type unto the Jews in times of the Law and what is that to the businesse Baptisme is a Type to Christians under the Gospel They that have argued so long against Infant-Baptisme from this reason that they are uncapable of understanding its mystery could never yet give a reason why the knowledge of the mystery of Baptisme is necessary to make a subject capable of it when the knowledge of the mystery of Circumcision was not necessary to make the subject capable of it Tell me what thing made Infants then capable of circumcision and then I 'le tell thee and thou mayest satisfie thy selfe that the same thing makes Infants capable of Baptisme now Their being such as God had vouchsafed to take together with their Parents into Covenant with himselfe was that which made them capable of Circumcision as appears in Gen. 17.7 8 9 10. where they are commanded Therefore to be Circumcised because God had made a Covenant with them Now the same thing makes Children of Beleevers now capable of Baptisme But his third Answer is of all the fittest for such a man to give it is this 3. The P. G. Routed There was a Command for that of Circumcision c. O egregiously gifted Disputant Answer The Objection was if Infant-Baptisme be childish because the subjects are Children then Circumcision was also Childish which was commanded of God to this he answers Circumcision was commanded of God Can you beleeve that the spirituall gifts that these men pretend to are reall when as in the utmost improvement of their gifts they write such non-sence If they write thus how do you think will they speake when they come to handle difficult matters if they preach too without meditation or study as they boast But whereas he sayes The command is that which gives a capacity c. I shewed even now what it was that gave the Infants then a capacity of Circumcision from Gen. 17. The Command as Mr Marshall sayes well is the cause of the existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it They were therefore circumcised as before because taken into Covenant and so Church-members But enough of this let me away to his second Reason why Infant baptisme is childish which is as follows 2. The P. G. Routed It is Childish as relating to the Administrators c. in not understanding the command of Christ c. But how doth he make that good Answer why you must take his word for it He will call thousands of able judicious men ignorant that by his confidence you may think he is knowing and intelligent His next corrupt Assertion borders upon the same controversie touching Infant-baptisme 'T is this His third Error That none must be baptised till they come to perfect Age. YOu have this defended by him page 6. thus And is this such a strange thing with you who professe your selfe a Minister of the Gospel The P. G. Routed c. Was not Christ himselfe Baptised at thirty years of age the Eunuch by Philip Acts 8 And those of John c. Yea Answer and it may be strange for all that for what shadow of reason is there in it why none must be baptised till they come to perfect Age Is this good arguing Christ and the Eunuch c. were of perfect age when baptised therefore none but men of perfect age must be baptised Is not this as good an argument When Christ gave the Supper none were admitted but Apostles therefore none but Apostles may receive the Supper If he say there be other Scriptures that give not Apostles onely but all believers admittance unto the Supper I answer so there are other Scriptures that do authorize us to admit Children to baptisme Therefore he might have saved the labour of answering the Objection viz. That that was in the first Plantation of the Church c. For first we need not fly thither because what he urges concludes not at all the thing asserted by him He sayes None must be baptised but such as are of perfect age c. To prove it he urges that some that were of perfect age were then baptised which you know no way concludes that none but such must When any Anabaptist in England can prove that no Infants were baptised in the Apostles times then it may be we shall make use of that which he brings in as an Objection which if we doe we must intreat him to take a little better knowledge of the Objection and not mistake it so ignorantly as he seems to do in his Answer For the thing urged in the Objection is not That there was one rule for them in the infancy and another for us now If he did understand sense he would have seen it but that the same Scripture rule that was then delivered to the Churches directs us to a different course in gathering Churches and in Churches gathered which is very clear So that none need wonder why they heare of baptising growne persons then and Infants for the most part now The reason is because though when our work is as theirs was to gather Churches we baptise growne persons upon their Profession of the Christian Faith as they did and that most frequently yet when the Church is constituted we doe take in according to Christs appointment the Children of Beleevers in their infancy the which I shall speak more to by and by Pretious Souls you that love the appearing of the Lord Jesus I from mine heart owne the lowest appearances of Christ in his people I would not quench the smoaking flax for a world nor dare I despise the day of small things in any but when Ignorance doth so exalt it selfe yea even presuming to call the Spirit of Christ its Father as in these men give me leave to be zealous for your sakes that you may with the Church of Ephesus Revel 2.2 Try them which say they are Apostles or men sent and are not and finde them lyars But that I may follow my valiant Antagonist marching in the head of his victorious absurdities and impertinencies yet a little further in what he says more to this controversie page 8. I shall step over one or two particulars reserving the handling of them til afterwards and apply my selfe to the finishing of what I intend about Paedo-baptisme He undertakes in the eigth page to vindicate the Anabaptists in respect of another errour charged upon them viz. that they deny all consequences of Scripture c. to which he sayes You are mistaken man in this too The P. G. Routed they deny unnecessary and untrue consequences I beleeve indeed this is the opinion only of the weakest and simplest of them Answer and though the Pulpit Guard Routed be ignorant enough yet it seems he is not so ignorant as to deny necessary consequences drawne from Scripture I should have said nothing to this but for what followes Sayes he Your consequences are such
that is beyond all dispute 2. God never repealed the grant of this priviledge to infants If he ha's done it let me know where Can you think that a whole species or kind of persons should be cast out of the Church and Scripture be silent about it if the gift and grant of this priviledge be not repealed then it remaines to infants still But I shall prove the Negative thus If God hath revoked this mercifull grant and gift of Infants Church membership then it is either in mercy for their good or in judgement for their hurt But he hath neither revoked it in mercy for their good nor in judgement for their hurt This I shall prove in both parts 1. He hath not revoked it in judgement for their hurt Because many of them never broke Covenant with him either in their owne persons being in their infancy uncapable of actuall sinning or in their Parents by vertue of relation to whom they had a standing in the Church many thousands of whom were beleevers in the Apostles times Now God doth not cast away them that doe not cast away him for if he should then he himselfe would be the Covenant-breaker not man which would be blasphemous to conceive Therefore he ha's not revoked this gift of Church-member-ship as to infants in judgement for their hurt 2. He hath not done it in mercy for their good for then he would have granted to them some other mercy instead of it for it can be no mercy to take away a mercy as Church-member-ship is unlesse to give a greater in the room But there is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Church-member ship If there be then pray shew what it is If any should be so weak as to say Object That Christ comming in the flesh is a greater mercy given in the roome of Church-member-ship I answer 1. What a fond thing is it to conceive Answ 1 that Christ should succeed Church-member ship as a thing that was to be ended in him to any 2. I would faine know how infants while infants have Christ now more then infants had him then when they were admitted Church-members 3. The Church is the body of Christ and is it not absurd to say that Christ should break off infants from his body that he comming in the flesh may be a greater mercy to them what is that but to be a greater mercy then himselfe There is then no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Church-member-ship therefore it is not taken away in mercy neither and so by consequence not taken away at all Which way will you shift from this Argument Object If you say the Church-constitution whereof infants were members is taken downe and dissolved and a new set up whereof infants are no members I answer Answer 1. 1. Many yea most of the Jewes were broken off from the Church of God for their unbeliefe So that 't is true that individuall Church may be said to be dissolved even as also the Church of Smyrna Thyatira Laodicea and the rest of the Churches of Asia for the most part are also dissolved and taken downe but that the essence and nature of the Church is altered so as that theirs was not the same Church of God that ours is now is most contrary to plaine Scripture As Rom. 11.17 where wee read that all the change that was made was the breaking off of some branches of the Jewes and the grafting in of some of the Gentiles into the same Olive i. e. the same visible Church Againe the bringing in of the Gentiles is exprest by a breaking downe of the partition wall so making them one Church by letting in the Gentiles into the same Church that the Jewes were of before And when in a Vision Peter was taught the doctrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church Acts 10. we finde 't was not to be by making the Jewes uncleane but by cleansing the Gentiles to become clean as the Jewes were so that it is plain this is the same Church standing upon the same foundation of the Covenant that that did and therefore some infants are still invested with the priviledge of being members by the first grant and if Church-members then to be baptized 2. That all infants were not cast out of the Church under the Gospel is clear from Rom. 11.20 where 't is said that such branches as were broken off were broken off for their unbeliefe But the unbeliefe of some that did not beleeve could not cast out of the Church the children of the beleeving Jewes therefore they remained still in the Church How plaine is this I have driven this nail to the head and let him shake this truth that can I dare venture to let loose this single Argument to all the Anabaptists in the world and they will have somewhat to doe to answer it The other two Arguments with many more that might be brought prove infants Church members and therefore to be baptized for if infants be Holy as in the 1 Cor. 7.14 if of the Kingdom of God as in Mark 10.14 then to be admitted Church-members and so to be baptized There is not one cavil to be made against these but what is fully answered by Mr Baxter in his book of Infants Church-member-ship and therefore I shall say nothing to them here having brought one Argument to an head and one Argument is enough to prove one truth if there were no more But here you see how false it is that he sayes that our consequences to prove infant-baptisme are no better then such as he suggesteth All things are not true that such men dare speak yea and print too He that hath the impudence to print manifest falsehoods touching matters of fact upon hope of being beleeved by some that will not be at the pains to seek out the truth will you may suspect speak and write many more falsehoods in and about matters of faith But I will away to his fourth Errour His Fourth Error That God now reveals his will not onely by the written word but by Dreams and Visions more credited then the word THis he dares not so confidently to affirme as he doth the former I beleeve the prison where I have heard he lately was in London for his Heresies hath done him a little good in making him to speak warily sometimes in weighty matters though he thinks he may raile against honest men impunè yet no lesse then this doth he assert page 7. in these words The P. G. Routed If some doe hold this principle Is it strange and ridiculous unto you Hath not God formerly revealed truth to his people by Dreames and Revelations And dare you deny it now Is God limited Answer Here you see he affirmes that it should not be accounted a strange thing to hold the above mentioned Principle and he gives his reason for it God did once so reveale himselfe and he is not limited Now because
as these The P. G. Routed Baptisme is come in the roome of Circumcision Infants were circumcised therefore Infants must be baptised The Apostles baptised housholds there might be Children therefore Children may be baptised Children were brought to Christ therefore they may be baptised Goodly consequences Are these the consequences that are drawne out of Scripture to prove Infant-baptisme Answer Ha's not the Pulpit Guard Routed got a forehead of braffe that is able to tell the World such a falshood in Print 'T is true the first consequence hath been made use of by some in the proof of Infant-baptisme and it is so plaine and unquestionable a consequence that if he had the least graine of sound reason in him he could not have denied it Mark it he finds no fault with the Proposition Baptisme comes in the roome of Circumcision but denies the consequence that is drawne out of it Now come hither Babes and Sucklings and make good this against him let all the world judge whether if baptisme come in the room of Circumcision this be not a good consequence Infants were circumcised therefore Infants must be baptized You will easily see his folly in this exception if you note he denies the consequence not the Proposition on which 't is grounded As for the other two consequences did ever any of those that have written for Infant-baptisme argue after that manner But I think this man never shewed so much affection to truth or desire of information as to read the Arguments of those that have writ soundly for it if he had he would have found other consequences then such as he mentions Read the Arguments of Baxter Marshall Homes Featly and others or the Arguments of any one of them especially Mr Baxter and see Beloved Christians whether he goes not about to cheat you with his forgeries But to the particular consequences 1. They argue if he will have it so baptisme comes in the roome of circumcision Infants were circumcised therefore Infants must be baptised What hath he to say to this sayes he The Law and circumcision came by Moses The P. G. Routed but grace and truth and Gospel Ordinances came by Jesus Christ Answ 1. Answer See the ignorance of the great Text-man Did circumcision come by Moses Was it not instituted by God in a command given to Abraham long before Moses was borne But 't is like he remembred that he read the story of its institution in one of the five books of Moses and therefore thought Moses to be the Institutour of the same A pittifull mistake 2 The Ordinances that were appointed by Moses were they not Christs Ordinances as well as those appointed under the Gospel But Thirdly What is all this to the purpose doth this at all weaken the consequence If Moses as Christs servant did appoint Circumcision and Christ hath taken downe that and set up another Ordinance of the same end use and spirituall signification in the steed of it doth this hinder the consequence aforesaid yea doth it not above measure establish it O most strong conquering answers But as to the Second consequence did ever any body except such a Disputer as the P. G. Routed is argue as he suggesteth in the next place viz. Apostles baptized Housholds there might be children therefore children may be baptized Did ever any of our Patrons of Paedo-Baptisme reason so 'T is true some argue thus The Apostles baptized whole housholds therefore 't is probable there might be some children baptized then seeing there are few families in which are not some children None argue from hence but for the probability of the fact that t is probable some were baptized and is not such an inference tolerable Whereas he sayes We must beleeve there were no children in those families or if any there yet not Baptized because contrary to the knowne practise of the Apostles This is the simplest begging of the question that ever I met withall For that is the thing in controversie to say there were no children baptized in those families because t was contrary to the practise of the Apostles to baptise Children is idem per idem a proving a thing by it selfe Good Logick for But if this will not passe with the ordinary allowance of boldnesse and confidence you shall be accounted Antichristian and willfully blind for it be sure 3. Did ever any body argue children were brought to Christ therefore they may be baptised I beleeve he hopes some will adventure to credit him how falsely soever he speak or write Surely this man would make you beleeve there are but very slender Arguments to prove Infant-baptisme But I 'le tell you some of the consequents that we draw from Scripture they are such as these Those that are Church-members an to be baptised Arg. 1. Some Infants are Church-members therefore some infants are to be baptised Againe Those that belong to the Kingdom of God are to be baptised Arg. 2. But some Infants belong to the Kingdome of God Therefore some Infants are to be baptised Againe Such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy by separation to God Arg. 3. are to be baptised But some Infants are so Therefore c. Here are some of our consequences t◠prove Infant-baptisme that will make the ablest Anabaptists heart in England ak◠to with stand You have these and many such like Arguments enlarged upon and cleared from all cavils by severall abl◠men that have writ on this subject but especially by Mr. Baxter in his book o◠Infants Church-member ship who to my judgement ha's done best of any on this controversie I confesse there ha's been so much spoken and that so clearly and convincingly by others that for me to say any thing more will be but to light a candle to the Sun However I shall reason a little with you about the first argument driving home that nail to the head that he that can not read or get larger Treatises may have a sufficient hint in this short Tract to enable him to stop the mouthes of such as shall withstand the truth here in dispute And herein I shall tread in the steps of acute and judicious Mr Baxter for the most part 1. That all Church-members are to be baptised that I presume none will deny and therefore I shall take it for granted 2. That some Infants are to be admitted Church-members I prove by Mr Baxters Argument thus If by the mercifull gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some Infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church then some Infants are to be so admitted still But by the mercifull gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some Infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church Therefore They are so to be admitted still Examine this well 1. That some infants by Gods gift and appointment were once admitted Church-members I hope will be granted they were members of the Church of the Jewes