So that they who truely beleeve in case they delay their Baptism not having been already baptized until afterwards commit an error at least or an oversight herein But there was no such Law imposed by God upon that Faith which was in Christ otherwise he must be supposed to have committed an over-sight in that he offered not himself unto Baptism until many yeares after this Faith had been first resident in him Therefore his Faith and the Faith required of other persons are not essentially or specifically the same Whereas Mr. A. pleads the sameness of expressions or denominations to prove both Faiths to be specifically the same and that to beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God is the Faith required of all other persons to render them capable of Baptism and that this Faith was in Christ I answer That the sameness of name expression or denomination doth not alwaies prove the identity or sameness I mean not the specifical sameness of the things expressed or denominated but sometimes an agreement onely between them in some generical property or consideration Their Faith who have power given them hereupon to become the Sons of God is called a beleeving on his name Joh. 1. 12. and their Faith also to whom Christ refused to commit himself is in like manner termed a beleeving on his name Joh. 2. 23 24. Yet these two Faiths were of very different natures and considerations as sufficiently appears by the two passages compared notwithstanding their consent in name So again their Faith who because the Pharisees did not confess him lest they should be cast out of the synagogue and who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God is termed a beleeving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on him i. e. on Christ Joh. 12. 42 43. and their Faith also who beleeve to justification and salvation is expressed after the same manner a beleeving on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 3. 16. and elswhere So again that act or series of actings by which the Saints testifie their approbation of the wisdom of God whether in the Gospel or in his providential actings is termed a justification Mat. 11. 19. as well as that act of God by which he absolveth or dischargeth sinners from the guilt of their sins upon their beleeving in Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 1 and in twenty places besides yet are these two acts of very different natures and specifically at least distinct the one from the other It were easie to levy many other instances upon the same account but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that the Faith of Christ beleeving himself to be the Son of God and the Faith of other men beleeving him to be the Son of God also are not by their agreement in name or expression evinced to be Faiths of the same consideration or kind Sect. 185. Suppose it were granted that the belief which was in Christ of his being the Son of God and the belief of the same truth in other persons were of the same nature and kind yet neither will it follow from hence that Christ was baptized upon the account of this Faith because all other persons are For 1. Other persons are not baptized simply directly or immediately upon the account of this Faith but by the interceding of their profession hereof before those who are to baptize them Whereas Christ made no profession unto Jon of that Faith by which he beleeved himself to be the Son of God neither was it proper or comly for him so to doe From whence by the way this saying of Mr. A. a little after therefore may it well be said indeed that Christ received Baptism upon the same terms as others did is manifestly evicted of untruth unless he think to salve the dishonour by those words at least in several respects of which salvage notwithstanding he bereaves himself by these words following and that in conformity to the same standing Law of righteousnesse to wit the Institution of God common to others as well as to him For doubtless there neither was nor is any such standing Law of righteousnesse nor Institution of God according to which any other person of mankind should be baptized upon the account of his Faith without any profession or declaration made of it unto the Baptizer Therefore Christ being baptized upon these terms was not baptized in conformity to the same standing Law of Righteousness or Institution of God common to others but by a Law in this respect appropriate to himself Sect. 186. 2. If John baptized Christ upon the account of his Faith whereby he beleeved himself to be the Son of God then when at first he refused or declined the baptizing of him Mat. 3. 14. either he was ignorant that such a Faith was in Christ or that this Faith was a legitimate ground of baptizing him or else it must be supposed that when â—e refused to baptize him he did against his conscience and contrary to what he knew his duty to be But all these are unworthy of John and not to be conceived of him Therefore hee did not baptize him upon the account of his Faith 3. If he did baptize him upon the account of his Faith then before his baptizing him he must be conceived to have reasoned thus within himself This man or this person surely beleeves himself to be the Son of God and since I have a compent or sufficient ground to conceive this of him viz. that he thus beleeveth therefore I will baptize him But it is loudly dissonant from all that reason saith to imagine that John reasoned after any such manner as this to strengthen his hand to the Baptizing of Christ Therefore he did not baptize him upon the account of his beleeving himself to be the Son of God The major in this argument shineth sufficiently with its own light The minor is evident from hence viz. because John knew as wel before his prohibiting him his baptism or refusing to baptize him that he beleeved himself to be the Son of God as afterwards when he yeelded to baptize him and yet as we see refused to baptize him notwithstanding the knowledg he had of such a belief in him Therefore certainly he did not baptize him upon the account of his Faith Nor did Christ in the interim I mean between John's refusing to baptize him and his admitting him unto his Baptism any wayes inform John that since he beleeved himself to be the Son of God he lawfully might or of duty ought to baptize him So that on which side soever of the businesse we look there is not so much as the least lineament of a face of probability that Christ was baptized upon the account of his beleeving himself to be the Son of God Sect. 187. If it be objected that John when he refused to admit Christ to hiâ— Baptism did as well know that he was the Son of God as that he beleeved himself to be Son of God and yet did not
thing is sufficient to satisfie some in some cases 16â— 135. A cause is not made good by aâ—swering an objection 168. 136. Sonship unto God how accrueth unto Children 169. 137. Mr. Tombs â—nd Mr. Fisher yea the Rebaptized Churches themselves at ods in points neerly relating to the question of Rebaptizing 170. 138. How all children are capable of Baptism and how nâ—t 171. 139. Baptism why described or termed the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins 176. 140. Baptism whether administrable unto Repentants only 177. 141. Baptism the more for the good of man because Infants capable of it 178. 142. Baptism how beneficial without faith 179. 143. What it must be that qualifieth for it 180. 144. What love of God and in what respect immediately qualifieth for Baptism 181. 145. The faith which was in Christ was not of the same kind with the faith of other beleevers 183 184. 146. The sameness of expressions doth not prove the sameness of thinâ—s 184. 147. Whether Christ was baptized upon the account of his beleeving him self to be the Sâ—n of God 185. 186. 148. That faith qualifieth for Baptism as it is dâ—clarative of spiritual Sonship § 188 189. and this by the will or appointment of God 190. 149. Christ did not make a dedication of himself to the seâ—vice of the Gospel by the solemnity of Baptism 191. 150. The reason of Christs choice of the season wherein he was baptized in reference hereunto 193. 151. Persons may be baptized in conformity to a Law of righteousness and yet not to that Law by which Christ was baptizâ—d 192. 152. Christ was not baptized in conformity to the common Law of Baptism 194. CONSIDERATION I. Câ—lourable Arguments and Grounds levied and insisted The first head of Consideraâ—ionâ— being of â— more geneâ—al import â—elatâ—ng unto â—her case Controversieâ— as wel as those about Ordinances or Baptism upon for thâ— defence of Error are more likely to take with ordinary capacities and apprâ—hensions yea and with those that are somewhat pregnant and ripe espâ—cially at first and fâ—r a season then those which are sound and substantial and dâ—monstrative of truth Proof Error befriendeth mens corruptions comporteth with their lusts justifieth them in their carnal and sensual ends and consequently in such ways and practises also which are proper and likely to advance and procure them Upon this account it cometh to pass that men and women more generally having several corruptions to gratifie worldly and carnal ends to pursue c. have a secret and inward proneness and propension unto Error as that which under the name of Truth pretends to bless them in their way Now when a person man or woman secretly wisheth that such a Doctrine or Opinion were a Truth or may be sound to be a Truth a very slender and weak argument in favor of it easily fills and satisfies them and disposeth them to cry out with the High Priest What have we any more need of wiâ—nesses Mat. 26. 65. especially when their judgments and understandings are but ordinary and weak Yea men and women for the maintaining of themselves in peace in ways and practises that are corrupt and sinful are of a listening and harâ—ening disposition as well after Teachers as grounds and arguments which will strengthen comfort and support them therein and when they meet with either they rejoyce over them as if they had found great spoils Whereas the Truth is a most severe enemy to all worldly lusts to all sinister and corrupt ends of men and consequently to all such methods ways and practises which are calculated for the compassing and obtaining of them giving men no countenance rest or peace in such ways From whence it comes to pass neither can it in reason be otherwise that persons generally are possest with a marvellous aversness and frowardness of spirit against the Truth extreamly unwilling that such an opinion should be owned or acknowledged for a Truth especially by them the face whereof is set and which peremptorily threateneth to separate between them and their beloved lusts or otherwise to shame trouble and torment them in the fulfilling of them By means of this great aversness in men to be convinced of the Truth it cometh to pass as frequent expeperience teacheth that Arguments and Grounds of greatest evidence and power for the eviction manifestation and demonstration of the Truth are but as the shadows of the mountains unto them clouds without water and words without weight And so the Truth it self though mightily evinced is by them respected under the reproachful notion and name of Error Both these particulars as well the incredible aversness in men to admit of Truth though coming to them in the clearest light of Evidence and Demonstration as that strange propenseness towards the entertainment of Error lately mentioned are plainly asserted by the Apostle 2 Tim. 4. 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts will heap to themselves Teachers having itching ears The metaphor of itching ears implies 1. The unclean distempers in the hearts and spirits of men as the itch properly so called is to the flesh or bodies of men 2. It implies also the great and impatient desire and propenseness which is in such persons to be spiritually scratched i. e. to have these distempers of theirs only so touched and handled by Teachers that it may be matter of pleasure and gratification unto them as indeed it is when such things are delivered in the Name of God and as from the Scriptures whereby they are really comforted and seemingly and to their own sence justified in their evil ways Consectary If colourable and light arguments levied and managed for the defence of Error be more apt to take and satisfie ordinary capacities and persons unskilful in the Word of Truth then arguments of greatest pregnancy and weight raised and held forth for the vindication of the Truth then need it not seem strange unto any man that such multitudes should be ensnared and carried away in their judgments as dayly are unto the opinion which fighteth against the Baptizing of Children with such arguments which have little weight worth or substance in them CONSIDERATION II. GOd requireth and expecteth from men as well to beleeve as to practise not only upon Grounds plain and near at hand such I mean which as it were at the first sight and by plainness and palpableness of inference enforce either the truth to be beleeved or the thing to be practised but even upon grounds somewhat more remote yea and secret insinuations and from which neither can the truth that is to be beleeved nor the action or thing that is to be practised be evinced or inferred but by a diligent exercise and close engagement of the reason judgment and understanding of a man Proâ—f When God spake thus unto Moses out of the midst of the burning bush I am the God of Abraham the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob Exod. 3. 6. he expected that men should beleeve the Resurrection of the dead upon the account of these words and practise accordingly This is evident from that of our Saviour to the Sadduces Mat. 22. 31 32. But as touching the Resurrection of the dead have ye not read what was spoken unto you by God saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac c. clearly implying that these men and others stood bound in duty and in conscience towards God upon the account and ground of such words as these to have beleeved the rising again of the dead and that it was their sin having such a ground of proof for it not to beleeve it Yet could not the truth be gathered or inferred from the said words but by a diligent close and intense working of the rationative faculty and understanding as is evident No nor can our Saviours own demonstration it self in the place mentâ—oned of the said truths from the words be apprehended without some considerable engagement of the mâ—nd and intellectual powers of the Soul So likewise he expected that from the example of David and his men eating the Shew-bread the Pharisees should have understood and known that it was lawful for men to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day Mat. 12. 23. yet the argument here was not of so ready a perception The Apostle saith that God hath exhibited faith or given assurance unto all men that he will judg the World in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained meaning Christ in that he hath raised him from the dead Acts 17. 31. Yet it is a matter of no obvious conception how to conceive or make the act of God in raising Christ from the dead a sufficient ground of assurance that he will judg the World in righteousness by him So when Moses avenged the Israelit by smiting and slaying the Egyptian who oppressed him he supposed and expected that hâ—s Brethren would have understood and beleeved thâ—t God by his hand would deliver them Acts 24. 25. His supposition and expectation in this kind cannot be judged unreasonable nay certainly they were regular and agreeable to the mind of God himself Yet was this fact of Moses in vindicating the Israelite and smiting the Egyptian no such pregnant argument at the first sight no ground of a ready or easie conviction unto his Brethren the Israelites that God by his hand intended to effect that great Deliverance from the Egyptian Bondage which afterwards we know he did effect by him Nor did his Brethren the Israelites no not so much as any one of them as far as can be gathered from the Scriptures and as is most probable apprehend or understand any such thing thereby The Apostle Paul expected that the Corinthians and so other Christians should hear know and understand that it was their duty to afford competent maintenance to the Ministers of the God from and by means of this Mosaical Law Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn 1 Cor. 9. 8 9 10. See also 1 Tim. 5. 18. And yet this Law was nothing so obvious and clear a ground for such a duty and practise as the Command of God for the Circumcising Children under the Law is for their Baptizing the Commandment of Baptism or the change of the Ordinance only supposed under the Gospel Consectary If God requireth of men as well to beleeve as practise not onely upon plain and express grounds such as from whence that which ought to be beleeved or practised may readily and without the mediation of a Consequence be inferred but upon grounds also more remote and from which the thing to be beleeved or practised cannot be inferred or drawn but by force of argument by a narrow and through debate of the understanding then it roundly followeth that Infant-Baptism may be a duty and necessary to be practised though the grounds evincing it should lie much deepeâ— in the Scriptures then now they do and not be so obvious to persons uncapable whether through passion and shortness of spirit or through weakness or scantness of understanding of a narrow sifting of and through searching into matters of a more difficult consideration CONSIDERATION III. MAny practises may be lawful yea and necessary which are neither enjoyned by any expressness of â—recept nor yet countenanced or warranted by any expressness of Example in the Scriptures Proof 1. By expressness of Precept I mean a Precept or Command of such a Tenor of words which doth plainly and according to the literal and grammatical sence of the words and without the mediation of any inference or deduction require such or such a practice So likewise by expressness of example I mean an action or practise every ways or in all circumstances semblable unto or parallel with the practise in question As for example Children are commanded to reverence or honor their Parents by expresness of precept in the fift Commandment but they are not upon the like terms I mean by expresness of precept here commanded to relieve them when they stand in need with their substance though it be granted that this may reasonably be understood to be here commanded also because to regard those that are in want so as to relieve and support them is a casting of honor or respect upon them See 1 Tim. 5. 3. 17. Judg. 9. 9. 2. By necessary I mean that which ought to be done or which a person stands bound in duty and conscience unto God to do These terms explained by the way we proceed to the proof of the consideration It was lawful yea and in a sence necessary that the Disciples passing through the corn fields though on the Sabbath day should being an hungry pluck ears of corn Mat. 12. 1 2 c. and eat otherwise our Saviour would not have justified them in this action against those which reproved them But certain it is that the Disciples were not able to produce either expresness of precept or example from the Scripture whereby to warrant such an action Nor doth our Saviour himself produce either the one or the other upon this account So also it was necessary and matter of duty from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel by men for those that were instructed and taught therein to supply their Teachers with things necessary and to make them partakers of all their goods * Gal 6. 6. 1 Cor. 9. 14 c. Even so saith the Apostle hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel yet had they no expressness either of precâ—pt or example to engage them hereunto until afterwards as viz. when this Apostle declared the Ordinance or Institution of God in this behalf in the words now cited and elsewhere Let him that is taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things Again when Davâ—d and they that were with him
are more readily apprehended and conceived then things figuratively and mystically a M. Baxter affirmeth proveth this kind of baptizing to be no Ordinance of God but an heynous sin yea and flat murther and no better and upon this account judgeth that the Civil Magistrate ought to restrain it as being destructive to the lives â—f their people See this and much more tâ— like purpose p. 134. 135. 136. in his Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-membership c. such Therefore if children were capable of a metaphorical or typical baptism much more are they capable of that which is literal and proper So that the Scripture now argued is on the behalf of Infant-Baptisme like Solomons King upon his Throne against whom there is no rising up CONSIDERATION XXX THe ceremony or dore of entrance or admission into the Christian Church is lesse grievous or offensive to the flesh and more accommodate to the weaknesse and tendernesse of children then the ceremony of like import was under the Law Proof The Proof or evidence rather of this Consideration is neer at hand For the entrance into the Jewish Church under the Law was by blood which occasioned Zipporah to tell Moses that he was an Husband of blood to her Then she said A bloody Husband thou art because of the Circumcision which it seems she was necessitated to administer unto her child to save her Husbands life Exod. 4. 26. Whereas the ceremonial entrance into the Christian Church is by water and the washing of the flesh herewith Indeed as some form and obtrude this Ceremony upon the consciences of men the entrance into the Christian Church is made more bloody in many cases I mean more prejudicial unto health and more threatening life then that under the Law For though Circumcision was smarting and painful yet it made no breach upon the health nor endangered the life of any that came under it Whereas Bptizing in Rivers by plunging or dipping the whole body under water in cold climates and seasons must needs threaten not the healths onely but the lives also of many infirm and tender constitutions â— Yea I am all thoughts made that upon the account of this kind of Baptizing many amongst us at this day are sick and weak and many also have fallen asleep Several instances of persons who have suffered in these kinds have been reported unto me and this upon tearms sufficient to secure the truth of the reports Consectary If God admitted Infants into his Church when the entrance hereunto was more grievous and not without blood it is very unreasonable to conceive that he should now exclude them having made the entrance hereinto more accommodations unto them and much better comporting with their weakness CONSIDERATION XXXI IT cannot be proved from the Scriptures that the Baptism of any child born of Christian Parents or Beleâ—vers was deferred to adultness or years of discretion much less can it be provâ—d that the Baptism of all such children was thus deferred Proof If that which in this Consideration is implicitely denyed the deferring of Baptism to the persons specified can or could be proved from the Scriptures the proof must be either first by some example of an Infant one or more of the relation mentioned who was not baptized untill mans estate But evident it is that no such proof as this can be found in the Scriptures Or else 2. the said proof must be made by producing some prohibition of Divine Authority by which Beleeving Parents are restrained from desiring Baptisme for their children untill maturity of years But as certain it is that no proof in this kind neither can be found in the Scriptures Or 3. and lastly the proof we speak of must be made by producing some reason or ground otherwise from the Scriptures by which the necessity of such a Dilation is substantially evinced But neither do the Scriptures afford any proof of the point in question in this kind as our Adversaries themselves upon the matter as far as I understand do confesse in that they never yet produced any If it be objected and said though there be no particular or special prohibition in the Scriptures restraining Christians from desiring Baptisme for their children whilest they are yet children yet are their prohibitions in general laid as well upon them as others to restrain them from will-worship and so from using the Holy things of God in any manner not directed or prescribed by himself and consequently to restrain Beleeving Parents from offering their children whilest such unto Baptisme in as much as Infant-Baptisme is will-worship or an act or kind of worship not prescribed by him to this I answer That every usage of the Holy things of God after a manner not particularly prescribed by him is not will-worship To read a Chapter two or three daily is no will-worship yet is it an using of the Holy Scriptures nor particularly prescribed by God To give the Holy things of God in the Administration of the Supper unto women is an usage of these Holy things not particularly directed or prescribed by God himself yet it is far from Will-worship To pray about a quarter or half or an whole hour every day is an usage of the Holy Ordnance of prayer not particularly prescribed by God yet is it not Will-worship many instances in this kind might be added Therefore neither is the Baptizing of Infants any strein of Will-worship upon any such account as this viz. because it is an usage of an Ordinance not particularly prescribed by God 2. Will-worship properly consists in this when men exhibit or perform that in the name of worship or for worship unto God which he hath not prescribed as any part of his worship As they who conceit they worship God by being baptized men and women having formerly been baptized infants do most properly commit the sin of Will-worship because it is certain that God hath not prescribed any such things especially not in the nature of worship Yea it is a kind of Will-worship if Parents-place worship in offering their children unto Baptism because God doth not require this of them in the nature of worship but of obedience and duty otherwise All duty is not worship neither is every act not warrantable by the Scriptures though supposed such an act of Will-worship 3. And lastly it hath been proved by many arguments and grounds both in this discourse and in several others by other men that the mind and will of God is that Christian Parents should devote and consecrate their children by water unto his service upon the first opportunity from the beginning of their daies Which arguments and grounds have it may be some of them been replied unto instead of answered or had something said to them which emphatically considered amounts to nothing and others of them may probably in time be triumphed over in the same kind However evident it is in the mean time that no Christian Parent is restrained by any
ever will be to prove the contrary and the uppermost part of it to have been somewhat lower then the level or surface of the verge or bank about it which is not unusual in many waters there might be some necessity or at least a convenience as well for Philip as for the Eunuch to go down together into the water that so the former might take up water with his hand to put or pour upon the head or face of the other Besides it is as well said of Philip as of the Eunuch that he both went down into the water and came up from or out of the water But no man I presume imagineth that Philip at this turn dipped himself Therefore from the said phrases or expressions nothing can be concluded for the dipping of the other both expressions being indifferently used of and applied unto both these persons Again if the Eunuch went down into the water he could not be dipped all over by Philip and consequently could not regularly be baptized if it he supposed 1. That a regular baptizing consisteth in a total submersion or dipping of the whole body under water And 2. That it is wholly to be transacted or performed by another For he that goeth into the water dippeth himself in part neither can another be said to dip him all over except he first heaves or lifteth him up out of and above the water and then still holding his body in or between his hands gently convey or let it down into the water again To pretend that the Eunuch might have been duly baptized without going down into the water and without Philips going down likewise if Baptisme could have been duly administred either by sprinkling or by putting a small quantity of water upon his head or face as viz. by sending a servant to the Fountain to fetch a Bason or like vessel of water from thence c. to pretend thus I say amounts to little satisfaction For 1. It cannot be proved that either a bason or like vessel was now at hand Basons are not usually carried about in travell especially not in long journies 2. Suppose there had been the opportunity of a Bason or the like yet might there be several reasons though unknown to us why Philip being at liberty whether to baptize at or in the Fountain or otherwise might prefer the former So that there is nothing in the pretence specified nor in any thing expressed or recorded in the Scriptures about the Eunuchs baptizing which makes it so much as probable much lesse demonstrable or certain that he was dipped under water when baptized Nor is there any whit more in John's baptizing in Jordan or in Aenon near Saliâ— because much water was here Joh. 2. 23. to prove that John dipped when he baptized For 1. There is nothing recorded by the Holy Ghost touching the particular external manner according to which John baptized Which by the way is an argument of much satisfaction unto me that no one determinate external manner in baptizing or of managing ordering or using the water in Baptism is essential unto the Ordinance or the due administration thereof For it is the first-born of things incredible unto me that God should prescribe unto men so great and weighty an Ordinance as Baptism more generally at least is conceived to be yea and which our Adversaries begin of late to say is absolutely necessary unto justification and consequently unto salvation it self and yet not signifie or declare and this in the most plain explicit and distinct manner how this Ordinance ought to be administred in case it be supposed that there is onely one determinate manner of the administration which is regular and legitimate yea and which is so essential unto it that without it nothing but a meer nullity or humane device can be administred especially this determinate manner being such which the clearest and sharpest understanding of men of greatest worth in the Church of Christ and most diligently and conscienously exercised in the Scriptures have not been able for many generations together to discern or discover 2. Neither is there the least intimation any where given in the Scripture that the reason why John made his first choice of the River Jordan for his Baptismal station or residence or his second of Aenon where much water or rather many waters was that he might have water enough to dip all those that came to be baptized of him over head and ears Therefore this is but a matter of humane conjecture onely and this not very probable neither For 1. It is not like that a reason of this consequence would have been left to humane divination being so worthy of God's own pen were it or had it had been a truth 2. Though it be said that in Aenon where John last baptized there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mâ—ny waters yet this proveth not that there was any place within the compasse of these waters of a sufficient depth for the dipping of a mans body all over The expression probably importeth a confluence or meeting together of several rivelets or small currents from several springs near adjoining which it is like did over-spread a great surface of ground and yet were not so deep in any place as to reach up to the knees of a man We know there are many places not very far from the City where there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many waters in such a sence and consideration as this and more particularly in the ordinary Road to 〈◊〉 where in several places when springs are open there is a largâ— confluence of waters which spread themselves thin over a great planities or flat of ground for several furlongs together without being so deep in any place as to afford an opportunity to a travelling horse to drink But in many other places of the Nation there are such prospects of waters as those we now speak of which are to be seen all the year long and where the waters run continually Therefore many waters do not import so much as one mans dipping Mr. Fisher is much mistaken if learneder men be not in conceiving Aenon to be a river Baby-Baptism p. 334. Calvin with some Lexicographers maketh it a Town and Salim another scituate in the tribe of Manasseh Mr. J. Deodate maketh them both Cities Hugo Grotius and Junius conceive Aenon to be a Fountain But Mr. Fisher it seems though by swimming against the stream will have it a deep River lest his cause like a crasie vessel wanting water should strike upon the ground and founder Some who have travelled in those parts report this Aenon to be a little run or brook over which a man may almost step at ordinary times 3. If John dipped when he baptized either in Jordan or in Aenon he must be supposed to have dipped both men and women either naked or in their cloaths In some Authors I confesse I meet with both sexes naked in their baptizing but the greatest part of writers
whole argument falls to the ground and becomes null and that according to the common saying in Logick Conclusio sequitur detâ—riorem partem i. e. the conclusion is never better then the worst of the propositions by which it is proved as a â—â—affe anchor cable or the like â—re not to be esteemed stronger then what their strength is in the wâ—â—kest parts I confesse there is no great need of delivering this Item here because we shall find both propositions tardy Onely it may possibly be that the weaknesse of one will be made more manifest unto some then of the other and in this respect the notion now presented may be of use But 1. To the major proposition in the argument we answer dy benying it and give this account of our denial First no particular observation or administration of an Ordinance or institution doth or can answer or expresse the whole mind or counsel of God therein I mean in the said Ordinance or institution When Abraham circumcised his son Isaack the eight day Gen. 21. 4. he did not act or expresse the whole counsel of God in the institution of circumcision For the mind of God was that men Jews should be circumcised as well as children at eight days of age in case their circumcision was omitted whilest they were children In like manner when Joshua circumcised men Jos 5. 5. 7. neither did he expresse herein the full mind of God in the Ordinance as is evident nay he herein acted expresly contrary to the letter of the institution which confined circumcision to the eight day and yet was blamelesse When the Priests and their families observed the Ordinance of God in eating the Shew bread they did not herein expresse the whole counsel of God in this Ordinance For this extended to a lawfulnesse even for others also who were not of any Priestly family to eat of this bread in case of much hunger and defect of provisions otherwise as is evident by what David and those that were with him did in the daies of Abiathar the Priest a Mar. 2. 26. When the Jews observed the institution of the Sabboth according to the greatest precisenesse of the letter that can be imagined as when neither themselves son nor daughter man servant nor maid servant cattel nor stranger within their gate did any work at all they did not by such an observation as this expresse the whole counsel of God in and about the Sabboth For his counsel and intent herein further was that they should do good on the Sabboth day as well as on any other day as in ministring unto the sick in helping an Oxe or an Asse out of a ditch or pit whereinto they were fallen c Our Saviour himself in his administration of the supper did not act to the extent or compasse of his own counsel and intendment in the institution For he did not administer it unto women when as notwithstanding we generally beleeve and this upon sufficient grounds that his intentions in the institution reached unto these also From hence then it evidently follows that John's and so Christs and the Apostles administring Baptism unto Beleevers or Repentant persons onely and not unto Infants is no sufficient argument or proof that therefore it was no part of Gods intent in the institution of Baptism that it should be administred unto infants God as hath been said and shewed alwaies intends more in an institution then any administration of it doth expresse Sect. 15. If it be here replied that in case it had been any part of the mind of God in the institution of Baptism that infants should partake of it it is no ways likely but that either John or Christ or one or other of the Apostles would first or last have made the administration unto them I answer 1. It hath not yet been proved nor I beleeve ever will that none of these ever made an administration of Baptism unto infants But more of this in our answer to the minor proposition 2. Why is it not as likely supposing the counsel of God in the institution we speak of to stand as well for the baptizing of Infants as of men that yet neither John Christ nor any the Apostles should baptize infants as that Paul should baptize onely so few as himself reporteth he did a 1 Cor. 1. 14 15 16. when as according to the counsel of God he might have baptized twenty times as many yea and doubtlesse had opportunity to have done it 3. And lastly As the reason why Paul baptized so few as he did and I suppose he had not sinned in case he had not baptized these yea or any at all was because he had another work of far greater weight worth and concernment unto him to lay out himself upon viz the preaching of the Gospel then baptizing was in like manner John Christ and the rest of the Apostles probably did conceive and judge that it did more principally in those times concern them to look after and provide for the baptizing of men and women then of children and upon this account might though not neglect yet omit the baptizing of children Yet this doth no waies prove but that it might be lawfull for them to have baptized children as questionlesse it was lawfull for Paul to have baptized a thousand more then he did baptize the baptizing of whom notwithstanding he omitted without sin Again 2. We deny the consequence in the said major Proposition upon another account also which is this Circumstances and aspects of probable inconveniences may render not onely things that are lawfull but even such which in some cases are necessary in expedient in some others and consequently better and fitter for the servants of God to let alone during the said posture of circumstances then to practise This is so evident both in the Scriptures and in reason it self that I suppose I may without losse spare the proof of it Therefore John Christ c. might upon consideration of some circumstance one or more possibly unknown unto us forbear the baptizing of infants in their daies though a practice lawful enough and ordinarily in Churches constituted necessary And whereas Mr. A. pleads the cause of his proposition or consequence which upon the grounds now specified we deny by this reason viz. That that which was a reason to them then to forbear baptizing infants and upon which they did forbear it is or ought to be a reason to all men now to forbear it likewise we answer that this reason hath but a very waterish and faint taste of reason in it For Sect. 16. 1. It proceeds ex non concâ—ssis takes that for granted which is denied by his adversaries viz. that John Christ c. did forbear the practise in question 2. If they did forbear it for a time it followeth not that they did forbear it perpetually or altogether 3. If they did forbear the said practise altogether and never baptize any infant in the
practise in question by those very reasons from the bond or obliging force whereof the Apostles might be discharged by others of a preponderant consideration Therefore the arm of Mr. A's reason is too short to reach his conclusion Sect. 21. In the upshot of his proof of his major proposition he tells us that it might be backed if needfull he might more truly have said bellied or made more bulky then backed or strengthned from Philip 3. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 1 2. From which Texts he would prove that we ought to follow Christ and his Apostles in what they did as being rules and examples to us what to do and what not in all manner of worship or actions which they did or did not Either this must be his inference from these Scriptures or else his citation of them is no waies relative to his purpose But evident it is from what hath been already argued neither these Scriptures nor any other of their calculation do require any further or any other imitation either of Christ himself or of the Apostles then 1. In such waies and actions which are prescribed unto us by some Commandement or other of God and 2. In such cases when we are ingaged by or are found under the same circumstances to follow by which they were ingaged to go before But the said Scriptures do at no hand nor with any tolerable face of probability impose it as a duty upon us to refrain all actions or practises which for ought we know they refrained especially not to refrain all such actions or practises which in case they did refrain they had ground and reason to refrain and we not Yet unlesse Mr. A. can tamper these Scriptures to speak this they will in effect say to him and his cause for which he seeks their advocation Depart from us we know you not Thus we see by a light as clear as any the Sun shines at noon day that the major proposition in Mr. A's first argument is very crazie and so no competent material to make a pillar for any mans Faith or practise And if this proposition be shaken the whole strength and glory of the Argument according to the rule mentioned § 14. is already in the dust Notwithstanding lest any man should be so ignorant or weak as not to give credit to the said rule but think that if either of the propositions in an Argument will stand the Argument may by vertue hereof be authentique and in force let us bring the minor proposition which he calls The assumption to the touch-stone also The tenor of this proposition is this But Baptism was not administred to Infants neither in the daies of John the Baptist nor of the Apostles If this proposition were true and could be demonstrated yet it comes too late to salve the credit of the Argument as was lately said But being carefully weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary it will be found too light as the former also was For Sect. 22. 1. It is no where said or affirmed that Infants were not baptized by John the Apostles c. Therefore unlesse it can be proved by some light and pregnant consequence from somewhat that is written that they were not baptized which to do would make a new thing under the Sun the proposition before us is no proposition of Faith nor stands any man bound to beleeve it 2. Mr. A's proof from the total silence of the Scripture herein is as good as total silence or the speaking of nothing For it is a common and true rule that Argumentum ab authoritate ductum negativè non valet a negative Argument from Authority proves nothing And Mr. A. from the total silence of the Scripture may as well prove that neither husband men nor Merchants nor Taylors nor Shoe-makers nor persons of twenty other callings besides were baptized as well as that infants were not baptized There is alike total silence of the Scripture concerning the baptizing of the one and the other or if there be any difference in this kind the silence is not so perfectly or absolutely total concerning the baptizing of children as of the others as will appear presently Sect. 23. 3. That total silence of the Scriptures which he pleadeth to prove the non-baptizing of children in the Apostles days may with as much reason be construed as an argument that they were baptized constantly and of course For matters of common and known practise the knowledge whereof doth not much concern future times especially when these practises may beâ—evinced otherwise are frequently and as it were of course pretermitted in Historical narrations There is very little mention made of children circumcised in the old Testament the reason questionlesse is because their Circumcision was so common a practise There is much more notice taken of the Circumcision of men see Gen. 17. 23 24 25. Gen. 34. 24. Jos 5. 7. 8. because this was a practise besides yea and contrary to the letter of the institution I conclude therefore saith Mr. Baxter p. 116. of his Discourse for Infant-Church-membership and Baptism that it is a most evident truth that Christ did not speak about Infants-Church-membership because it was a known truth beyond controversie Nor was there any one man found in those days that we read of that ever denied it and all the Jews yea and all other Church-members were in actual possession of it and Christ never questioned their possession Upon the like account it very well may be that there is so much spoken in the New-Testament of the baptizing of men and women and so little or nothing at all in so many words of the baptizing of children The frequent mention of men and women baptized may with as much probability if not more argue that the first administrations of Baptism were out of course and contrary to the order setled by the institution made unto them as that they should be exemplary or binding unto future ages As the recording of so many men circumcised about the first institution of Circumcision was not intended to make these administrations standingly or in ordinary cases exemplary or obligatory unto after-times because this had been to defeat the express letter of the institution but rather to shew that in like cases and under like circumstances viz. when male Jews or Proselites had not been circumcised the eight day they might be circumcised afterwards when ever they had opportunity And prâ—bâ—ble it is that the circumcising of so many men Jos 5. was warranted unto Joshua by the record of those examples In like manner the reason why the Holy Ghost maketh such frequent report in the New-Testament of men and women baptized may with greatest â—â—obability be not to leave these examples for patterns or rules in all no nor yet in ordinary cases but onely in such cases which parallel those wherein the said administrations are reported to have been made viz. when men and women should at any time be converted from an idolatrous
possibility and this not degreed neither like the other that the Authors mentioned should be mistaken in the grounds upon which they build their testimony of the practice of Infant-Baptism by the Apostles it is very importune dis-ingenuous and hardly consistent with a good conscience for any man to reject their testimony in the case And if Mr. A. himself and three or four more of his judgement of equall repute with him for sober and conscientious men although I beleeve his new opinion and way hath not at all tenerized or bettered his conscience nor any other mans should report any thing upon grounds as pregnant with evidence of truth unto them as the grounds upon which the fathers testified the baptizing of children by the Apostles were unto them I should without much scruple beleeve him yea though the thing reported by him in this case should in it self be much more incredible then that children were baptized by the Apostles Nor is it at any hand to be beleeved or thought that the said Authors their gravity wisdom interest and authority in the Churches of Christ in their daies over and besides the most approved goodnesse of their Consciences considered would upon conjectural or light grounds or such which had been liable to dis-proof asserted any such matter of fact as that Yea that which is more then this their adversaries themselves I mean the Pelagians who were great opposers of Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers about his daies men of great learning subtile diligent and studious in their way against whose Doctrine and Tenents the baptizing of infants was one of the grand arguments or objections urged and insisted on by the Orthodox Fathers yet never denied or so much as questioned the truth of what they constantly affirmed touching the descent of Infant-Baptism from the Apostles To pretend that the writings at this day passing under the names of the fore-named fathers may for ought we know be spurious and counterfeit or else depraved and corrupted and that upon this account the authority of any thing found in them is not much to be valued thus I say to pretend argue and conclude is worthy onely such men whose consciences will serve them rather to say any thing and to seek out any frivolous or puted evasion then to yeeld to the truth However if Mr. A. can offer any thing for proof of the negative that children were not baptized by the Apostles which in the eye of unpartial and considering men doth any waies to any proportion or degree ballance the weight of what hath been alledged from many competent witnesses for the affirmative I shall let go the hold I have taken on the credit of their testimony in the case which untill then I suppose himself will judge meet and Christian that I should keep In the mean time the premises together with what we shall upon somewhat a like account immediately subjoin considered I do with very little lesse confidence beleeve that Children were baptized in the Apostles daies then I beleeve the Sunne to be up at noon day Therefore Sect. 28. 7. It is very considerable also for the discovery of the truth in the businesse in hand that the times when and for the most part the occasions whereupon those additional ceremonies which for a long time accompanied the baptizing of infants as God-fathers and God-mothers so called with some others had their first rise and original may from current histories be shewed and found Whereas no history whatsoever undertaketh to report when the baptizing of infants came first into the Church which is no light argument or proof that this practise was more ancient then any Ecclesiastical history now extant and consequently as ancient as the times of the Apostles For it is altogether improbable that any History should take notice of appurtenances or additional circumstances and record the time of their introduction into the Church and not withall take and give knowledge of the time when the fundamental and main practice it self first began in case the beginning hereof had fallen within that compasse of time which the said History traverseth What Mr. Tombs impertinently attempteth from the councel of Carthage hath been sufficiently staved and beaten back by others a Dr. Hosms Animad upon Mr. Tombs his Exercit. p. 167 168. c. Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant-Baptism p. 40. Nor is there any thing more apparent from History then the mention of Infant-baptism before that councel For the first councel of Carthage which it is like Mr. Tombs meaneth though he distinguisheth not there having been several of the name was held about the yeer 217. according to some computations several yeers after whereas there is mention of â—nfant-Baptism as we heard both in Origen who died before this councel as also in Justin Martyr Ireneus yea and Tertullian who all lived neerer to the times of the Apostles then Origen And it may be worth some observation that Augustine who as we have heard so frequently constantly upon occasion asserteth Infant-baptism it self to have been practised in the Apostles times yet speaking of the custome of interrogating the infant to be baptized by the Susceptores or those that brought it to Baptism whom we call God-fathers and God-mothers affirmeth no such thing concerning this though otherwise he indeavoureth to give the best account of it he can to his friend and fellow-Bishop Boniface Epist 23. Sect. 29. 8. Although no History records either when or by whom Infant-baptism was first brought into the Church yet is the first opposing of it ascribed by good History to an Arrian Heretique named Auxentius with his adherents as the most learned and worthy Martyr Mr. John Phiâ—pot formerly mentioned affirmeth in that letter whereof we took notice in the beginning of § 27. The diligent perusal of this letter alone is enough to make Ana-baptism the abhorring of any intelligent mans soul This Auxentius I find upon the stage acting the part first of a subtile and afterwards of an imperious insulting Arrian about the year 369. So that untill this time the baptizing of Infants it seems was never so much as questioned in the Churches of Christ and he who first questioned and opposed it opposed withall the God-head of Christ So that Mr. A. and his have no great cause to boast of the founder of their Faith in the Doctrine of Anti-poedo-baptism as neither have they of one of the greatest defenders of it since the late resurrection of it from the dead in Germany Lodivicus Hetzer by name who with Auxentius denied the Divinity of Christ and besides was a notorious Adulterer and withall was confident that he was able to justifie his adulterous practises by the Scriptures Indeed the History reporteth that at last he very seriously repented of all as well his Anabaptism for so I understand my Authors Quorum omnium as of his Arrianism and Adulteries a Constantiae quarta Februarij capite truncatur Ludovicus Hetzer Ana-baptistarum
especially fram'd by himself against his opinion and yet be never the more solid or substantial in his grounds by which he asserteth his opinion But his first argument being fallen let us see whether his fellow the second will help him up or supply that which we found lacking on the behalf thereof for the support of his cause Sect. 46. His second Argument he informeth us by the way shall be Mr. A's second Argument against Infant-baptism answered taken from the nature of Baptism and from the declared ends and usâ—s of it I wish he thoroughly understood the nature of Baptism for then I presume he would abhorre himself in dust and ashes from that un-Christian and needlesse disturbance which he hath made amongst the servants of God about it And for the declared ends and uses of Baptism of which he speaks it will appear by the management of his argument that he is at a losse in himself about them and uncertain what they be But the argument which he prefaceth as ye have heard riseth up before us in this form If that administration of Baptism which is made to professed Beleevers doth more conduce to and better answer the ends of Baptism then that doth which is made to Infants then Baptism ought not to be administred unto Infants but to professed belâ—evers But that Administration of Baptism which is made to professed Beleevers doth more conduce to and better answer the ends of Baptism then that which is made to Infants Ergo By the way this argument with that strength which it hath magnifieth it self every whit as much if not more against the councel and wisdome of God in Circumcision as against his Adversaries opinion and practice about Infant-Baptism For may it not altogether as rationally and with as much truth be pleaded and said that that administration of Circumcision which was made to professed Beleevers did more conduce to and better answer the ends of this Ordinance then that which was made to infants as it can be pretended that that administration of Baptism which he exalteth more conduceth to and better answers the ends and uses of Baptism then that other which he depresseth For assuredly Circumcision was in the ends and uses of it at least in the cheif and principal ends and uses of it altogether as mysterious as sacred and holy as Baptism yea and very little if at all in these differing from it Sect. 47. But let us partially weigh and consider both the propositions The major Proprosition answered now before us in their order To the major we answer that the consequence herein is void of strength and truth yea and hath scarce so much as a face of probability in it For the better or greater serviceablenesse or conducement of a thing to the ends intended by God in it in some particular cases is no argument at all to prove that therefore the use of this thing is in all other cases simply unlawfull Breast-milk given unto new born babes more conduceth to the end intended by God in this creature then when it is given unto healthfull and strong men yet this proveth not that therefore it is simply unlawfull to give this milk unto such men or for them to use it for food especially in some cases The Ordinance of marriage more conduceth unto and answâ—rs the ends and useâ— intended by God in it when it is imbraced by persons of competent years for the procreation of children c. then when it is entertained by men and women who have out-lived such a capacity yet this proveth not but that persons strucken in years beyond the procreation of children may lawfully marry The Ministery or preaching of the Apostle Paul did more conduce unto the ends of preaching as viz. the glorifying of God the saving of souls c. then the ministery or preaching of some other the Apostles or however then the ministry or preaching of ordinary Pastors and Teachers either in these or in former daies Yet this no wise proveth that the ministry or preaching of the other Apostles or of ordinary Pastors and Teachers is unlawfull The administration of Circumcision which was made to infants did more conduce unto and better answer the ends of it as appears by the standing law given by God himself for this administration Gen. 17. then the administration of it made unto men Yet it followeth not from hence that therefore the administration of it unto men was simply universally or in all cases unlawfull 2. When he saith that that administration of Baptism wherein he so inordinately pleaseth himself doth MORE condâ—ce to and BETTER answer the ends of it c. doth he not plainly grant or suppose that the other administration which is made to infants and which his soul so greatly abhorreth doth notwithstanding in some degree both conduce unto and answer the ends of Baptism also If so can it be simply and absolutely unlawfull Or if we suppose or say that Paul's ministery or preaching the Gospel did MORE conduce unto or BETTER answer the ends of preaching then the ministery of some other of the Apostles do we not in so saying suppose the ministry and preaching of these Apostles to be at least lawfull and in some degree conducing unto the ends of preaching More reverence is due to the Consciences of men especially of the Saints then to trouble or disturb them with such slight reasonings as these But Sect. 48. 3. Neither doth he expresse himself so handsomely when he saith that the administration of Baptism whether to the one subject or the other doth more or lesse either conduce to or answer the ends of Baptism Baptism is one thing and the administration of Baptism is another far differing from iâ— They differ more then toto genere the one from the other Now to say that one thing conduceth more or lesse to or more or lesse answereth the ends of another thing which is of quite another nature and consideration from it makes no pleasant harmony in the ears of any considering mans understanding But to overlook this oversight 4. How impertinently doth he argue the consequence in the proposition now under canvasse from these Scriptures p. 12. Cursed be the deceiver which having in his flock a male and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing Mal. 1. 14. And again Seek to excell to the edifying of the Church 1 Cor. 14. 12. Doth it follow from these texts either divisim or conjunctim that If that administration of Baptism which is made to professed Beleevers doth more conduce unto and better answer the end of Baptism then that doth which is made to Infants then Baptism ought not to be administred unto Infants c. Or is that which conduceth to a good end though in an inferiour or lesse degree then haply some other means or thing may do necessarily a corrupt thing That Tree which bringeth forth GOOD Fruit is adjudged by our Saviour a good tree though it bringeth
actuall reception of it is the Baptism unto which especially and in the first place Peter in the Scripture before us exhorteth men sin his exhortation unto them to be baptized Otherwise we must make the sence and meaning of this his exhortation to rise thus Be ye baptized whether you be convinced of the necessitie yea or of the lawfulnesse of it or no and whether you have an opportunity for it which your consciences can in every respect approve of or no I suppose that Mr. A. himself will not put such a construction as this upon the Apostles exhortation unto Baptism Therefore it is a most unquestionable and undeniable truth that Peter in the Text in hand doth not simply or in all cases no nor yet principally or primarily exhort Repentants unto the actuall reception of water baptism but only unto such a vertuall eminent and constructive Baptism as that lately described and not at all unto water-baptism but only upon the terms and conditions specified under which indeed he that shall refuse this kind of Baptism declares himself a rebell against the Lord Christ as all Anti-paedo-baptists in the judgment of that worthy Martyr Mr. John Philpot do in not suffering children to come unto Christ by Baptism and during this rebellion cannot be interessed in remission of sins Sect. 92. If it be yet objected and said that questionlesse the repenting Jews whom Peter exhorted to be baptized understood him to speak of water-baptism only and of none other and consequently submitted unto his exhortation thus understood and were actually water-baptized without any more ado I answer 1. It cannot be proved that the Jews to whom he spake understood him in such a sencc only as that specified in the Objection 2. In case this could be proved yet will it not follow from hence that either they did well in not apprehending a further sence in his words or that Peter himself did not intend a further sence some such as that represented in them 3. Nor doth their ready and speedy betaking themselves unto Water-baptism at all argue that they understood him to speak of this Baptism simply or only because they being already before they came at the water baptized with that inward Baptism of the heart we speak of and being under no scruple or doubt whether it was the mind and will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized or no or whether the opportunitie before them was in all points legitimate or no the Apostles expresse order for their baptizing either by himself or by others authorised by him being a sufficient ground for their satisfaction in all these particulars they were obliged in conscience without any more adoe to be actually Water-baptized and it is freely acknowledged that all persons whatsoever being under the same terms of satisfaction with them both as touching a necessitie as touching a compleat legitimatenesse of an opportunitie are bound in conscience to be baptized with water as well as they Only with this proviso that though persons now be as fully satisfied touching a necessitie of being baptized as they were yet if the grounds of mens satisfaction in this kind now be unsound and sandie as they must needs be in case their opinion be true who judge the date of the necessitie of Water-baptism to be now expired their submission unto this Baptism though lesse sinfull then the contrary yet is it not justifiable Sect. 93. If it be yet said that it is no waies probable that Peter himself had any other meaning in his words when he commanded them to be Baptized but simply and plainly that he would have them forthwith to be water-baptized and consequently that he had no thought of any such Baptism eminently or vertually so called which you put upon him To this also I answer as hath in part been answered already That it is somewhat yea much more then probable that though Peter did not formally or explicitly mean any thing more in the words in question then what the Objection pretendeth yet he presupposed that kind of Baptism which we plead and that he would not have exhorted them to be baptized with water unlesse he had known them to be baptized already with that other Baptism The reason is evident because had he not supposed them either already satisfied before his exhortation directed unto them or at least that they would be satisfied by it that it was the will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized and that there was an opportunitie before them every wayes legitimate for their reception of this Baptism he would in the first place rather have endeavoured to satisfie them that this was the will and pleasure of Christ concerning them and that the opportunitie before them for receiving Baptism was every wayes legitimate and approveable then have either commanded or exhorted them to be presently baptized The result of this clear and thorow Examination of Peters exhortation to the Iews to be baptized for the remission of sins amounteth to this that the said Exhortation imposeth a necessitie upon no man of being water-baptized for the remission of sins in the great day but upon such persons only who stand under the like terms of satisfaction every wayes touching the said baptizing under which he exhorted the Iews to be thus Baptized If so then Mr. A's Notion or interpretation of this exhortation must needs fall to the ground which beareth that the said exhortation maketh it evident yea too evident to be denied by any but those that will not see that a Declaration of the repentance by Baptism he means by an actuall reception of Water-baptism is required on mans part he means universally and in all cases otherwise he would have distinguished to interesse him in remission of sins he means in such an estate of justification as the Scripture so frequently appropriateth unto true Beleevers immediatly upon their beleeving Such an inference or notion as this hath no more communion with those words for whence it pleads with such an unseemly confidence legitimacie of descent then shews have with substances and meer appearances with realities and truths Sect. 94. 3. Our Protestant expositours generally leave Mr. A's confidence and conceit upon the Text in the point in hand for the Papists to gather up who fall greedily upon them and make great treasure of them Although saith Calvin in the contexture of the words Baptism goeth before remission of sins yet in respect of order it followeth after because it is nothing else but an obsignation or sealing of those good things which we obtain by Christ that they may be ratified in our consciences a Tametsi in contextu verborum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remissionem peccatorum hic praecedit ordine tamen sequitur quia nihil aliud est quà m bonorū quae per Christum consequimur obsignatio ut in conscientiis nostris rata sint Calv. in Act 2. 38. Gualter saith that Peter admonisheth them of outward Baptism which he commandeth them
yet peace before joy Rom. 14. 17. Melchizedeck's act in blessing Abraham is mentioned in the first place and his blessing the God of Abraham in the latter Gen. 14. 19 20. So likewise the burnt-offering is named before the sin-offering Levit. 12. 8. whereas the sin-offering was in order of time to go before it as appears Levit. 8. 14 18. and so again Levit. 9. 7 c. It were easie to multiplie instances in this kind I mean both where there is an interchangable expression of the same things in respect of prioritie and posterioritie as likewise where that which precedes in time is mentioned after that which in time comes behind it Therefore from the Order in Peters exhortation between Repentance and Baptism nothing can be argued to prove a necessitie that Repentance alwayes ought in respect of time to precede Baptism as neither did it precede in the Baptism of which notice was taken formerly 2. In case it were granted that from the Scripture yet on the stage it could be proved yea or were so evident as Mr. A. gloryingly over his adversaries pretendeth that remission of sins dependeth in part upon Baptism and that neither Faith Repentance Love Humility Self-deniall Mortification with all the heavenly retinew of the Graces of the Spirit can do any thing to the interessing men in this priviledge but only in conjunction with Baptism yet neither from hence will it follow that therefore Infant-baptism is unlawfull yea or not as available in this kind as Mr. A's after-baptism is Evident it is that there is no rational footing for either of these inferences in either of the premises For the lawfulnesse of Infant-baptism supposed the contrary whereof as we even now demonstrated cannot be proved from the Scripture in hand there can be no reason to dis-interesse it in any priviledge or blessing which is vested in any Water-baptism whatsoever Sect. 98. Thus at last we see as by a noon-day light how unadvisedly and upon how slight grounds Mr. A. hath fallen un-Christianly foul and heavie upon his Christian Brethren dissenting from him in his sence about Baptism by adjudging the case against them thus It is too evidēt to be denied by any but those that wil not see from Act. 2. 38 39. That both Repentance and the Declaration of it by Baptism is required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins sanctification of the spirit And as touching this latter the Sanctification of the Spirit that Baptism is not necessarily or universally required on mans part to interess him herein is of much more easie demonstration then the former But enough upon this account hath been said formerly considering how point-blank the Scripture lieth in many places against this conceit Review the eighth Section of this Discourse Although Mr. A. for cause best known to himself waves the impanelling of Act. 22. 16. to serve upon his Jurie as hath been formerly noted yet because Gehezi thinks himself wiser at this turn then his Master and will not lose the opportunitie and advantage so seeming to him of such a Scripture though the other letteth it passe let us bestow a few lines in the examination of it also The words are these And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the Name of the Lord. Paul himself reporteth these words as spoken unto him by Ananias upon his sight restored of which he had been for a season deprived by means of the glory of that light wherein the Lord Christ had appeared unto him from heaven as he was journeying towards Damascus Now because Ananias expresseth himself unto Paul thus be baptized and wash away thy sins some according to the tenour of Mr. A's Doctrine inferre that therefore Baptism washeth away sinnes i. procureth Justification or pardon of sinne in the sight of God But to this we answer 1. Substantiall proof hath been made and this by many arguments that remission of sinnes is the purchase or procurement of the blood of Jesus Christ and is obtained or received by such a Faith which is accompanied with a true Repentance and that it is not suspended either in whole or in part upon Water-baptism 2. Evident it is that Paul when and before the words in hand were spoken unto him by Ananias was in an estate of Justification before God and had obtained a remission of all his sins For 1. Ananias saluteth him BROTHER Saul Act. 22. 13. before he baptized him which doubtlesse had he judged him to be in an estate of Reprobation he would not have done 2. He prayed and this with acceptation in the sight of God before he was baptized Act. 9. 11. This also evinceth him to have been in favour with God before his said baptizing and consequently that his sinnes were forgiven him 3. When Ananias replied unto the Lord Christ speaking unto him in a vision and injoyning him to seek out Paul that he had heard by many how much evill he had done to the Saints at Jerusalem the Lord made him this answer Go thy way for he is a chosen vessell unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles and Kings and the children of Israel For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my Names sake c. These things sufficiently declare him to have been in favour with Christ whilst he was yet unbaptized and so not to have been in a state of condemnation or under the guilt of his sinnes and consequently that his sinnes were not for given him either by means of or upon his baptizing 4. The Lord Christ had in a most extraordinarie and glorious manner revealed himself from heaven unto him telling him plainly that he was Jesus whom he persecuted and Paul beleeved him accordingly Act. 9. 5 6. Therefore certainly by this time he was in a state of acceptation with Christ and so cleansed from his sins 5. And lastly if his sins were in any such way or sence washed away in or by his Baptism as if untill now he had been in a state of wrath thorow a retainment or non-forgivenesse of his sinnes by God then had Ananias admitted an unclean person and a child of Sathan unto Baptism when he admitted Paul and consequently neither Faith nor Repentance nor yet the profession of either shall be necessarie to qualifie for Baptism unlesse it be said that Ananias acted contrary to Gospell rule in baptizing Paul Therefore certainly Ananias his meaning in saying unto him Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins c. was not that by being baptized he should be justified in the sight of God or obtain the pardon and forgivenesse of his sins These as hath been proved having been forgiven him before his baptizing but that either 1. he should wash away his sins Typically or Sacramentally or else and rather 2. that upon his being baptized he should wash away his sinnes i. in his own expression and phrase cleanse himself from all
an argument as well against the câ—rcumcising of Infants under the Law as against the Baptism of Infants under the Gospell because there is the same reason to suppose that circumcision should have lesse answered the ends thereof when applied to Infants as there is to conceive that Baptism should lesse answer its ends when it is applied to Infants and yet we well know that this was no barre to Infant-circumcision then and therefore why should it be any against their Baptism now This argument or Objection is the great dread and abhorring of Mr. A's soul fearing it seems least his second argumeÌ„t against Infant-Baptism should die by the hand of it And the truth is that were it yet alive he had reason enough for such his fear but we have seen it a dead corps already a body of words without any soul of sound reason or truth in it And how vain a thing is it to be solicitous about the rescue of a dead mans life from the hand of an enemie Nor is it so proper when a man hath lost his life by one hand for any man to undertake to prove that had he escaped this hand yet he would have fallen by another Notwithstanding since we have in our canvasse of the said argument now and then intersprinkled somewhat of that notion I mean about the proportion between Infant-circumcision and Infant-Baptism the disparagement whereof Mr. A. here undertaketh let us see Mr. A's Objection and his Answer play a little before us Sect. 121. His objection as ye have heard pleads that there is the same reason to suppose that circumcision should have lesse answered the ends thereof when applied to Infants as there is to conceive that Baptism should lesse answer its ends when applied unto Infants c. This Mr. A's answer denieth and no marvell for what should it else do unlesse it meant to be an answer by concession only But nothing is more easie then to denie but in many cases to give a substanticall account of a mans deniall hic labor hoc opus est this will trie the ingenuitie and strength of a man And at this turn Mr. A. with his Answer faileth For of all the three Grounds or Reasons which he commendeth unto us for that his deniall there is none competent to justifie it First be saith p. 26. that Circumcision and the Covenant to which it related remained in the flesh of him who was circumcised all the dayes of his life as visible to him and as capable of improvement to spirituall ends many years after it was made as if it had been but newly acted and done before his eyes Whereas Baptism is a transient act and leaves no such visible impression in the Infant as matter of memoriall signification or instruction unto him when he comes to be a man as that of Circumcision did So that wâ— see there is not the like reason but an apparent difference in this respect But for answer to this 1. The remaining of Circumcision in the flesh of the circumcised as matter of memoriall significâ—tion c. could be no reason why Infants were appointed by God to be circumcised Because had men only been circumcised their circumcision would have remained every whit as much or rather more in their flesh and have been altogether as competent matter of memoriall signification and instruction unto them as now it was being received in their infancie Nor was it any advantage unto them by way of memoriall signification c. during all the time of their infancie or untill they came to years of discretion So that in this respect the end of Baptism by way of memoriall signification instruction c. is as well answered as fully attained by the baptizing of Infants as the same or like end of Circumcision was attained by the circumcising of Infants Sect. 122. 2. Whereas he saith that Circumcision remained in the flesh as visible to him that was circumcised c. If he would be understood generally and with reference to all persons whatsoever that were circumcised I know not what ground he hath so to affirm For what thinks he of the circumcisioÌ„ in the flesh of Isaac after his eys were dim that he could not see Gen. 27. 1. so of the circumcision of him that was born blind Joh. 9. were these visible unto them There is the same consideration of the Circumcisions of all that were blinde among the Jews Besides if it be supposed that there were any men in this Nation as corpulent as Eglon Judg. 3. 17. seems to have been their circumcision was hardly visible unto them unlesse haply by reflexion in a looking glasse And yet doubtlesse the Circumcision of all these was as competent matter of memoriall signification c. unto them as the circumcision of those to whom it was visible Therefore Baptism though not visible in the flesh to the Baptized may notwithstanding be as pregnant matter of memoriall signification c. unto them as Circumcision was at least unto many notwithstanding any such visibilitie in it as Mr. A. pretendeth 3. Neither doth the Scripture any where insist upon any such visibilitie of Circumcision as any such advantage unto the circumcised as Mr A. conceiteth nor doth God any where exhort counsell or command any circumcised person to look with the eyes of his flesh upon his circumcision either to he put in mind of or to be instructed in any thing signified thereby Therefore an externall visibilitie is no Scripture-difference between Circumcision and Baptism nor indeed is it in it self any such difference which should make the former any whit more spiritually advantagious unto the subject thereof then the latter Baptism unto its subject So that this difference is only an impertinent shift thought upon and talked of by the adversaries of Infant-Baptism to relieve their cause against such an argument which grindeth it to powder 4. Whereas Mr. A. advanceth his discourse in the point in hand in these words p. 26. Nor can it be truly said that either the report of Parents or neighbours or any Parish or other Register is or can be equivalent unto the sign in the flesh before mentioned as to the ascertaining of men and women of their being baptized in their infancie 1. because there is not the like certaintie nor satisfaction in reports and hear sayes as there is in seeing and beholding which difference notwithstanding we have in the two cases in hand 2. Because opportunity of such satisfaction as these reports are capable of giving may be cut off by the death or other removall of such from whom it is to be received or else by the removall of such Infants themselves into places far remote before ever they came to age c. he only seweth a few fig-leaves together to cover the nakednesse of his cause For Sect. 123. 1. In the beginning of this transcription he reproacheth that Law of the living God established by him long since under Moses and repeated by
him over and over upon severall occasions in the Old Testament a Num. 3. 30. Deut. 17. 6. 19. 15. and again revived and confirmed by the Lord Christ himself and by his Apostles in the New Testament In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established b Mat. 18. 6. It is also written in your Law that the testimonie of two men is true c Joh. 8. 17. In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established d 2 Cor 13. 1. God himself having sanctified the mouth of two or three witnesses to establish i. to ratifie and confirm every matter of fact even those which concern the precious lives of men so that any thing which shall be attested by these shall be taken for true doth not Mr. A. presume to make that common which God hath thus sanctified by disparaging the testimonie of Christian Parents neighbours and others as insufficient to ascertain the Baptim of a person Baptized in their presence and sight 2. By another Law of God the child stands bound to honour his Parents how much more when they are Christian and holy Now whether it be consistent with this Law or with that honour which children owe by the tenour and authoritie of it unto their Parents to give them the lie yea or to suspect them of untruth and not to believe them when they shall affirm unto them that they have been Baptized let Mr. A. himself judge especially considering that there is no colour or pretence imaginable why Parents should lie unto their children in this kind 3. Men and women stand bound in conscience to believe some things and these of greater moment yea and to act according to this belief upon farre weaker testimonies and grounds then the reports of Parents and Neighbours the records of registers for their baptizing The reason or ground which children of any growth or years have to believe that such persons especially one of them who are commonly called and reputed their Parents are so indeed is nothing so authentique or full of proof as the foresaid testimonies and grounds of their baptizing Jealousies and suspicions about the legitimacie of many Children are we know rife in the mouths of men but I believe never did Mr. A. hear the Baptism of any person questioned which either was attested by the Parents or by any Parish Register or Record And yet persons stand bound by the Law of God to honour those as their Parents and to perform all other duties and respects unto them which are due from children unto Parents who are commonly called and reputed their Parents although they have no demonstrative proof of such a relation to them Therefore much more if persons be reported both by their Parents and others to have been baptized and are generally reputed so to have been they stand as well and as much bound to look upon themselves as baptized and to act and walk accordingly as if they knew with the greatest certaintie that they had been baptized 4. The Jews themselves circumcised in their infancie notwithstanding the sign of Circumcision in the flesh yet could have no other knowledge or certaintie that this sign was applied to them or received by them according to the mind of God or as the Ordinance of God but only from the testimonie of their Parents or others present at their Circumcision For how could Paul for example tell or say that he was circūcised on the eight day Phil. 3. 5. but by the testimony and report of his Parents unlesse we shall suppose that it was supernaturally revealed to him which I think is no supposition worthy a considering man Or however it is broadly ridiculous to suppose that every Jew who according to the precept of God was circumcised on the eight day had this supernaturally revealed unto him or came to the knowledge of it in any other way then by the testimony of his Parents c. Besides other Nations in the world using to circumcise their children besides the Jews with whom God made no such covenant as he made with Abraham and his posteritie by Jacob how could any Jew know that he was not circumcised in some or other of these idolatrous Nations and so contrary to the will of God but only by the affidavit of his Parents or others brought up with him Sect. 124. 5. Neither was Circumcision it self any such sign in the flesh but that it might be obliterated and defaced and so forgotten according to that of the Apostle Paul Is any man called being circumcised Let him not become uncircumcised 1 Cor. 7. 8. 6. Nor could any circumcised person amongst the Iews know but by the report of his Parents or others that he was so much as circumcised For the Scripture doth nor report or affirm that every particular person of the male Sex is born with a fore-skin upon his flesh I mean with such a superfluitie in this skin which was wont to be cut off by Circumcision or that every male who wants as much or more of this foreskin as any other not circumcised must needs therefore have been circumcised Yea I believe there are males or men in this Nation who though never circumcised yet have as little of that superfluitie on which only circumcision wrought as many of those who have been circumcised 7. Neither is the receiving of Baptism by men and women when come to years of discretion alwayes capable of improvement to Spirituall ends many years after it is received as if it had been newly acted and done before their eyes For why may not the senses of some baptized in these years be as well sodden into Trapezuntius his temper as the senses of one of Mr. Fishers Antagonists it seems were a See Mr. Fisher Baby-Baptism p. 367. This Trapezuntius was a learned Grammarian and great Scholar but thorow the violence of a sicknesse sustained the losse of memorie to such a degree that he quite forgat not only all his learning but even his own name 8. And lastly In case it should be supposed that a person who is born in hand by his Parents Neighbours or Parish Register that he hath been baptized should yet be deceived by all these and be made to believe that which was not what grand inconvenience danger or losse can reasonably be conceived that this person shall sustain or incurre hereby For whils◠the sence of his conscience bears upon him that he hath been really and truly baptized especially being otherwise really and truly willing to be baptized with the first what greater improvement can they make of the remembrance of their baptism who have indeed been baptized then he is capable of making by his apprehension and belief of his being baptized Yea as the Apostle while Circumcision was yet in some request speaks of a way or Method how men might make their un-circumcision turn to as good an account of benefit unto them as Circumcision
Testament then Infants ought not to be baptized But Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the ministration of the new Testament Ergo If the minor in this argument had been a meet helper or match for the major they had between them established the throne of Anti-poedobaptism for ever But Now the Syllogism is like those equivocall and imperfect animals bred of the sâ—ime and mudd of the great deluge Aâ—tera pars vivit rud's est pars altera tellus i. One part 's alive the other unform'd earth And that Proposition which is strong and which needs no proof Mr. A. proves very substantially but that which is weak he supports with strawes instead of props and pillars Dantur opes nullis nunc nisi divitibus Rich gifts to rich men only given are What refuse is falls to the poor mans share Sect. 136. However suffering Mr. A. to enjoy his major Proposition with the proofs thereof in peace let us fairly and freely consider whether there be the same reason why he should enjoy his minor with the proofs thereof upon the same terms 1. Saith he the Truth hereof meaning of his minor Proposition in the first place is conspicuous and perceptible i. is fully manifest may by a narrow inspection haply be discerned by what hath been made good in our former argument For there we proved Baptism as administred to Infants lesse edifying as to the severall ends of it then when administred unto Beleevers and if lesse edifying then the more suitable and comformable to the ministration of the Law which was a ministation of lesse light and edification and to the same proportion disproportionate to the ministration of the Gospell c. I answer 1. If Mr. A. hath nothing else to make good his minor Proposition in this argument then what he made good in his former the Proposition must stand upon its own bottom and shift for it self For it hath been made good that in that argument he made nothing good at all at least nothing relating to his Proposition here 2. Whereas he bears upon this Principle that what is lesse edifying is more sutable and conformable to the ministration of the Law because this was a ministration of lesse light and edification doth he not leane upon a broken reed that will pierce his hand For suppose we that which is little questionable or however possible that the ministery or preaching of Andrew Bartholomew or or any other of the Apostles was lesse edifying then the Ministerie or preaching of Paul doth this prove that their Ministerie was in any degree sutable or conformable to the ministration of the Law or however unsuitable unto or unlawfull under the Gospell But this reason we formerly weighed in the ballance and found it light See Sect. 53. 118. and elsewhere 3. And lastly it hath been sufficiently also proved against Mr. A's notion that Baptism as administred i. as it may and ought to be administred unto Infants is not lesse edifying but rather more then when administred unto men For this see Sect. 56. Thus we see that Mr. A's first demonstration of his minor Proposition being truly cast up amounteth to just nothing Hear we therefore his second Sect. 137. Mr. A. p. 30 31. 2. I might in the second place well suppose Infant-Baptism to savour strongly of the Legal Ministration because the principal arguments produced in defence thereof are such as do arise out of and are deducted from the example of Infant-Circumcision a principall part of the legall ministration and from the analogie or proportion which is supposed to be between them and not only so but likewise because such arguments and pleas tend to draw down this part of the Gospell ministration as applicable to Infants unto the line and levell of the Legall For answer 1. This proof is guiltie of the capitall crime of untruth affirming that the principall Arguments produced in the defence of Iâ—fant-Baptism are deducted from the example of Infant-circumcision a A little after to the same purpose he saith that these arguments for Infant-baptism are as the axletree upon which the controversie on the Poedo-baptists side turneth as the weâ—p running all along that piece of that discourse I beleeve Mr. A. himself knoweth the contrary as viz. 1. that we do not at all plead Infant-baptism from the example of Infant-circumcision we knowledge and professe that Infant-circumcision under the Law would be no ground or warrant of Infant-Baptism under the Gospell did not the Gospell it self commend the Ordinance of Baptism unto us and 2. that our principall arguments as he calleth them for Infant-Baptism are founded upon New-testament passages and Evangelicall considerations as our writings and arguings do sufficiently testifie 3. That we do not however draw arguments as he twice chargeth us in the plurall number as if not only our principall arguments but the greatest part of the whole number of them were drawn from the example of Infant-Circumcision He cannot prove so much as with colour that we draw any pluralitie of Arguments for Infant-Baptism from that example 4. That we do not in our disputes about Baptism so much mention or insist upon the example as the precept or institution it self of Infant-Circumcision Therefore the very head ground-work and substance of this second proof of his said Proposition is a notorious untruth and consequently all that he buildeth upon it p. 31 32 33. I mean upon this supposition that our principall arguments for Infant Baptism are deducted from the example of Infant-Circumcision must needs be eccentricall to his cause But 2. Suppose we should build our Tenent of Infant-Baptism under the Gospell upon the example of Infant-Circumcision under the Law which notwithstanding we are free and farre from as hath been shewed were we not as justifiable as Mr. A. himself in building his Tenent and practise answerable concerning the unlawfulnesse of Church-communion with persons by him called unbaptized upon that Legall precept by which uncircumcised persons were excluded from communion with the Jewish Church in their holy things See pag. 109. of this his discourse and pag. 11. of his answer to the 40. Queries But the rudiments of the world it seems are substantiall and firm ground for Mr. A. to build upon but Boggs and Quicksands to his Baptismall Adversaries Sect. 138. 3. Suppose there had been no such Ordinance as Circumcision under the Law no precept that Infants should have been circumcised yet upon a supposall of this Ordinance given or to be given there would have been the same reason one or more which now there was why it should be administred consequently why God should injoyn it to be administred to Infants Now that we interesse the mention either of the example or of the precept of Infant Circumcision in our disputes about Baptism we do it not so much if at all for the letter of either as for the spirit of them i. for those reasons sake upon which we â—udge them to have
for that wherein he is meerly passive he saith nothing either to help his own cause or to harme the cause of his adversaries For who ever said on the one hand or proved on the other that Baptism was or is rewardâ—d by God unless the word be taken actively or for the act of baptizing which I know is not Mr. A's â—nce here NotwithstaÌ„ding it may be some question amongst wiser men then either he or I whether God in some cases may not reward his creature man for that wherein he is only passive and particularly whether he will not reward Rachels children as they are called Mat. 2. 18. for the losse of their lives by Herods murtherous crueltie although they were only passive herein But concerning Baptism there being nothing in it simply as such afflicting or grievous to the flesh but as it may be administred and received rather pleasing to it I know no ground why any man should look upon it as rewardable by God Only when as Mr. A. speaketh it is submitted unto in obedience to God I judge it to be rewardable by God according to the line and measure of other acts of obedience commensurable in difficultie of performance unto it But as I judge the obedientiall perseverance and continuance in the profession of baptism in those who were baptized when believers as much or more rewardable by God as their momentanie act in their first submission unto it and receiving it so I judge a conscientious owning and profession of their Baptism in those who were baptized Infants when they come to years of understanding and their perseverance in this profession unto the end altogether as rewardable by God as the voluntary taking up of the Ordinance in conjunction with the like perseverance in the other When Mr. A. shall offer unto me a considerable reason for the contrary I shall demurre untill this his reason and my understanding have conferd together about the case In the mean time I cannot but judg a conscientious owning of a mans Baptism whensoever received aswell and as much yea and as worthy a morall action as the receiving or taking it up at any time and consequently that the good things annâ—xed unto Baptism I mean unto a willing and obedientiall submission unto Baptism by way of a promissorie recompence may upon a very good ground be expected though not by Infants whilst such yet by persons who were baptized Infants when they come to be men and women and shall professe such an acceptance of or submission unto their Baptism Sect. 165. The third and last reason which Mr. A. offereth upon the account lately specified uttereth it self in these words 3. I have proved before in another Argument that now under the Gospel-ministration there is no benefit comes either Mr. A. p. 39 40. by Baptism or any other Ordinance but by means of his Faith who partakes thereof Without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. i. e. in any service to approve ones self acceptable unto him For whatsoever is not of Faith is sin Rom. 14. 23. I answer 1. That I also have proved that neither did there any benefit come either by Circumcision or any other Ordinance under the Legal-ministration but by means of his Faith who did partake of them and yet God judged it meet that Infants should be circumcised Peruse Sect. 127 130 145 163. 2. It hath been lately shewed likewise that though children did not approve themselves unto God in their being circumcised yet God did approve of their Circumcision yea and they who Circumcised them did or might approve themselves unto him in the service What then hinders but that God may approve of childrens being baptized though children at the time of their baptism cannot approve themselves unto him And if Circumcision profited those who were circumcised â—nfants by means of that Faith which was found in them when they came to be men as we lately heard why may not the Baptism received in Infancie benefit the receivers of it by means of that faith which by the Grace of God comes to be wrought in them afterwards So that here is nothing in in this reason but what hath been out-reasoned over and over Yea Mr. A. himself it seems was aware that this Reason of his was Obnoxious to the Answers which have been given unto it but excuseth himself thus I shall not here again answer the case of Infant-Circumcision Mr. A. p. 40 which possibly may again rise up in the minds of some against what hath been now laid down in this Argument also but shall referre the Reader for satisfaction herein to what hath been already done about that subâ—ect in answer to another Objection as judging it sufficient at this turn also I answer that the Sanctuary unto which he sends his Reader to secure him from the force of the Objection which he feareth hath been polluted since the building of it and is razed to the ground See Sect. 120. to the end of Sect. 134. Sect. 166. Before he comes to grapple with that Objection or Argument of his Adversaries with the conquest and overthrow of which be thinks it honourable to sound a retreat and to ungird his armour he interlaceth this discourse I shall not proceed further to leavie more Arguments to Mr. A. p. 40. serve in this Controversie unlesse occasionally though many more of like import with the former might perhaps readily be formed and drawn up as judging these already insisted on abundantly sufficient to detect the vanity of Infant-baptism For answer remembring the Latine Proverb Suum cuique pulchrum every mans own is lovely in his own eyes I look upon Mr. A's conceit of an aboundant sufficiencie in his Arguments for the purpose he speaks of but as a strain of that weaknesse which is much incident to men It is the wise mans observation Every way of a man is right in his own eyes a Pro. 21. 2. Upon the account hereof it is no great matter of offence to me that Mr. A. pleaseth himself with a supposall that he hath detected the vanity of Infant-baptism By way of recompence I trust it shall be no great offence unto him that I am confident that instead of detecting the vanity of Infant-baptism he hath detected the vanity of his undertakeing against it and hath confirmed the doctrine and practise which he opposeth by letting the world see how little weight either of reason or truth there is in such Arguments which are leviable against them and how there is nothing to be found in the Scriptures rightly managed and understood that condemneth or discountenanceth them But hear we the processe of this his by-discourse Nor shall I apply my self to answer those many contrary Arguments which are wont to be mustered up in defence M. A. p. 40. of Infant-Baptism not because I count them or any of them impregnable or of hard or difficult attempt but partly because in those Arguments I
believers are capable hereof do not necessarily contradict the one the other in these sayings there being a sence wherein they may be yea and are both true For all children as such may be capable of Baptism and yet many of them yea all the children of believers only excepted in other respects uncapable There is a double capacitie of Baptism at least as the word capacitie may signifie the one in respect of the subject simply considered the other in respect of circumstance All children in case they should be regularly offered unto Baptism that is 1. freely and by those that have the right of their education as Parents if living or Guardians or Foster-parents in case the naturall be dead and 2. unto persons or baptists regularly authorized to Baptize them they might all be baptized But because Infidell Parents cannot be free in offering their children unto Baptism nor can they being under no Pastour or christian Church-officer offer or bring them to a person regularly authorized to baptize them it being irregular for any Churh to authorise their Pastor or other Officer to baptize the children of unbelievers in this repect these children of theirs are not capable of being baptized That poor Cripple who waited 38 years together for healing at the pool of Bethesda was all this while in respect of his person or as he was an impotent man as capable of healing as any of those who were healed yea had he at any time found such a friend as would upon the Angels stirring of the water have cast him in before some other had prevented him he had been actually healed But being helplesse in himself and friendlesse he was under these circumstances in no capacitie of being healed by those waters A Virgin in respect of her years and person every wayes may be capable of marying such or such a man yet in respect of the charge and command of her Parents under whose power she yet remains to the contrary she may be uncapable of so marrying Yea the man himself with whom in the respect mentioned and in many others she is capable of marrying may notwithstanding be a person so or so conditioned as for example may be an Idolater or son of a strange God or the like that she is not in a regular actuall capacitie of marrying with him Many cases of a like exemplification might be proposed It were easy to produce many sayings out of the Scriptures themselves which do every whit as much contradict the one the other as those catched at and compared by Mr. A. whose consistencie notwithstanding is readily enough salveable by distinguishing partly between positives and respectives partly between respectives and respectives The three particulars now propounded duly considered it appears that Mr. A. hath made no bargain at all either for his credit or for his cause by the way but it may be matters will succeed better with him at his journeys end And I confesse that if he can come off with credit from his incounter with the argument now before him he will do more for the cause of Ana-baptism then hath been done for it as far as I can understand these many years although neither is the goodnesse of that cause sufficiently evinced by never so sufficient Mr. A. p. 41 42. an answer given to one argument bent against it But let us now hear how he quitteth himself in his answer hereunto But to come closer to the Argument I do deny the consequence of the Major Proposition I doe deny that it therefore Mr. Ap. 42. 43. follows that Infants are capable of Baptism though it should be granted that the love of God is the originall ground of rendring persons capable thereof And the reason of this deniall is taken from that difference which is between the originall ground of persons capabilitie of Baptism and the next immediate ground hereof For howsoever the love of God be the ground of all dispensations of good to the creature yet it is not so from the self same respect but as it exhibits it self in one dispensation of it in one respect so in another Dispensation thereof it exhibits it self upon other terms and respects And thereforce we must distinguish between the love of God as it is the ground of Baptism The love of God then is to be considered either 1. in the whole entire summe or body of it generally and indefinitely considered as comprehending and inclosing in it all particular dispensations of Grace towards the creature or else 2. as it excites or puts forth it self in those particular dispensations themselves The love of God in the former sence though it be the the ground of all particular acts of Grace and so that also which appertains to Baptism yet is it no sound way of reasoning to conclude persons to be in an immediate capacitie of Baptism because they are in the love of God under this generall consideration For upon the same ground men might as well argue infants to be strong Christians or fit to be chosen Pastors Teachers or Deacons as to argue them capable of Baptism because persons are in these capacities by vertue of the love of God to them And yet who sees not how absurd it would be to reason thus If the love of God to persons be the originall ground which renders them capable of being chosen into the office of Pastor Teacher or Deacon then Infants are capable of being chosen into these Offices because they are in the love of God c. If the love of God to persons be the originall ground of rendring them capable of the denomination of strong Christians then Infants are capable of the denomination of strong Christians Because they are in that love and favour of God But c. By the light then of these Instances the invaliditie indeed absurdity of concluding Infants to be capable of Baptism because they are in that love and favour of God may you see be sufficiently discerned Sect. 172. Never did there a more impertinent piece of discourse shew it self on paper then this and yet what joy doth Mr. A. make in the winding of it up For 1. It runs all along upon a palpable and wide mistake of the Argument unto which it pretends the relation of an Answer as was lately observed Infant baptizers argue Infants capable of Baptism from their relation of Son-ship unto God Mr. A. answers and labours to prove though very unhandsomely too that the love of God to them doth not render them capable thereof as if the relation in men of Son-ship unto God and the love which is in God towards men were one the same thing May not a man as well suppose that the silver which is in my purse and the gold which in his is one and the same thing 2. The Argument which Mr. A. should answer buildeth a baptismal capacity in Infants upon that which it calleth the originall or first gound or qualification for Baptism in the
any person whasoever of the favour of God in generall towards persons to be baptized Nor did they ever denie but that such a profession might be necessary for some other causes besides an information of mens being in the favour of God whether generall or speciall So that the former part of this latter Answer is a meer impertinencie 2. Whereas he supposeth and in effect saith that Baptizers have no reason to conceive persons to be in a present capacitie of Baptism it self unlesse they have reason likewise to conceive them in a present capacitie of the ends and benefits of Baptism I answer 1. if by a present capacitie he means a capacitie which is at present vested and found in the subject in this sence Children are in a present capacitie of the ends and benefits of Baptism as well as men For there is at present and whilst they are yet children a capacity of the ends benefits of Baptism vested and residing in them This hath been shewed and proved formerly Sect. 64 65 68 69. 2. If by a present capacity he means as I suppose his meaning is such a capacity which renders its subject actually and at present capable of the said ends and benefits of Baptism it hath been formerly shewed and proved once and again that such a capacitie is not necessarie to render a person capable of Baptism more then a like capacitie of the ends and benefits of Circumcision was necessary to render Children capable of this Ordinance under the Law Peruse Sect. 69 152. with others So that we have nothing but overthrown Notions and Conceits to make up this Answer But it seems Mr. A. hath been troubled with a second proof of the said minor Proposition which he lifts up his pen to disable in the next place We shall give him somewhat more then the hearing of what he hath to say to this proof also although by the way this is more then the confirmation and proof of our Argument in hand and consequently of the intire cause of Infant-Baptism requireth at our hand For when an Argument is regularly formed one sufficient proof given for the truth of either Proposition I mean both of the Major and the Minor renders the Argument as authentique and concluding as many proofs of either could do Now against the form of the argument in hand no exception hath been nor with either reason or truth can be taken However let us see Mr A. and the second proof he speaks of play together before us Whereas in the second place saith he it is said that it was upon this ground viz. of Gods loving him that Christ himself was capable of Baptism and not his Faith in as much as he had no such Faith as is required of men to render them capable of Baptism to wit a Faith in God touching the remission of sins through Christ and that yet Christ did not receive Baptism upon any terms extraordinary but upon the same terms as others do in as much as it was in conformity to a standing Law of righteousness common to others as well as him This proof is not drawn up either in terms or in substance of notion to the sence of Mr A's Adversaries as we shall shortly declare in particular however let us see whether the peny of it be not better silver then the Answers To this I answer That this Reason is built upon a mistaken ground as supposing Christ to have no such faith as MIGHT render him capable of Baptism at least such as is required of other men in order thereunto for Christ had the same faith which Mr. A. p. 47. is required all other persons in that case For what Faith was required of other men to render theâ— capable of Baptism save this viz. To beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God For so when the Eunuch demanded of Philip See here is water what hindreth me to be Baptised Then Philip answered and said If thou beleevest with all thine heart thou mayest And he answered Philip again and said I beleeve that Iesus Christ is the Son of God I Answer Sect. 183. Whereas Mr A. saith that the Reason which he is to Answer is built upon a mistaken ground the truth is that this is not the building of the reason but of the answer here made to it For 1. The reason he speaks of doth not speak as he makes it to speak viz. That it was upon the ground of Gods Love to Christ that Christ himself was capable of Baptism But what speaketh it it speaketh this That it was the relation of Son ship in Christ unto God that rendered him thus capable How material the difference is between these two hath formerly been opened 2. Whereas this answer saith that Christ had the samâ— faith which is required of all other persons in that case it builds upon another mistaken ground For that the faith which was in Christ was essentially and specifically differing from that which is reqâ—irea of â—ther persons in the case he speaks of is evident from hence viz. because such properties which are essential unto and do universally accompany that faith which is required of other persons in the case specified were wanting in the faith of Christ That faith which is required of other persons in the said case must be accompanied in its subject with repentance for siâ— perpetrated and committed This is so essential unto this Faith that without it no Faith whatsoever gives unto the persons we speak of a regular capacity of Baptisme * At least according to Mr. As. principles Yea Baptisme as we have oft heard is described by its relation unto Repentance not unto Faith as the more proper and signal qualifier of the two for its reception Therefore that Faith which is not accompanied in the same subject with repentance is not of that kind or species of Faith which is required in persons in order to their baptizing and consequently that Faith which was in the Lord Christ not being thus accompanied for he that never sinned could not repent of his sins was not could not be of the same kinde of Faith with that required in other persons Again that kind of Faith which is required of ordinary men and women upon the account before us in all and every the particular and individual actings and residings of it obtaineth remission of sins But the faith which was in Christ obtained no remission of sinnes Therefore it was a Faith of a differing kind from the Faith required of other persons Sect. 184. Yet again upon that Faith which is required in other persons c. this Law is imposed by God in all and every the residings of it viz. that upon the first coming of it unto and working of it in the soul a profession or declaration of it â—b â—eopenly made by Baptism This is Mr. A's own a vouched Doctrine in the premises and is also asserted by him in the sequel of his present Answer