who may be hereby brought to rely rather on a Creatures Baptism than their Creaton Mercy for Salvation 4. Then all Children and those who dye unbaptized must be supposed not to appertain to Christ nor to be saved by him which to believe of all Infants is dreadful whom I cannot implead of sin in not being Baptized being not capable of desiring it And though I cannot but think the Parent highly to Offend in slighting the Ordinance where it is to be obtained yet cannot I suppose it to be by God imputed as a sin to the Child so dying for which he will damn it which is the Genuine though Dismal Consequence of that Position That Baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation 5. The Baptism contended for is but an outward sign of that inward Grace which Entitles the Soul to Heaven John 3.5 and to which Glory is annexed the sign then cannot be so Essential as that they who have received the things signified and inward Grace without Baptism should still be excluded Heaven because they are not Baptized Acts 10.47 Which is as much as to assert that though a Soul should partake of all Christs Benefits to be bestowed on a Worthy Communicant yet unless he actually Eat the Bread and Drink the Wine which are the External Elements in the Lords Supper and Representatives of those inward Benefits yet he could not be saved A Thesis deservedly to be exploded Rubric 3. after Comm. 〈…〉 as nullifying Christs Merits to Idolize External things And our Church is clear against it 6. By this Assertion it would follow that many Thousands of Christians shall be Damned who duly and perhaps more circumspectly walk in Obedience to God than we in and amongst the Turks and Pagans who probably by Reason of their Persecuted Condition or the non-settlement of a Church and Ordinances amongst them are and so dye unbaptized But how sad this would be to a Christians Eat I leave every one to judge 7. When ever Baptism is taken as so necessary to Salvation in Scripture it hath respect to the Internal thing signified by it so St. John 3.9 John hath chiefly respect to the Baptism of the Spirit whereby the Soul is Regenerated and reduced to a state of Grace nor can the Baptism we contend about be there meant this being not Instituted till after our Saviours Resurrection which was some Years after these words were spoken by our Saviour And this Baptism of the Spirit is other where called A Baptism by Fire Mat. 3.11 denoting the cleansing and purifying Nature of the Graces of the Holy Ghost which purifies the Regenerated Soul from its Corruption and burns up its drossie Lusts In comparison of which Baptism St. John accounts his of Water the Subject of our present Controversie so mean as only to have a Relation to it as Precedaneous not as Competitour Again Ephes 1.26 27. St. Paul joyns the Word of God with this Baptism in order to the Purifying Christs Church that acting on the Soul and this terminating on the Body And St. Peter's Assertion is clear 1 Pet. 3.21 that it is not the Water Purifying the Flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God that saveth us And indeed the Trope of using the sign for the thing signified is not unusual in Scripture 8. The All-wise God hath determined the Controversie in that He in divers places of his revealed Will Asserts Gal. 6.15 1 Cor. 7.19 that neither Circumcision nor Uncircumcision avail any thing but a New Creature It is not the being an unbaptized Person that will expose any one to Condemnation for there is not one Woe denounced against any as such Nor is there one Promise in all the Divine Writ Infallibly annexing Salvation to Baptism 2 Thes 1.8 9. John 3.16 All Threats of Misery are to those who believe not and Obey not the Gospel of Christ And all Promises of Eternal Mercies are to those who by Faith close with Christ and live the life of Christians So that I dare not say all who are Baptized shall be saved and all who are not Baptized shall be damned But I dare affirm that whosoever remain and dyeth in unbelief shall be damned though he be Baptized And whoever believes truly on Christ and lives answerably to that Faith though for some Persecution or other Causes he cannot be Baptized he shall be saved Whence will appear That Baptism is not absolutely Necessary to Salvation so as that one cannot be saved without it As I have hitherto endeavoured to remove the great Censure of the Anabaptists of our being in no visible salvable way because not Baptized after their Mode by giving my Reasons why Baptism is not so absolutely Necessary to Salvation So I proceed to prove That Baptism of Water is not absolutely Necessary to Church-membership Prop. 2. so as that they cannot be Members of Christs Church unless Baptized Which will appear thus 1. Wills against Danvers p. 49. There was ever a Church before Baptism or Circumcision were Administred They being both External signs to be acted on visible Professors and Church-members in the Church of Christ there is necessarily presupposed an existence of a Church containing Members to be Circumcised or Baptized and Persons to perform these Offices So that these signs are not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse of a Church or the Essential Constituents of its visibility Noah Seth and those Holy Patriarchs before the Flood who Lived some hundreds of Years before the Institution of Circumcision Gen. 17.24 were doubtless Members of Gods Church And Abraham also doubtless before he was Circumcised which was in the 99th Year of his Age and about the 2107 Year of the World was a True Believer and a Member of the True Church And if it be alledged they were Members of the Invisible Church we may grant them a Membership in the Visible from that known Axiom Omne majus in se continet minus Their being of the Invisible Church being greater than their being Members of the Visible Church Yea it is apparent the Promises were made to Abraham above Twenty Years before Circumcision was Instituted which Promise he believed Gen.
Lawful and Honest or else to lose the Benefits that might accrue to them by Observance of that Covenant 2. As to Spirituals Parents are Obliged to take the greatest care imaginable of their Childrens Souls Ephes 6.1 4. for their Education in the Fear of God who also hath commanded the Parents to engage their Children in Covenant with him and to bring them up in his Service 2. God esteems Children capable of engaging in Covenant with him Deur 29 11 12 14. Rom. 10.5 to 10. Deut. 30.11 12 13 14 and gives command for all the Little Ones to stand before him to be entred into Covenant with him who were as capable of being engaged in Gods esteem and were as much engaged as those Captains Men and Women that stood with them and were not engaged in Covenant as was once impertinently urged to me by our Adversaries from a Critical Observance of the Particle Thou as if one alone in the stead of all others had been engaged To which Criticism I returned besides the premised Argument of Childrens being equally capable of being engaged as all the others who being present were not engaged and that the engagement of one in stead of all did no more infringe the capability of Children then it did that of those Captains Men Women who were by and not engaged that I thought the Particle Thou might reasonably refer to every individual Captain Man Woman and Little One who I suppose to have been particularly concern'd and the Commandments were instanced in which concern all yet are given in the same second Person singular Nor was this Covenant any other than a Covenant of Grace the same Covenant now remaining as to its substance only freed from the encumbring Ceremonies and altered as to its External Administration of its Ministry Sacrifices Baptism c. as hath been proved and the Marginal Citations compared will manifest 3. 2 Chron 20.13 Joel 2.16 Deut. 31.11 12 13. The Jews Children were formerly concerned in the Duties of the Covenant as in Fasting Prayer and God accepted of them as capable of entring into Covenant of Hearing Learning Doing his Will surely then we may esteem so 4. Our Children are as capable now as the Children of the Jews were then nor can an Objection be against ours but it is equally valid against theirs and if God accepted theirs we have the same Covenant and God of Mercy and so the same Reason to believe he will receive ours and then why should we esteem them uncapable of being engaged in Covenant with God by Baptism ARGUMENT VI. Those who are Members of Christs Church ought to be Baptized But Children are Members of Christs Church Therefore Children ought to be Baptized THIS Argument hath no small force in it as will appear by considering each Proposition distinctly Major Those who are Members of Christs Church ought to be Baptized as appears 1. Because this is the usual way of Solemn Admission into Christs Church Acts 2.37 38 and the Apostles usually Practised thus Administring Baptism upon their receiving any into the Church of Christ 2. If Baptism be not Administred at the Admission of Persons into Christs Church then must it be done after or not at all The last is not true Christs Ordinance ought not to be neglected and there is no Instance or Precept in Scripture what time after a Persons Conversion and becoming a Church-Member it should be done Therefore it must be done as the Apostles Practised it at the Receiving any into the Church of Christ 3. Our Adversaries the Anabaptists acknowledge none Members of a Visible Church of Christ but those who are Baptized and Baptize as they call it those whom they receive as Church-members at their first Admission whence directly follows from their own Practice that those who are Church-members ought to be Baptized 4. Christs Church is to be Purified with the washing of Water by the Word Ephes 5.26 If then Children are of his Church they ought to be Baptized Minor And that Children are Members of Christs Church appears as to their Membership of his Invisible Church from our Adversaries granting them Eternal Life and all Priviledges belonging to such Members and that they are also Members of Christs Visible Church will appear thus 1. The Children of the Jews were with their Parents Church-members under the Law Baxter's Infant Church-Memb p. 26. Deut. 31.11 12. which Law is not yet Repealed by Christ 2. The Children of the Converted Jews lost not their Priviledges but still remained Church-members for Christ did not infringe but rather enlarge the Priviledges of his People And St. Peter seems to use this as a great motive to induce the Jews to close with Christ Acts 2.37 38 39. that though they had Crucified the Lord of Life their Promised and Expected Messiah yet they Repenting and being Baptized might be saved and might find Mercy for themselves and their Seed also for the Covenant and Promise is still to You and to your Seed 3. The Gentiles are through Christ admitted to equal Priviledges with the Jews Rom. 11.11 15 25. Eaxter p. 20. the Children of Parents who did not believe were Excluded therefore the Children of Parents believing were received 4. The Jews shall with their Children be recalled into a state of Church-membership at their Conversion Rom. 11.25 26 27. therefore doubtless the Children of Believing and Converted Gentiles are Church-members 5. Children are either Members of the Visible Church of Christ or else are visibly of Satans Kingdom There is no Medium between these two all appertain either to Christ or Satan Now let them and us consider how dismal a Doctrine theirs is which makes all the Children of the World of the Visible Kingdom of Satan and so denies us any good grounds for the hope of their Salvation And how strangely their Thoughts are linked together in granting Children all the Priviledges of Church-members as Pardon of sin and Eternal Life and so esteem them of Christs Invisible Church and yet Excommunicate them out of his Visible Church Art 11. of their Principles Grantam's Works l. 2. p. 67. c. 5. and to countenance this they calumniate Scripture and say the Old Testament-way of bringing of Children into the Church is cast out and that Children are not mentioned as received in the New Testament about which the Author Cited spends some leaves which Calumny may easily be wiped off and his leaves blown away as to the force of their Arguments against us for it can never be proved that Children are in any place by Christ rejected and excluded the Covenant Discipleship and Church-membership and it is fully proved and must be granted they were in the Covenant were Disciples and Church-members before Christ But if by the Old Testament-way of bringing in Children into the Church being cast out They mean not to infringe the Priviledge of Children the Subject of this Argument but to shew the way of their Admission
Gospel few Jews would become Christians Then surely they are to blame who suppose Christians Priviledges since Christ are not as great as the Jews were before Christ Which being granted Baptism of our Children must follow Therefore 2. If our Christian Priviledges being as great as the Jews were our Children are rightly Baptized as will appear by these Reasons 1. The Children of the Jewish Proselytes were with their Proselyted Parents Circumcised to which Baptism succeeding in the Church the Children of Disciples and Professors of Christianity ought to be Baptized as will be farther manifested from my next Argument drawn from Circumcision 2. None were Excluded the Covenant of Grace among the Jews or amongst Christians or are uncapable of its Seal Circumcision or Baptism Rom. 11.20 21. but actual Unbelievers of which Crime Children of Jews or Christians could not nor can be impleaded 3. The Believing Jews and their Children kept their Priviledges after their Conversion to Christianity that they enjoyed before Acts 2.39 Rom. 11. at large And therefore their Children might as well be Baptized after their Parents became Christians as they might have been Circumcised before or else their Priviledges by Conversion were infringed and their case worse than before because 1. Their Children were before their Conversion to Christianity within the Covenant and had Right to and were admitted to the Seal of it but now by the Parents espousing Christianity the Child would be debarred the Seal which implies its Exclusion from the Covenant 2. They and their Children were esteemed the People of God before their Conversion to Christ but since though the Parents were received as Converted Christians yet the Children would but be accounted as Heathens till they became Men or were able to give an Account of their Faith and so be Baptized 3. This would leave the Converted Jew but small grounds for the hopes of his Childrens Salvation if they dyed Young because they would not be looked on as Members of Christs Church Ephes 2.12 within the Covenant of God or to have Right to its Promises 4. The same Promises made to the Jews are also made to the Gentiles which Promises include their Seed or Children as well as themselves Acts 2.39 The Promise was to the Jews who were near and to their Seed and to the Gentiles who were afar off and to as many as the Lord our God should call and to their Seed which Promise gives our Children Right to Baptism as well as it did the Jewish Children to Circumcision 5. The Children of the Jews as well as the Aged in Order to their Publick Reception into the Church of God were Circumcised therefore the Children of the Gentiles Converted together with the Jews to Christianity may justly have Baptism it being the Sacrament of Admission into Christs Church under the Gospel as Circumcision was under the Law And that the former is true to wit that the Children with the Parent were under the Law Circumcised the Scripture is so plain that none will deny it and that our Children then may be yea ought to be Baptized must be granted from a Concession of our Priviledges being as great as the Jews But this will still be clearer in my next Argument ARGUMENT II. Those who were Circumcised under the Law may be Baptized under the Gospel But Children were Circumcised under the Law therefore Children may be Baptized under the Gospel THis Argument is Categorical whose Conclusion cannot be denyed if the Premisses be granted I shall therefore prove each Proposition The Minor Proposition Maour preved That Children were Circumcised under the Law is so undoubtedly true relying on the express Precepts and Practice of God and his People Gen. 17.10 11 12. that I suppose it will not be denyed And the truth of the Major Proposition I shall endeavour to demonstrate these two ways 1. By Arguments for it 2. Solving Objections against it 1. I shall prove by Arguments That those who were Circumcised under the Law may be Baptized under the Gospel 1. Baptism succeeded Circumcision and as that was the Sacrament of Admission into the Church under the Law so is this under the Gospel Col. 2.11 12. having this Priviledge above the other that it may be Administred to either Male or Female Mat. 28.29 and may be performed to all Nations Gentile as well as Jew 2. Our Children are now as capable of being Baptized as the Children of the Jews were then of being Circumcised at Eight days old Ours understand the ends of Baptism as much as theirs did the ends of Circumcision and ours are as capable of Testifying their Conversion to Christianity as the Proselyted Jews Children were to Evidence their being Proselyted nor can any Objection be framed against our Childrens Capability of Baptism but it is equally Valid against their Childrens being capable of Circumcision 3. The Precept of God for the receiving Parent and Child into Covenant Gen. 17. Acts 2.39 stands unrepealed to this day nor can the least jota be produced to forbid Children of Professing Christians Baptism or that Christ who was the Messiah and Saviour of both Jew and Gentile and had admitted the Children of the Jews all along to the Ancient Seal of Circumcision as a Diagnostick of their being his People would or did exclude them in his Gospel Dispensation from Baptism But many Reasons may be offered why their Baptizing is not expresly Commanded which I shall propose in due time At present let us consider since there is no restraint or countermand of the Ancient Jewish Practice of receiving Children to Circumcision And since Baptism is an Ordinance succeeding it it seems to me apparent that they who were Circumcised may be Baptized 4. Christ is proposed as a Mediator of a better Covenant not of a worse Heb. 8.6 founded on better not on less Promises enlarging not infringing his Peoples Priviledges continuing still God a God in Covenant with his People and their Seed and then doubtless this great Priviledge is not Repealed but Children the Seed of his People may Lawfully be Baptized as being still within the Covenant of Grace whereof Baptism under his Gospel-dispensation is a Seal Else our Children have no greater Priviledge by being Born of Christians than the Children of Turks and Pagans Jews and Infidels enjoy 5. Express Scripture avers the Inclusion of Believers Seed with themselves in the Covenant Nor can the word Calling Acts 2.37 38 39. in the place Cited be restrained to the word Seed as if they only were in Covenant with God of the Seed of the Righteous whom God called and Converted which would be no other Priviledge than the Heathens may enjoy who when Converted are admitted into Covenant But the word I presume may well be referred to the present Believer who is called and his Seed and of Gods owning all Believers whom in future Ages he should call and their Seeds So that if the Children of us
as well as the Jews be in Covenant with God and Baptism now as well as Circumcision then be a Seal of the Covenant to be Administred to all in the Covenant then certainly it must follow that Children of the Jews as in Covenant with God being admitted to its Seal Circumcision the Children of Christians being equally in Covenant may and ought to be admitted to its Seal which now is Baptism Thus is the Major Proposition proved and those who were Circumcifed under the Law manifested to have a Right to Baptism under the Gospel I proceed 2. To Receive and Answer the Objections I have met with against this Argument Object 1. They Object The Covenant then made was a Carnal Covenant but this through Christ is a Spiritual Covenant and therefore though Infants may be capable of one yet not of the other till Regenerated and become Believers Answ 1. The Covenant then made was a Covenant of Grace permanent to the Worlds end Gen. 17.10 13. made through Christ the Promised Seed and is the same Covenant we are now admitted to nor shall it ever be Repealed while Christ hath a People on Earth Which thus appears 1. It was made with Abraham who in Scripture is often called the Father of the Faithful Rom. 4.11 and it was made with him as a Believer Therefore it was a Covenant of Grace 2. It was made through Christ Gen. 17.7 in whom all the Families of the Earth should be Blessed who was that Promised Seed to proceed from Abraham 3. It is often called an Everlasting Covenant and therefore this Covenant of Grace hath been often in succeeding Ages urged to God by his People to re-mind him of his Promises made to Abraham And God also in divers Ages hath declared himself to his People by the Title of the God of Abraham 4. The Tenor of that Covenant is the same with ours now Gal. 3. latter end Heb. 11. that God will be a God of his People and their Seed and that they who believe on him shall be accepted by him 5. Scripture Attests Circumcision to have been to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.1 which implies that Covenant made with Abraham to have been a Covenant of Grace Object 2. But they Object again That the Seed here in the Covenant and that had Right to Circumcision the Seal of it was a Spiritual Seed and therefore Believers ought only to be Baptized To which I Answer Answ 1. The Seed in the Covenant denoted not only the Spiritual Seed but all the Natural Seed of Abraham all proceeding from his Loyns Gen. 17.23 13 14. Ishmael as well as Isaac was Circumcised and every Male Child Born of all the Strangers that were Proselyted to the Jewish Religion 2. The Natural Seed as Men belonged to the Visible Church of God and so were in a Capacity to receive that Seal and Mark distinguishing them from the Gentiles and Heathens which was only an Ordinance belonging to a Visible Church of which Men might Judge 3. The Uncircumcised were denyed many Common Priviledges yea it was a Scandal for the Jews to Associate with them or to joyn in Affinity with them which Priviledges could not be granted only to the Spiritual Seed Gen. 34.14 because it would be much injurious to Humane Society nor indeed could their Spiritual state or their being the Spiritual Seed of Abraham come under Mans Cognizance 4. This would crect Men as Judges of our Hearts and Spirituality which cannot be discerned by any Mortal Eye Jer. 17.9 10. 2 Tim. 2.19 but is only known to that Immortal God who tryeth the Heart whence proceeds that distinction of an Invisible Church consisting of true Believers only whom God alone knows and of a Visible Church containing all Christian Professors whose Members are discernable by Men. 5. If Baptism or Circumcision be only applicable to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham true Believers the Ordinances would soon be null as to their Administration because we know not then whom to Baptize not dare we say this Man or Child is a true Believer and one of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and the other is not and probably may thus admit those to the Ordinances who are Hypocrites while we reject those who are true Believers Cen. 17.22 Acts 8.13 18 23. There have been Persons Baptized and Circumcised who yet doubtless were not of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham witness the instances of Ishmael and Simon Magus 6. The Children the Anabaptists refuse may be the Spiritual Seed of Abraham for ought they or we know Jeremiah and St. John were Sanctified from the Womb and known by God to be his before they were Born and so before they could be under Mans Cognizance And who dare say that the Children they refuse are not partakers of the Holy Ghost or by God accounted as Believers What would be the Result of such Expressions Should those dye in their Infancy who dare say they are Damned Nay the Anabaptists grant them a Capability of Salvation and say all Children dying Children shall be saved and then surely they esteem them the Spiritual Seed of Abraham And if so the Children not Acting any thing to render them uncapable they might by their own Arguings be Subjects fit to be Baptized ARGUMENT III. Those who are within the Covenant of Grace may be Baptized But Children are within the Covenant of Grace Therefore they may be Baptized THE Major of this Argument is verified in that Baptism is now the Seal of the Covenant between God and his People as Circumcision was under the Law and therefore those who are thus in Covenant with God Col. 2.11 12. may be admitted to the Participation of its Seal as those were The Minor That Children are within the Covenant of Grace is thus undeniably confirmed 1. Gods Grace is Universal appertaining to Children as well as Adult Persons Christ dyed for them as well as Men and Women and they partake of his Benefits as well as the other and shall be saved hereafter as well as grown Persons 2. Children were ever in the Covenant with God and never rejected or cast out by Christ nor that Covenant Repealed and we have already proved the Covenant including Children as well as Parents to be a Covenant of Grace and so everlasting Therefore Children are still in the Covenant of Grace 3. They never Excluded themselves Rom. 11.20 because not actual Unbelievers and none but such were rejected therefore they are still in the Covenant 4. They have the Promises of the Covenant belonging to them Acts 2.37 38 39. and renewed to them with their Converted Parents which would not be unless Christ still comprehended them as well as their Parents within the Covenant 5. They are termed Holy though Born but of one Believing Parent And this Holiness cannot be understood of Legitimacy or Lawfulness of Birth as I have met with the Anabaptists Glossing as if
all which Benefits even of Heaven its self Children are capable 3. That the Baptized might be amongst Men owned and reputed as Christians and Members of Christs Church and this also Children are capable of whom it seems hard to account as Heathens when they are the Children of Christians ARGUMENT XIII Whom the Church of Christ hath ever received to Baptism may still be Baptized But the Church of Christ hath ever received Children to Baptism Therefore Children may be Baptized AS for the Church of God among the Jews it is evident that they received Children to Circumcision to which Baptism succeeds Nor hath the Church of Christ since its Institution ever denyed Children Baptism as will appear 1. In that for many hundreds of Years the Question was not moved Walkers Modest Plea p. 219. to 254. Walkers Doct. of Baptism p. 118. nor the Point doubted of as to its Lawfulness And indeed there was little Reason for such a doubt considering that Children were Circumcised under the Law and so admitted into Covenant who were equally uncapable of that as our Children are now of Baptism nor was that Covenant Repealed of Children any where excluded it or our Priviledges by Christ infringed but rather enlarged 2. Harmony of Confession The Reformed Churches who have espoused Christs Doctrine most purely have unanimously Practised it as their several Confessions attest And in our Nation in our Saxon King Ina's time Walkers Doctrine of Baptism p. 126. about 692 Year of Christ a Child was to be Baptized within Thirty days under pain of the Forfeiture of Thirty shillings 3. In the series of Scriptures History and the Practice of the Church what concerneth the Baptizing of Believers and Sinners Confessing their sins hath respect to those Adult Persons Converted from Judaism or Gentilism when the Church was first Constituting And in all Ages those who were brought up unbaptized through their Parents or others Negligence or contempt of the Ordinance Order for Baptism of those of Riper Years or are Converted to Christianity have given account of their Faith and still do in the Practice of our Church before they are Baptized But after a Church is Constituted and Persons Converted those thus in a Constituted Church had their Children ever esteemed capable of being admitted to Baptism 4. The deferring of Baptism amongst the Ancients was not from their Questioning the Lawfulness of Infant Baptism Walkers Modest Plea in Preface but from several Opinions they had about the Efficacy of Baptism as to the Pardon of Sins by it and the danger of sinning after it So that these Opinions whereof some might be erroneous cannot take away what was justly and Lawfully Practised by Gods People before Christ Walker's Modest Plea p. 219. to 254. and even from the * Philpot the Martyr Fox Acts v. 3. 607 608 609 at large Apostles time since Christ Therefore not only from Scripture and Reason but from good Antiquity Children are Lawfully Baptized This Argument drawn from Antiquity and the Practice of the Church of Christ for so many Centuries so universally by all true Christian Churches by Reformed as well as Popish Though it hath not so great force with the Vulgar who are incapable of the Rational deduction of its Lawfulness from this Practice yet to the Judicious Christian it prevails much the Practice being no ways opposite to but agreeing with Scripture easily deduced from it the receiving of the Practice by the Apostles implies its Practice in Christians and from Him and Them hath it been received and retained in the Church to our days and will be while Christ hath a Church upon Earth ARGUMENT XIV That Doctrine which introduceth many unchristian Consequences is erroneous But the Doctrine of the Anti-pedobaptists introduceth many unchristian Consequences Therefore the Doctrine of the Anti-pedobaptists is erroneous Major THE Major Proposition must be undeniably true For that Doctrine that introduceth many or any unchristian Consequences must needs err from the Rule of Christianity Minor The Doctrine of the Anti-pedobaptists whereby they deny Baptism to Infants introduceth many unchristian Consequences as appears 1. It opposeth the whole current of Scripture nullifies many Scripture Promises and Priviledges and destroys the Covenant of Grace as the premised Pages manifest 2. It reduceth the World into Gentilism or Heathemsm again and makes Christs Church always gathering never gathered always instituting and never established 3. It excludes Children the Covenant of Grace and its Seals denies their Fellowship or Membership with Christ and his Church they owning no visible Church of Christ on Earth but their own Synagogues and esteem all us who are not of their way as Persons who are not visible Members of Christ whence we may easily guess their Charity and hopes of our Salvation 4. It introduceth genuinely a despair of Salvation of our Children for we cannot have any good grounds for the hopes of Salvation of those whom we think not to belong to the Covenant of Grace so as to be uncapable of its Seal out of the Church so as to be unfit for Baptism out of the way to Salvation so as to be no Disciples of Christ nor Believers which implies our esteeming them as Unbelievers whose end is eternal Misery And though they will not say so of our Children yet I am sure some of their Teachers have said so of themselves that we are no visible Members of Christs Church nor are in a visible way to Salvation 5. This Doctrine is injurious to Christ and renders him a kind of Impostor who hereby is made not a Mediator of a better Covenant than that with the Jews before him And while he Promiseth to admit the Gentiles to equal Priviledges through him to what the Jews had before him makes both the Jews and our Priviledges less by the excluding the Children of us and of all Converted Jews the Covenant and debarring them the Seal of it Baptism when as the Jews before their Conversion had their Children reckoned in the Covenant and received to its Seal Circumcision 6. It equals the Children of Christians with the Children of Turks and Heathens and then sure this Doctrine must be Erroneous The Form and Subject of Baptism being hitherto considered and the Christianity and Rationality of Infant Baptism declared together with the Anabaptists corruption in respect of the Form and the absurd Consequences of their Doctrine as to the subject of Baptism being detected I proceed to consider The Mode of Baptizing laid down by our Saviour Third Part of Text. and expressed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizing them whence the Anabaptists Plead solely for dipping and account that no Baptism which is not so performed And our Church admits indifferently of either dipping or sprinkling I shall therefore shew 1. The Indifferency and Lawfulness of each Mode in Baptism 2. The unreasonableness of that Absolute necessity of that dipping the Anabaptists have espoused 3. The Reasonableness of
made it a breach of the Sixth Commandment Now since Christ hath Commanded no such Circumstance which is so indecent and may prove so injurious to our Bodies they are very blame-worthy to use it and the Church of Christ may prudently omit it 6. Wills against Danvers p. 260. Plunging or dipping the Person Baptized over Head and Ears renders him uncapable of understanding what is done and said for some time stupifies or amazeth the Person and hinders his knowing either the Person Administring or the Sacrament Administred as Experience may attest Now certainly Christ would have his Ordinances performed by an external Administration wherein the Subject might be in the nearest capacity of understanding the ends and actions of it and would not limit it to such a Mode that is so injurious to the internal and external senses of the Person under its Administration 7. We cannot reasonably think that the Apostles did dip all they Baptized because it was a thing of great Labour if not impossible for one Man to plunge in one day Three Thousand Persons as we find St. Peter Baptized Acts 2.41 So that I cannot apprehend what Reasons can be offered to shew the absolute necessity of Dipping in Baptizing and I know I may say they have no Scripture Precept for it Therefore I presume to conclude That Dipping is not absolutely necessary in the Administration of Baptism but it may be rightly performed though not by dipping There remains that I shew the Lawfulness and Resonableness of Baptizing by sprinkling 3. Sprinkling Lawful Which I shall thus do 1. Sprinkling is equally with Dipping signified by the word in which our Saviour expressed the manner of the Administration of this Ordinance Wills against Danvers p. 254. Walkers Doctrine of Bapt. c. 4. p. 16. Dan. 4.3 Baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea and more congruous with its genuine signification than dipping For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a derivative can admit of no larger signification than its Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we find in the History of Nebuchadnezzar when like a Beast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 70 renders it He was wet with the Dew of Heaven as our English Translates it Nor can we think he was prunged over Head or dipped in the Rain or Dew but rather it seems more Rational to think that the Dew did besprinkle him 2. This Represents the Ends of Baptism as well as dipping Acts 2.5 6 7. The pouring out of the Holy Ghost was by effusion on not by the immersion of the Subject The Blood of Christ is applyed to us by the expression of sprinkling Heb. 9.13 Heb. 12.24 Heb. 10.22 Walkers Doct. of Baptism c. 9. Exod. 12 and the end of being Buried with Christ hath already been proved answered in our being sprinkled 3. Texts of Analogy confirm its Rationality wherein the Type under the Law and the thing Typified under the Gospel by Baptism are declared by sprinkling 4. There is no Vertue or Efficacy to be placed in the Element more largely Administred to confer Grace or oblige us But sprinkling as well as dipping being a submission to the Element equally Lawful by Christs Command it is equally officacious and significant 5. Sprinkling renders the Sacrament capable of being Administred at all times in all places without that indecency and danger dipping as I have proved is guilty of 6. The Church of Christ was never confined to that Mode of dipping Walkers Doct. of Baptism c. 10. p. 74. to 158 but had several ways of Baptizing dipping or sprinkling Whereby may appear the freedom of the Church of Christ in the indifferent use of dipping or sprinkling and the Practice of our Church may be seen agreeable with other Christian Churches So that the Anabaptists extreamly err in accounting us as unbaptized and in nullifying our Ordinance of Baptism because not Administred by dipping which is not so absolutely necessary in the Administration of it but that sprinkling may be Lawfully used as I have endeavoured to prove Obj. 1 But they Object first That our Saviour is said when he went to be Baptized to go to Jordan and after Baptism to go up out of the Water which implies his being dipt in the Water To which I Answer Answ 1. Christs going to Jordan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Jordan Mat. 3.13 declares not his going into the River but as it is Translated to the River 2. His ascent after Baptism is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Water but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as from the Water which doth not at all infer his being in the Water But since the Rivers are in Valleys a Person going to the River may well be said as Christ is said to go down to the River And that other trite place Objected against us concerning Philip and the Eunuch Acts 8.38 which is Translated they both went down into the Water is expressed thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they both went down to the Water the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying ad to as well as into and so it respects rather the Mountainous place they went down to the Water-side from than their going into the Water And so Christs ascent after Baptism up out of the Water being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than his going up from the Water-side 3. Though we grant Christ and the Eunuch did go into the Water yet cannot it thence be inferred that they were Baptized by dipping whereof there is not one Syllable in the Text nor any other place of Sacred Writ nor any thing to favour such an Opinion And to deduce such a Consequence from the Text Christ and the Eunuch went into the Water at their Baptizing therefore they were dipped or plunged over Head and Ears as it is groundless so is a far more remote and dis-ingenuous Consequence than our most remote Conclusions for Infant Baptism Obj. 2 But they Object again that St. John Baptized in Enon near Salim John 3.23 and the Reason is given because there was much Water there To which I Answer Answ 1. St. John's determining a place for Baptism was respecting the Commodiousness for the new Converts who might come thither as to a place appointed for that purpose 2. There being much Water there made it a fit place for the Baptizing the Numerous Company of Converts resorting thither to be Baptized 3. This doth not infer their being dipt and plunged in their being Baptized there Wilson's Christian Dictionary on Enon Heylin's Cosmog in loc for Enon in its signification denotes but a little Fountain and being near the River Jordan it is said to have much Water by reason of the scarcity of that Element in that Countrey part of Jordan its self being usually dry in Summer time and Jordan its self that Famous River was not Navigably deep And the Water by Enon is by others accounted as a little Foord over which one might stride
the Sacrament of Baptism nor doth Scripture afford any tittle against it Therefore surely it may be Lawfully Practised Enq. 2 If Children be received to Baptism why are they not also received to the Lords Supper I Answer Answ 1. The Children of the Jews were admitted to Circumcision but not to the Passeover 2. Children though capable of having Baptism Administred to them yet are not capable of Manducation or eating Bread 3. Baptism precedes the Lords Supper as Regeneration doth our growth in Grace and in a Natural state a Child is first Born before he can be Nourished externally in order to his Growth 4. Though Children are capable of Baptism and the Sealing the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace to them thereby yet are they not capable of performing the Duties requisite to be Acted by any Communicant as self-examination and discerning the Lords Body Enq. 3 If Infants are capable of being engaged in Covenant with God by Baptism what need have they of God-fathers and God-mothers Answ 1. I Answer The Jews had at the Circumcision of their Children several Persons by Godwin Antiq. lib. 6. Buxtorf Jud. Syn. c. 2. p. 82. Gen. 17. Isa 8.25 Luke 1.58 Platina in vita Hygini Isaackson Chr. An. 153. as Witnesses to Testifie the Childs Circumcision and thereby its Reception as a Member of Gods Church and to remind the Child Circumcised when it came at Age of what a Covenant it was concerned in between God and its Soul 2. We find this Practice Recorded in Scripture as Witnesses at the first Institution of Circumcision and afterwards continued even to the Circumcision of St. John 3. The rise of God-fathers and God-mothers in the Christian Church was taken from the Practice of the Jews before Christ and was of an early Institution Especially Eyginus Bishop of Rome about 153 Years after Christ who considering the frequent Persecutions attending the Church of Christ whereby the Christian Parents often were taken away and the Children brought up in Heathen Idolatry or Jewish Superstition did Prudently order in the Church Persons to be engaged at Baptism with the Parents to take care of the Childs Education that if the Natural Parents dyed or were taken away by Persecution or else if they Apostatized from the Faith or were Ignorant and could not or wicked and would not bring up the Child in the Principles and Practice of the true Religion these might endeavour their being so Educated that Christianity might be propagated and Children brought up in the fear of God 4. Nor is this contrary to Gods pleasure Ephes 6.1 Deut. 29.10 11. Deut. 6.6 Gen. 18.19 Josh 24.15 who Commands and Commends the Parents and Friends engaging their Children in Covenant with him yea their Saves and Servant were to be engaged by them to be God Servants And we find Godly Parents and Masters Practising this Duty in their Families in their several Ages 5. Children are in the Power of their Parents or Guardians to engage in Civil Contracts and to be Invested with any Priviledge or Estate Therefore our Churches Prudence is Commendable in taking care that with the Child Baptized there should be Persons who should stand in the behalf of the Child engaged to God and the Church of Christ 1. As Witnesses to take notice of the Childs Reception into the Church as a Member of it and to Witness to the Child the tenor of that Covenant it was engaged in when it grows up and that thereby it stands obliged to be a true Christian And also to satisfie the Child that it hath been Baptized and may proceed to other Ordinances 2. As Sureties to engage as much as in them lies to see the Child brought up Vertuously to lead a Godly and a Christian Life in Principle and Practice 3. As God-fathers and God-mothers to engage themselves as it were to God and for his sake and cause to endeavour his Religion may be promoted in the Pious Education of those Children that the succeeding Age as well as the present may serve him 6. Sureties God-fathers and God-mothers are now as necessary as ever for though through Gods goodness we are not under Persecution for the Cause of Christ yet the sad Schisms and Divisions amongst us in Principles and the lamentable Debauchery and Profanenets in Practice of Professing Christians plead it necessary to retain this Commendable Order of our Church and they call aloud on all who stand thus engaged to God and the Church for any Child or Persons Education that they speedily and diligently labour after a discharge of their Duties in a diligent endeavour that those they are engaged for may be reclaimed from Impiety to Holiness and reduced from Error and Heresie to the true Faith For the neglect of those who are thus engaged renders the Order though it be in it self so good to be accounted as a meer Ceremony and as a burdensome Circumstance rather to be laid aside than continued But were the Persons engaged for Children thus Conscientious in the discharge of that great Trust they have undertaken the great good that would thence flow to the Church of Christ would make even its Enemies to be in Love with this Order and Constitution Enq. 4 Are Infants Obliged to perform that Covenant wherein they were by Baptism engaged since it was not their act but the act of other Persons in their behalf to which they gave no Consent Answ I Answer Yes They are obliged to perform it and that for these Reasons 1. Nothing was then engaged but what is Christian and Reasonable to be done 1 Pet. 5.8 Tit. 2.11 1 Pet. 2.11 1 John 5 4. If we would be Happy we must be Holy which is the sum of that Covenant then entred for Holiness will engage our Mortifying the Flesh Crucifying the World and Renouncing the Devil and all his Works So that these Duties of our Baptismal Vow are Commanded by God in Scripture as well as their observance is engaged by us in Baptism 2. Every one hath care of his own Soul and therefore what was in our Childhood engaged for 〈…〉 and every of us when we come to Years of 〈…〉 standing and retain the Christian Religion 2 Tim. 2.19 Tit. 2.14 are obliged to perform and we oguht to endeavour it if we expect Salvation nothing being promised but what our Religion obligeth to A ceasing from sin and a living the Life of Godliness And here how may the desires of all Christians be for the Christian Practice of that Solemn Ordinance of Confirmation of Persons of Ripe Years That they being instructed in the Vow of Baptism engaged in their Childhood may Publickly in the Congregation own that Religion they were Baptized into and be Solemnly in their own Persons engaged to the performance of it This certainly would much dis-engage the engaged God-fathers and Mothers and much Oblige the Catecheumen to abstain from all sin and to perform all Duties when as every Person in the Congregation is a several Witness of his Solemn Engagement it will shame him out of Sin nor will he dare wilfully to act contrary to the Gospel-Rules But 3. A Child is frequently obliged in Civil Contracts to perform what the Parent or Guardian engaged for it as in a Bond Lease or the like or else he is lyable to the Law and debarred from receiving any Profit or Advantage by any such Contract made for him So in Spirituals The Child is doubtless engaged by the Covenant made in his Name and behalf in Baptism to be Holy or else he will be deprived of the Benefits of this Covenant which is Eternal Happiness and be exposed to the Law and Curse of God for as the Commands of God obliging the Parents to engage their Children in Covenant with God are not impertinent So since the Duties they were then engaged in are but what God by Precept to the Children when at Age expects from them Their non-performance of that Covenant incurs Gods Anger and Forfeits Heaven and Happiness 〈◊〉 If they Labour not to perform the Duties of 〈◊〉 Covenant which is their Reasonable Service their Parents and Friends Care for the engaging them in Covenant with God and their devoting of them to God and their Labour in Educating them in true Christianity will Witness against them aggravate their Sin and add to their Torment FINIS