Discipline which Christ ordained to continue in all Churches to the end of the World But the Church of England does believe hold and maintain such Things as are evidently and actually destructive of that Christian Liberty wherewith Christ hath made his Churches free and of that sacred Baptism and holy Discipline which Christ ordained to continue in all Churches to the end of the World Ergo It is lawful just and needful to maintain a prudent and friendly Separation from the Church of England in her present Parochial Constitution Supposing the Major is not to be denied by any Christian we shall endeavour to make good the Minor To begin with Sacred Baptism It is evident from the Scripture and partly from the Confession of the Church of England that the Things prerequisite to Baptism on the part of every one who is to be joined with the Church Militant or to be baptized are these 1. They ought to have the Gospel preached or some way made known to them 2. To believe the Gospel 3. To repent of Sin And 4. Willingly to put on Christ in Baptism Or to express it in short They are first to be dead with Christ and then secondly to be buried with Christ by Baptism Now that the Church of England does hold such Things as are evidently and actually destructive of this Baptism may in our Judgment be thus proved 1. She believes holds and does teach others to hold That all or the very most of her Church-Members are regenerate without hearing the Word of God without Faith without Repentance or any Knowledg of God and so believes what neither we nor any Body else can understand to be true and errs in Faith 2. Yet she does not believe that her Members are regenerate at all till she cross or sprinkle them with Water neither does she know because she has no ground to believe that Infants are thereby made anew so as to become the Children of God and Heirs of Heaven and believing this without possibility ordinarily to know it to be true she errs in Faith 3. She believes and maintains that those ought to be baptized whom she knows do not cannot believe nor repent nor in any measure know God nor any Duty of Religion and herein she errs as we conceive concerning the Faith 4. She believes and maintains that Sponsors do believe and repent for Infants or that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sponsors and believing these things and teaching her Youth to believe them without any ground from the Word of God she believes amiss or errs in Faith 5. She holds that Persons may lawfully be baptized when they are asleep and does actually pretend to baptize Infants when they are asleep which we think verily must needs be a very great Error both in Faith and Practice 6. She believes holds and maintains that Crossing or Sprinkling is a lawful way of Baptizing when indeed it is no Baptizing at all Insomuch as those that use that Mode dare not speak as they act saying I sprinkle thee in the Name c. their Conscience bearing them witness that the sacred Act of baptizing in the Name c. cannot be expressed by the word Sprinkling They therefore believing what they know is not true in this matter must needs err in Faith as well as in their Practice And this Error has in a manner destroyed the way of Baptizing used by John Baptist Christ and his Apostles 7. Thus tho we grant that the Church of England is no less zealous for the Doctrine of Baptism than our selves yet it is apparent to us that she hath accidentally lost this holy Ordinance both in respect of the Subject and Manner of it and in the due Use and End of it which was not appointed nor fitted to receive new-boru Infants into the Church Militant And by this unwarrantable Change she has defaced the State and lost the Praise of a true Church 1 Cor. 11. 2. because she has not kept this Ordinance as it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles but hath rather suppressed it and much oppressed those that labour to restore it to its due Use and Practice in all Churches which is a great Aggravation of all these her Errors in Faith and Practice concerning Sacred Baptism SECT III. Concerning Discipline WHat manner of Discipline the Church of Christ ought to observe is sufficiently declared Matth. 18. 1 Cor 5. 2 Thess 3. Tit. 3. and other places And it is very well expressed by a Minister of the Church of England in his Defâ—nce of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England in these Words The manner of proceeding in Excommunication is first by gentle Admonition and that once or twice given with the Spirit of Meekness even as a Brother if the Fault be not notoriously known and next by open Reprehension afterward by publick Sentence of the Church to put him from the Company of the Faithful to deliver him to Satan to denounce him an Heathen and a Publican if no Admonition will serve and the Crimes and Persons be very offensive Thus he And to this Discipline we can heartily subscribe it being indeed the very same which is religiously observed by the Baptized Believers in this Age and Nation But where now shall this Discipline be found in the Church of England Does any one Assembly or Court of the Church of England observe it Or does she not practise that in her Courts which is too evidently destructive of it For so far as we can understand instead of this brotherly Admonition Men are clandestinely presented and accused and often excommunicated for they know not what What Man is now taught or bound by any Order of the Church of England that in case his Brother trespass against him by defaming his Reputation offering Injury to his Person or by wronging him in his Substance to take that brotherly Course prescribed to all Christians Mat. 18. Or if he would take this Course what Congregation is empowred or allowed to hear or determine the Strife as Sin is in such cases committed against God We see not how it is possible for the Offended to do his Duty in an orderly way to the Offender if he go about it he shall probably be derided both by Teacher and People So far is he from obtaining Justice against the Offender in any Congregation of the Church of England because the ancient Discipline is an unknown thing to the People generally And for want of this Christian Government are Men continually exposed to Suits and Troubles in Courts of Law wherein the Poor can have small Help as it is written Eccles 5. 8. old Translation If thou seest the Poor to be oppressed marvel not for one great Man keepeth touch with another and the mighty Men are in Authority over the Poor 3. But that which is more grievous We do not see that open Prophaneness can be met with or suppressed by your Discipline For suppose a Man be
be restrain'd from Seditious Practices as well as others and we do by as good Right think it unlawful for us to be so restrained We hope our Legislators did not intend at all to exalt their Authority against the Lord whose Power is above all But yet when these Laws come to be executed upon good Men by the Industry of mercenary Fellows meerly for worshipping God then are they turned into Snares to the ruin of the Innocent and dishonour of that Power which gave them being And all this falls out for want of better provision in the said Laws to convict Men of Sedition than only because they were observ'd to preach or pray 4. Wherefore being fully satisfied that our Assemblies are true Church-Assemblies and that upon the strictest enquiry we are able to make into the due Nature and Order of such Assemblies we conceive our selves indispensibly bound by the Word of God the Examples of the first and best Churches and the Tie of Conscience as regulated by a sincere Love of Religion to hold fast the Profession of our Faith without wavering or changing by reason of the Change of Times or Man's Laws Being also rationally persuaded that the more publick and free Men are to serve the Lord the less danger of Sedition Wherefore with innocent Hearts and pure Hands as to any Design of Sedition in the strength of Christ we will keep his Way and let the Lord do with us as seemeth him good SECT V. Of the Baptized Believers Call to Christianity and to the Work of the Ministry WHen our Saviour commanded his Apostles to teach all Nations and to preach the Gospel to every Creature We do not doubt but their performance of this his gracious Will may truly be said to be the calling of the Gentiles or Nations And that Men enjoy a great Mercy for which they ought to be very thankful to be born in a Nation to whom the Gospel has been preached and received by their Progenitors And that it is also a great Blessing to be born under the Government of Christian Princes and we believe we ought to love and honour our Nation and the Rulers of it upon this very account as well as for the Obligation of Nature and Laws viz. because they assert the Interest of Christ Jesus in general as well as we Nor is it our Business to destroy the State of Christianity received in any Nation nor at all to despise the Ministry that conscientiously upholds it but only to labour that Christianity may be delivered from the Errors that have encumbred it by reason of the change of Governments and Interests or Corruptions of the Ages past And in this Consideration as we look upon our Nation to be a Christian Nation so we count our selves much more happy in being Members of a Nation that owns the true God Christ Jesus to be the Saviour of the World the Scriptures to be holy and true and that Faith and Holiness is the way to true Blessedness than to have been of any other Nation whatsoever But yet for all this there is a great Truth in the Words of Tertullian i. e. We are not born but made Christians And therefore we do not think that our meer Birth of Christian Parents does qualify us or give us an actual Right to Christ's Ordinances but to this end we believe and know that every Person ought to have the Gospel preached or some way made known to them and that a work of real Grace or the new Birth at least by a solemn Profession must precede our Baptismal Covenant to this the Scriptures give full consent John 1. 12 13. 2 Cor. 5. 17. Eph. 2. 10. 1 Pet. 1. 23. And thus we and ours so many of them as the Lord our God does call by the preaching of the Gospel are actually incorporate with the Church of Christ Militant and engaged thenceforth in the high and holy Calling and actual Profession of the Christian Religion 2. But now Whether we have any lawful Call to the work of the Ministry is the business to be a little considered partly for that some of our late Persecutors were pleased to suggest the contrary and partly to put our selves upon the strictest Trial even in this case where we are supposed to be the most deficient The Questions in this case to be resolved are 1. Whether a succession of Ordination from Man to Man down from some of the Apostles be absolutely necessary to a due Call to the Ministry or 2. Whether the same Means that is of Authority sufficient to make Men Christians be not also sufficient to make Ministers In answer to these Questions we shall do little more than offer what we have formerly written upon this Subject And tho the Papists are the Men who stand most stifly for Succession as necessary yet of late we find our Friends of the Church of England looking that way as if they would justify their Ordination in a successive Line from Man to Man through the Papacy which thing is disclaimed by Dr. Luther with the greatest vehemency in these words Whoso loveth Christ ought to endure any thing rather than to be ordained by the Papists because in their Ordinations all things are carried with such wicked preposterousness that if they were not mad and blind they would perceive how they mock God to his Face being stricken with an universal blindness they do not so much as know the Word of God specially the Bishops who ordain Let me be counted a Fool a Knave a Lyer if there be any one of them ordain'd by them who dare say that at such time as he received Orders he was commanded to dispense the Mysteries of Christ or to teach the Gospel but they ordain Sacrificers of the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass and to hear Confessions c. Thus far Luther And the Oath which they take at their Ordination as set down by Mr. Bullinger is very un-gospel-like the sum of it is in these Words That the Priest will be a true Subject to the Pope obey the Decrees of the Fathers and of the Church i. e. the Roman Church and that he will persecute Hereticks Beza censures all Ordination taken from the Papists Let us hear him speak What ordinary Vocation is that which you say the first Reformers had excepting some few of them is it not the Pall Shall we think then that the Popish Orders are valid in which there is not any preceding enquiry into manners No such Enquiry or Procedure as is inviolably to be made or observed by Divine Right in Elections and Ordinations Shall we think so highly of their Ordinations that as often as any false Bishops are converted to true Christianity immediately all the Filth Uncleanness and Impurity collated is washed away Nay but with what Face or Conscience will he be able to forsake Popery and not abjure his irregular Ordination or if he do abjure it how can he by virtue thereof claim Authority to
in all Humility prostrate my self at his Royal Feet with this humble Supplication That it would graciously please his Majesty according to his wonted Goodness and Princely Clemency to consider and pity the distressed condition of many of his faithful Subjects who dissent from the Church of England in the case of Infant-Baptism and some other Ceremonies and cannot in Conscience to God conform to them nor deny the exercise of their Religion of which they are convinced and persuaded to be according to the Will of God O let our Lord the King consider that this is the greatest strait that any honest Christian can be put upon either to deny what he believes to be true or profess that to be true which he believes to be otherwise O let the God of Heaven be always his Majesties Chief Counsellour That by his direction he may rightly distinguish between those that are harmless in his Realm and such as have abused his Kindnesses which have been very great and thankfully to be remembred and that the present Severities against the Innocent may be abated and removed lest they be made miserable in their Native Countrey God Almighty bless the King c. FINIS The SECOND PART of the APOLOGY FOR THE Baptized Believers Wherein the GROUNDS of INFANT-BAPTISM Are REVIEWED In ANSWER to Fourteen ARGUMENTS delivered by Mr. Nathaniel Taylor M. A. in a SERMON on Matth. 28. 19. entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therewithal The Reasons of the Separation of the Baptized Believers from the Pedobaptists modestly propounded Upon the occasion of their great and long-continued Sufferings By T. Grantham a Servant of Christ LONDON Printed for the Author 1684. AN APOLOGY FOR THE Baptized Believers c. PRESENTED To all Pious and Well-disposed Christians in the Church of ENGLAND SECT I. Honoured and Beloved Brethren TO prevent a Mistake and to remove an Aspersion too frequently cast upon us be pleased to know that tho we differ from you and others in some things relating to the Constitution and Government of a true Church yet we do not therefore arrogate to our selves alone the Christian Name nor exalt our selves in our Imaginations above others but do believe and hope that the Number of the saved Ones will be gathered out of all sorts of Christians who heartily love God and our Lord Jesus Christ and live holily and charitably among Men tho they be diversified in respect of Ceremonies by reason of the Place and Government where they live Yea we have Charity for all Men who are faithful to the Means of Grace afforded them how small soever knowing that our God delights in Mercy and does not exact the utmost Farthing of any Man But for all this as it is certain there hath been abundance of Errors introduced among Christians so it has pleased God to raise up a People still to testify against them the Memories of whom are blessed tho they were frequently persecuted So we believe it a Duty incumbent upon us to bear our Testimony to what Truth we know and not to partake with any in their By-Paths in Life or Religion and yet endeavour as much as in us lieth after Unity and Concord with all that fear God and own the Christian Profession To which purpose we have humbly proposed what we thought concern'd us in order to a better Understanding and Compliance in our Friendly Epistle to the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England published some Years ago but has not been publickly taken notice of till lately one Mr. Taylor a Person of Worth for his Integrity and Zeal for the Protestant Interest and for his gentle Disposition towards such as fear God tho differing from him in the Case of Ceremonies It hath pleased him I say to take notice of our said Epistle and to offer something in order to a Composure of Differences which I confess with him to be a thing greatly to be desired But then he is pleased to shew us nothing of Mitigation or Hopes of the removal of the Things which hath occasioned our Disunion but does rather wholly charge the Cause of Division upon us and supposes our Difference about Baptism to be the chief Cause of our dissenting from the Church of England But tho this is indeed a matter of great Importance because true Baptism is antecedent to Church-Communion yet that which is greater in our Judgment is that open Prophaneness which God knows reigns and rages in the Church of England and therewithal the utter Neglect of Discipline to reform those Iniquities and also that persecuting Spirit which appears even in too many of the Guides of the Church by whose Cruelty our Sufferings have been much augmented For these Causes we have thought our selves concerned to make this our Christian Apology in which we crave leave to use that Freedom of Speech which the Matters depending do require And yet seeing we must acknowledg that we are not infallible as neither does the Church of England pretend so to be we shall speak under Correction and by the help of God with resolution to submit to a clear Conviction if indeed it shall appear that the Things wherein we dissent are justifiable on the part of the Church of England but till this be done it would be Hypocrisy and Baseness in us to violate our Consciences in Things pertaining to Religion to obtain Favour from Men for if we should so please Men we should not be the Servants of Christ Gal. 1. 10. And we do the 〈◊〉 desire to be heard at this time partly for that Mr. Taylor is pleased to impute Folly to us in separating from the Church of England because we allow of the most of the Thirty Nine Articles but especially being thereunto required by some of Eminency and great Authority in the Church of England who also told us That unless we could shew that the Church of England does hold some Error in point of Faith or that she does practise something in her Religion which is sinful we cannot justify our Separation from her And whether we be able on this wise to vindicate our present Separation is the Business which we pray may be seriously considered SECT II. A brief Account of the Reasons why the Baptized Believers cannot conform to the Ceremonies of the Church of England REserving all due Honour to the Church of England so far as she holds the Truth in the Thirty Nine Articles and as she is a good Fortress against much Popish Superstition and Idolatry we shall humbly make our Objections in three Particulars 1. Concerning Infant-Baptism 2. Concerning her Discipline 3. Concerning her Imposing of Ceremonies From all which we think we may safely argue thus It is lawful just and needful to maintain a prudent and friendly Separation from such a Church as does believe hold and maintain such Things as are evidently and actually destructive of that Christian Liberty wherewith Christ hath made his Churches free and of that sacred Baptism and holy
The Loyal Baptist OR AN APOLOGY FOR THE BAPTIZED BELIEVERS CONTAINING I. His humble Resolution to be a constant Conformist to the Scriptures and especially in these four great Duties viz. 1. To Honour all Men. 2. To Love the Brotherhood 3. To Fear God 4. To Honour the King According to 1 Peter 2. 17. II. His unfeigned endeavour for Unity in the Truth with the Church of England wherein is shewed what 〈◊〉 a distinction in Communion between the Parochial 〈…〉 those of the Baptized Believers Wherein fourteen 〈◊〉 lately published by Mr. N. T. M. A. in defence of Infant-Baptism are considered and answered III. His Plea for Church-Assemblies to be permitted to the Baptized Believers To which purpose is declared IV. The Nature of his Call to Christianity and to the work of the Ministry OCCASIONED By the great and long continued Sufferings of the Baptized Believers in this Nation BY THOMAS GRANTHAM a Servant of Christ Job 21. 4. As for me is my complaint to 〈◊〉 And if it were so why should not my Spirit be troubled Causabon's Birth of Heresy c. 3. p. 11. In all Ages Men have never been contented with the true Adoration instituted by God But instead of external Signs instituted by God they have forged and brought in their own Inventions London Printed for the Author and are to be Sold by Tho. Fabian at the Bible in St. Paul's Church-yard 1684. The Loyal Baptist OR AN APOLOGY FOR THE BAPTIZED BELIEVERS BEING ALSO An Earnest Persuasive to them and all Christians to study to be Quiet and do their own Business in these important Particulars VIZ. I. To Honour all Men. II. To Love the Brotherhood III. To Fear God IV. To Honour the King Delivered in two Sermons upon 1 Pet. 2. 17. By THOMAS GRANTHAM a Servant of Christ My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change Prov. 24. 21. But whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judg ye Acts 4. 19. London Printed for the Author and are to be Sold by Tho. Fabian at the Bible in St. Paul's Church-yard 1674. To all the Baptized Believers in England c. Grace and Peace through Christ our Lord be multiplied THE great Apostle St. Paul having taught the Christian Churches in Creet their Duties towards God and towards Caesar and leaving Titus a Messenger of the Churches behind him there very strictly warns him to put them in mind of their Subjection to Principalities and Powers and to obey Magistrates Knowing how impossible it would be to propagate the Profession of Christianity if Christians did not adorn their Profession with a meek and harmless Conversation towards all Men and especially by their Obedience to those in Authority And considering the manifold Temptations that attend Christians in these days upon that account I thought it my Duty as one that has obtained Mercy to be faithful to do my best in giving warning to my Brethren lest any of them should be ensnared with ill Principles or specious Pretences to speak or do any thing that may be inconsistent with Gospel-Rules either in things relating more immediately to Almighty God or to the King's Majesty and those that are in Authority under him Such heady Persons there were in the Apostle's Days and therefore the less strange if now some such be found in the best of Churches as are not afraid to speak Evil of Dignities All Ages and sorts of Christians have been troubled with such Evil-Workers And as it hath been the care of faithful Men all along to protest against them that the Truth which such Wretches only prophane by their Profession of it might not be worse thought of because of them So let it be our care to bear a faithful Testimony against all such in these Days And I beseech you Brethren whom God hath made as Guides to the rest that you give all diligence to teach and instruct those under your Charge in the Duties which pertain to every state of Life as well as in things which pertain to the Worship of our Gracious God For these are the things which become sound Doctrine and of these our Obedience to Magistrates is not the least I commit the ensuing Discourses to the Consideration of all Christians and to the Blessing of God and remain Your Brother and Servant in the Gospel THO. GRANTHAM The Loyal Baptist OR AN APOLOGY FOR THE BAPTIZED BELIEVERS BEING ALSO An Earnest Persuasive to them all to study to be Quiet and to do their own Business in these important Particulars VIZ. I. To Honour all Men. II. To Love the Brotherhood III. To Fear God IV. To Honour the King Delivered in several Discourses upon 1 Pet. 2. 17. Honour all Men Love the Brotherhood Fear God Honour the King THis great Apostle St. Peter having preached Christ in many Countries thought it meet to leave some Monuments of his holy Doctrine with all the Churches And having in two sacred Epistles assured them of the certainty of the Doctrine which he had preached and that it was no Fable or new Device but the very Truth which from the Beginning God made known to his Prophets He then exhorts them to Stedfastness and to hope to the end for the grace or fulness of Glory which shall be brought to all true Christians at the revelation or second coming of Christ He warns them to beware of Sin chiefly that root of Malice Envy and Hypocrisy for these are usually complicated in one for as it gave being to all our Misery and has been all along the ruine of Nations Churches and Communities so we are advertised that it will abound towards the end of the World To avoid this damning Iniquity we are willed to consider our new Birth and as new-born Babes to evidence our delight to be in the sincere Milk of the Word of God not in the Vanities of this World where we are but Pilgrims and Strangers assuring us that as Christ is the sure Foundation to support his Church So however some Builders do set him at naught he is the Head of the Corner and will certainly in time confound the Disobedient 1 Pet. 2. 7 8. Howbeit lest Christians should be too impatient of the seeming delay of Christ's Exaltation and of the manifold Tribulations which in the mean time they must suffer he further warns them to be of an obedient and submissive Spirit to such as are in Authority and to adorn their Profession by an honest Conversation as the best way to silence their Opposers For so is the Will of God that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish Men 1 Pet. 2. 15. For tho it be very true that all Christians are the Lord's Freemen 1 Cor. 7. 22. yet they may not maliciously despise any Man nor dishonour any Man much less any that are in Authority Christianity being indeed the greatest Obligation that any Man can be
symbolizing with legal Ceremonies Gal. 2. that so the Truth of the Gospel might continue in the Churches of Galatia plainly shewing that as Light and Darkness cannot dwell together so the Gospel is exclusive of legal Ceremonies and humane Innovations And seeing all must grant there has been a very great departure from the Truth of the Gospel both in Doctrine and Practice there cannot be a better Method I suppose thought on to amend what is amiss in the Christian World and thereby to restore true brotherly Fellowship than that used by our Lord Mat. 19. 8. to reform a Corruption among the Jews and such an Error too as had a shew of Scripture-Authority for it I mean the Case of Divorce yet our Saviour suppresseth that Custom by referring to the primitive Institution of Marriage From the Beginning it was not so And upon this Text how well does our Brethren I mean the Sober and Pious in the Church of England defend themselves against Popish Innovations both in Opinion and Practice One of them speaks thus As touching each of these Errors we can say with our Saviour in this present Correption of the Pharisees that from the Beginning it was not so and we care not whence they come unless they come from the Beginning This hath ever been saith he the Rule the warrantable Rule to reform a Church When Esdras was intent on building the Temple he sent not to Ephesus much less to Rome he did not enquire into the Rituals of Numa Pompilius but had recourse for a Temple to that of Solomon and for a Rite to that of Moses Indeed for Things meerly indifferent as he observes there must be preserved a Liberty in all Churches to consult and do for the best I dare not say as he To make Constitutions for that 's a great word but to manage her Affairs with Decency Order and Charity But to come more directly to our Doctrine which is Brotherly Fellowship Love and Vnity is carefully to be endeavoured and maintained by all Christians Certain it is that our Love as Christians may go much further than our actual Communion in all things Christian may do and yet this Love it self is a kind of Fellowship The Angels have Fellowship with us and acknowledg themselves our Fellow Servants Rev. 19. 10. and yet they do not partake with us in all our acts of Religion but only by approbation and corroboration in things which are well done Now the best or most orderly sort of Christians cannot conceive a greater disproportion between their Churches and the Churches of the most erring if but well-meaning Societies that conscientiously profess Love and Obedience to Christ And even hence we are obliged to hold as much Brotherly Fellowship with them as we can especially that of Love and Brotherly Compassion For when we consider that even some of all sorts of Christians will rather dye than basely deny their Lord and Master we cannot but have Fellowship with such in our Spirits whilst it is the same and not a feigned Christ to whom they shew their utmost testimony of Love And this Consideration alone may suffice to take away that imbitteredness which is too often found among Christians dissenting one from another Let their Appellations be what they will so that they believe in the true Christ and live well being also faithful to what they know And tho they be never so angry with me for opposing them in their Traditions or erring Notions otherwise yet I must have a Brotherly tenderness towards them all for the Truths sake which dwelleth in them But now for ample or full Communion I see not how that can be attained and maintained but where there is antecedent to it an Union both in Doctrine and Practice in things necessary to the true Constitution and Government of the Church of Christ And seeing also our Differences about these things are not small or trivial it cannot I think be better ordered than that a Friendly Distinction and Brotherly Forbearance be permitted as to ample Communion for that Men cannot comfortably nor peaceably join together till they be agreed in these things I see not that the difference betwixt Paul and Barnabas was so great as to the thing about which they differed as the things about which Christians differ in these days and yet its certain their Contention being great for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies provoking gauling and imbittered Speeches and Minds say the Learned it is certain they could not transact their Affairs in the Gospel together but apart And this was written perhaps to shew that a competent Unity in Judgment must precede our actual Communion and till that be attained among us there is a necessity in regard partly of human Frailty and partly in regard of some precious Truths to forbear one another without destroying the Truth to which we have attained respectively And this is the greatest Love we can extend to one another under these difficult Circumstances 1. To pity and heartily to pray one for another for the Servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle towards all Men in Meekness instructing those that oppose themselves 2. There must be all Patience exercised and Compassion shewed to the Ignorant and those that are out of the way especially where the scruple is tender and conscientious And in the mean time the faithful Minister of God must hold fast the form of sound Words he must teach the same Doctrine which was committed to his Trust by the Apostles He must warn others that they teach no other Doctrine He must not give place to Jewish or other Fables And the Church must so walk in Christ as they first received him rooted in the Foundation-Principles established and built up in him Not carried about with every Wind of Doctrine but speaking the Truth in Love must endeavour to grow up into Christ in all things In a word it is the Duty of this Brotherhood to stick close to the whole Councel of God and not to partake with other Mens Sins or Errors in Life or Religion which cannot be done where contrarieties in Doctrine and Practice about things necessary to the true State and Government of the Church of Christ are allowed in the same Fellowship or Community Love the Brotherhood This Fraternity are in a special manner to love one another 1. Because God himself hath loved them with a special kind of Love And if God so loved us we ought also to love one another 1 John 3. It is happy when the Love of Christians is founded upon this bottom viz. the Manifestation of God's Love to them and not upon any thing of human Excellency for this is to have Mens Persons in Admiration and not to admire this Behold what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us 2. Because this is the sweetest Manifestation that we are the Children of God for in this is manifest the Children of God 1 John 3. 10. namely that they
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-Baptism both by Scripture and Reason Let us hear how he doth this Mr. NATHANIEL TAYLOR' 's Fourteen Arguments for 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
Faith and Obedience in this Sence I deny Infants to be in the Covenant Let us hear therefore how you confirm your Minor 3. You say It is verified in that Baptism is the Seal of the Covenant now as Circumcision was under the Law c. And therefore those who are under the participation of the Covenant may be admitted to the Seal c. 4. But why do our Brethren of the Church of England speak of the Seal in the Singular They used to tell us the Covenant has two Seals to wit Baptism and the Table of the Lord. And I will abide by it that the Lord's Table is as truly a Seal of the Covenant as Baptism Yet you deny Infants this Seal tho you know when they first baptized Infants they also brought them to the Lord's Table and this custom continued six hundred Years But I deny your Consequence it follows not that all that are in Covenant may have the Seal of Baptism And you tell us That God's Grace is universal pag. 37. yet you will not say that Baptism is universal it belongs but to those who restipulate and enter into Covenant upon the Terms of Faith and Repentance Acts 8. 12. When they believed c. they were baptized both Men and Women And here the City of Samaria generally received the Gospel and yet not an Infant baptized 5. But how shall I understand you where you say That Children never excluded themselves from the Covenant of Grace because not actual Vnbelievers and none but such were ejected And where you presently say They have the Covenant belonging to them with their believing Parents Have Infants no benefit by the Covenant of Grace unless their Parents believe Alas poor Infants But sure God does not exclude Infants from the Covenant of Grace made for Mankind in Christ because their Parents believe not No I will hold to your first Saying That none but actual Vnbelievers are rejected 6. That the Holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14. is only Legitimacy or Lawfulness of Birth you would have to be only a Gloss of the Anabaptists But how can you fairly take it for any other seeing it is taken immediately from the Sanctification of the unbelieving Husband as the word else being rightly referred makes evident Upon which Consideration Erasmus expounds this place expresly as we do yet he was a Poedobaptist And Austin long before him said Whatever that Holiness is 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is certain it is not of Power to make Christians or remit Sins Sir if you consider the Scope of the place 1 Cor. 7. you will find some in that Church were in doubt whether they might dwell with their unbelieving Yokefellows St. Paul resolves the Doubt in the Affirmative and gives this Reason for it The unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the believing Wife and if he were not so their Children were unclean but he being sanctified their Children were clean for Marriage is honourable among all and the Marriage-Bed undefiled Heb. 13. Therefore let not the Husband put away his Wife nor the Wife depart from her Husband 7. What you say further to this Argument being built upon a wrong Supposition viz. That we deny Infants to be within the Covenant of Grace falls of it self For we say with you till they by actual Unbelief exclude themselves the Grace of God extends to them as well as to others in respect of their Salvation Mr. Taylor 's Argument 4. Those who have right to the Blessings of the Covenant have right to Baptism But Children have right to the Blessings of the Covenant Therefore they have right to Baptism ANSWER 1. This Argument is upon the matter the same with the former and therefore upon the former distinction the Major is denied for tho Infants have right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which they have need of yet they have no right to the Duties of the Covenant which they have no need of because God requires no Duties of them 2. And tho you say that our Concession that Infants are within the Covenant of Grace proves that Infants have right to all the Privileges of the Covenant Yet this is contrary to your own Judgment for you your selves deny them right to the Lord's Table and indeed all other Privileges as much as we do except your Crossing and Sprinkling them What you say further here is often repeated and will be considered in the following Arguments and if I repeat in my Answers you have compelled me Mr. Taylor 's Argument 5. Those who are capable of being engaged in Covenant with God are capable of Baptism But Children are capable of being engaged in Covenant with God Therefore Children are capable of Baptism ANSWER 1. This Argument as most of the rest may be retorted thus They that are capable of being engaged in Covenant with God are capable of the Lord's Table But Infants are capable of being engaged in the Covenant c. Ergo They are capable of the Lord's Table Which sufficiently shews the unsoundness of your Argument But let us examine the proof of your Major 2. To this purpose you tell us That Infants are in the Power of their Parents to dispose of as to Temporals and Spirituals And your Reason is because Parents are obliged to take the greatest care imaginable of their Childrens Souls for their Education in the Fear of God Well now I see why you use not the word Infants but Children all along in your Arguments you know that Infants such as you Sprinkle are not capable of any Education at all They cannot be taught the Fear of God They then cannot be engaged in Covenant by the Means of Education nor can they in that State be brought up in his Service in respect of Religious Ordinances So that instead of proving you have lost your Minor 3. What you argue from Deut. 29. 11 12 14. will never prove that Infants are capable of entering into Covenant with God in their own Persons but that their Parents did engage to bring them up in the Laws of God and what this is to the purpose I do not imagine Is it therefore my Duty to baptize my Children without a Command from God to do so meerly because by the Covenant of Grace and Rules of Christianity I am to do my best to teach my Children the Fear of the Lord This is very inconsequent and will as much oblige me to bring my Infants to the Lord's Table as I have shewed This last you will not allow because God requires it not and for the same Reason I refuse to bring my Infants to Baptism tho I believe it my Duty to do all that I can to engage them in Covenant with God by Christian Education in the Fear of God that they may serve him in all his Commands and Ordinances blameless 4. Wherefore in Answer to your Argument If by Infants being capable of being engaged in Covenant with God you mean the Parents engagement to educate them in
it and also I grant that they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven and so are of the Universal Church But this proves not that they are Disciples at all for the Infants of Heathens are Members of Kingdoms and may go to Heaven and yet you think they are no Disciples for all that And if Infants may in some Sence be said to be God's Servants Psal 119. 91. yet this proves not that they are Disciples for all Creatures as well sensitive vegetative as rational are said to be his Servants yet all Creatures are not Christ's Disciples Mr. Taylor 's Argument 8. To whom Christ grants Imposition of Hands to them belongs Baptism But to Children Christ grants Imposition of Hands Therefore to them belongs Baptism ANSWER 1. If the major Proposition be taken universally that to whomsoever Christ granted imposition of Hands or touching in any case that to them belongs Baptism then the Major is not true for he touched or put his hand upon the dead yet Baptism belongs not to the dead Luke 7. 14. If it be said Christ touched the Bier not the Dead I answer He touched the Childrens Cloaths when he took them in his Arms but he took the dead Damsel by the hand and said Talitha cumi Damsel I say unto thee Arise Mark 5. 41. Thus much to the Major now to the Minor 2. If by laying on of hands you understand that which by Christ's Doctrine Heb. 6. 2. is made a standing Ordinance in his Church and in order next to Baptism as is evident you do then I deny your Minor For that Ordinance was not yet instituted nor useful because the End of it was not yet to be received for the Spirit of Promise was not yet given nor as yet to be given because Jesus was not yet glorified John 7. Wherefore your Misinterpretation of Mat. 19. 13 14 15. is injurious to Truth and would prefer these Infants to the Apostles in the reception of the First-fruits of the Spirit unless you think Christ laid hands on the Children without obtaining the End or Essect of the Service So then it 's clear that this laying on of hands or touching Infants for so it is expressed both by St. Mark and St. Luke cannot with any fairness be understood of that laying on of hands which follows Baptism and therefore is no Proof at all for your Minor 3. The Church of England does not believe that Infants are fit Subjects for laying on of hands and therefore does not understand this Text Mat. 19. of that laying on of hands which follows Baptism neither does Mr. Taylor himself believe that Confirmation belongs to Infants If otherwise they are very unfaithful in that they were never known to lay hands upon any one Infant for confirmation as I can hear of But how comes it to pass that Mr. Taylor will baptize Infants when yet he confesses their Baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament and yet not plead for their Confirmation till they be capable to own their Covenant made in Baptism when yet he pretends tho I dare say he believes it not that Text Mat. 19. 13 c. is express for that laying on of hands which follows Baptism to be granted to Christ to Infants pag. 56. 4. Mr. Taylor says That Christ confirmed or laid hands on the Baptized I shall entreat him to make this plain for I would gladly see it well proved however I am sure his Doctrine orders it to be done and that 's sufficient What you say further here is either what we oppose not or what is answered elsewhere save only your last Particular which now we shall consider 5. Their coming to Christ say you is their becoming his Disciples or Proselites Suffer them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Proselites to me If to this I should answer with Tertullian Veniant ergo dum adolescunt c. Let them come therefore when they are grown up it will be thought too little tho God knows how hasty soever Men are to get them sprinkled they are slow enough to bring them to Christ when they are capable to be taught I will therefore answer further Do you think that when Infants are brought to a Priest to be sprinkled and crossed that then they are brought to Christ Or can Christians no other way bring their Infants to Christ Or do no Infants belong to Christ but those who are so brought These Things will not be asserted I think yet let us go as far as we can by the Light of the Text. By this Example of Christ I think the Ministers of Christ may lawfully pray for a Blessing in behalf of all the Infants of those that shall desire it and that it is well done in those Parents that do desire the Prayers of the Church or her Ministers for their Infants And this is as much as can be fairly urged from this Text as imitable for us For the touching by our Saviour's hands may be a Point too high for us unless we will also touch the Dead c. which I hope is not written for our Example But now if the Minister will needs baptize my Child because I bring it into the Congregation and desire Prayer to be made to God for his Blessing upon it he herein goes beyond the Example of Christ and beyond the Text and therefore there I must leave him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notwithstanding For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod est advenio quoniam veniebant est Ethnicis ad Judaismum saith the Learned and I think Infants cannot change their Religion nor was it fit to call an Infant of a Jew a Proselite when it was brought to Circumcision and consequently as improper to call the Child of a Christian a Proselite However all that can lawfully be done to proselite an Infant if you will needs have that Term used is but to devote them to Christ by Prayers for his Blessing but not a Syllable for baptizing them Mr. Taylor 's Argument 5. If the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant then it entitles them to Baptism But the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant Therefore the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to Baptism ANSWER 1. The Consequence of the Major may well be denied for tho it should be some ways true that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant yet it follows not that it entitles them to the performance of or submission to the Things which they understand not nor are able to perform And whither would such a Consequence lead us if we should follow it What Duty should not Infants be entitled to as well as to Baptism But let us see whether the Minor be well proved you quote Acts. 2. and think it a clear place to prove that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant But this Text says not a word to that purpose for
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
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