being taught or at least they would gather from Christs Commission they are uncapable of being preached to and taught Therefore of being baptized But this is not a sufficient cause why they should not be baptized For teaching the doctrines and commands of Christ should go after not before Baptism according to the order of Christs Commission It 's enough that persons be devoted to Christ upon the tender of the Gospel by those that have power externally to dedicate them to him and then they are to be baptized and as it were matriculated into his School and after taught all things that Christ hath commanded them the contrary course is a preposterous inverting of the order of Christ Therefore Baptism is not to be denied to the Infants of Beleevers But they are by their parents to be dedicated to Christ and then baptized and afterwards instructed and taught in all the doctrines and commands of Christ which way is most agreeable to the order of Christs Commission 4. Whereas it is said in Mark 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be condemned If you will take these words precisely as containing a generall and compleat rule by which we must judge who must be baptized and saved who not without limitation to the first calling of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity I reason thus against you from this Scripture Children even the Infants of Christians either beleeve or not If they beleeve Deut. 30.6 having faith though but seminal or virtual comprehended in regeneration or circumcision of the heart which God promiseth to the seed of the faithfull or maybe said to beleeve in their parents who accept of the Covenant for themselves and their seed then they are to be baptiye◠as this Scripture shews and your own argument against their Baptism yields this being your great reason against baptizing children because say you they cannot beleeve But if you say they do not cannot beleeve they are all damned by you from this Scripture which saith expressely Whosoever beleeves not shall be condemned Take which you will If you say the former the cause is yielded by you If the later viz. That all the children of Beleevers whiles Infants are condemned and that there is no hope of salvation if they die before grown years this being so contrary to the Covenant of God and his promises will make you deservedly abhorred of all those that know God his Covenant and Scriptures If you to avoid this dilemma say this Scripture belongs only to those of grown years as were those unbeleeving Jews and Heathens to whom the Apostles were immediatly sent and therefore the condemnation of Infants through want of actual faith cannot be hence concluded you answer your selves and might as easily see that the exclusion of Infants from Baptism for want of actuall personal professed faith cannot hence be gathered especially seeing these words are far more peremptory and expresse against the salvation then against the Baptism of non-beleevers Secondly You say What you practise is proved to be the Baptism of Christ by the practice of the Disciples in obedience to those commands as Act 2.38 Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins ver 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day added to the Church Ans You cut off in the citation of this Scripture a very material part namely the ground of the Apostles exhortation to them to be baptized which if you would have considered seriously might have made you afraid to urge this place for your purpose It seems you thought it good policy to omit it least others should see how little it makes for your purpose or rather how much against you The words you omitted are in ver 39. The Apostle having exhorted them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Christ for the remission of sin and that they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost adds this reason ver 39. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that be afar off so many as the Lord our God shall call Using this argument to perswade them to be baptized and to expect the spiritual blessing signified in Baptism viz. the remission of sins and pouring of the Spirit on them for the promise saith he is to you and your children and least we should think that this priviledge was peculiar to the Jews to have their children interested in the promise with their parents he adds And to all that be afar off so many as the Lord your God shall call Noting that all that shall be called of the remote Gentiles shall enjoy the like priviledge namely that the promise shall belong not only to them but also their children Whence I reason thus To whom the promise of remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost belongs to the same also Baptism the pledge thereof belongs for this is the summe of the Apostles reasoning to be gathered out of the 38. and 39. verse But the promise is to the faithfull or people of God and their children whether Jews or Gentiles Deut. 4.2 Mat. 46. compared with Psal 91.11 12. even those that were afar off whom God shall call and therefore Baptism belongs to them and their children You know who forbids to add to or take from the word and who is the ringleader of that art of curtayling the word 2. Whereas it is said Those that gladly received the word were baptized It may be well understood as they received the word they received Baptism the seal and appendix of the word But they received the word of promise as it was propounded to them by the Apostles which was thus That it belonged to them and their children Therefore answerably the seal of the word viz. Baptism belonging to them and their children they were baptized and their children 3. Whereas you say They that received the word were added to the Church The text saith And the same day there were added to the Church three thousand souls It is not safe thus to make bold with and mis-report Scripture The next Scripture which you cite is Act. 8.1 But when they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God in the Name of Jesus they were baptized both men and women To this I answer 1. Who knows not that the words men and women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as grown persons Did not Eve when she had born her first childe say Gen. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have gotten a man from the Lord Will you hence gather that because she cals him a man therefore he was at perfect age at the day of his birth When Christ saith that the woman when she is delivered of a childe Ioh. 16.21 remembred not her anguish for joy that a man
nor diping is essential to the constitution of a true Church Seventhly You say or imply This baptizing or dipping is that whereby they became and were truly called Christians Ans This is false that men cannot be right Christians without your dipping Yea though we understand it of true Baptism for faith or interest in Christ properly maketh Christians Being interested in Christ though we should be hindered by death or other providence from Baptisme yet we are true Christians as the thief on the Crosse Those three thousand mentioned in the Acts when they had beleeved Act. 2 19 40. were Christians even before they were baptized so Philip before he came to the water Baptism is rather an effect or consequent then a cause or antecedent of our Christianity People are rightly baptized because Christians not Christians because baptized 2. Neither were men hence at first called Christians because baptized for many thousands had been baptized a long time before they were called Christians For whereas great multitudes had been baptized by John the Baptist Mat. 3.5 6. Ioh 4 5 6. See Act 2. 3. to the 7 chap. and more by the Disciples of Christ before his death and many thousands also after his ascension at Jerusalem Samaria and elsewhere Beleevers were not called Christians untill a good time after the Persecution and dispersion at Jerusalem For the faithfull were first called Christians at Antioch Act. 11. â—6 where Paul and Barnabas had taught an whole year and the number of Disciples was mightily increased there is not the least intimation that Baptism or dipping gave them the name of Christians but rather their famous profession of Christ Thus much for particulars observable in the main proposition Eightly From the whole proposition in respect of the matter let it be noted that besides your implicit fastning on us some things which we own not and asserting as your own some things which you neither have nor can prove The whole state of the Question is mistaken by you You speak of Baptism which is for the constitution of Churches whereas the Question is What Baptism is to be used amongst us who are a Church or Churches constituted already We grant that to the first constituting of Churches amongst Jews or Infidels which were never a Christian people a Profession of repentance faith or obedience must be made by men upon the preaching of the Gospel that they and their children may be accepted into Covenant and baptized As Abraham professed his faith before that he and his family were circumcised but after that his children were circumcised without requiring of actual faith and repentance from them as precedaneous to Circumcision They that will constitute new Churches amongst Infidels ought as we judge first to require actual faith and repentance of that people before they admit them and their seed as members of the Church But whatsoever you think of us we Christians in England know that we were through Gods grace a Church constituted long ago whose defects and corruptions though many yet have not been inconsistent with the being of a Church neither such hath been the indulgence of our Lord Jesus Christ the head and King of the Church were we ever unchurched If you will go and preach among Jews Turks and infidels and make it appear that you have a commission for it we will not gainsay your constituting of Churches amongst them and baptizing Professors of faith But in the mean space let me advise you to take heed lest whiles you talk of constituting Churches amongst Gods people Act. 1â— 3 2 Tim. 3.6 Tit 1. 11. Satan use you as his instrument to overthrow Churches by subverting souls and whole houses through speaking things you ought not for filthy lucre sake as he did those noted in the margin Ninthly Let it be also observed in the form of your propounding the whole state of the Question that you which would be accounted great disputers and discussers of the truth laying down a negative Proposition as is evident to any that can discern a negation from an affirmation in propounding it say we affirm when indeed you deny Will not these so grosse mistakes in the parts and the whole the matter and manner of this main question stated by you give just cause to judge that you are such men as those of whom the Apostle speaks in these words 1 Tim 1.5 6 7. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart a good conscience and faith unfeined from which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling desiring to be teachers of the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm Whereas you say H. H J.B. If it be we desire you to prove it by plain Scriptures Ans We have nothing to do to prove that which we never affirmed but you falsly father upon us as it may seem that you may fight with your own shadow But we shall by Gods assistance prove upon solid Scripture grounds That the Infants of Christians which are members of a constituted Church or Churches have right to the Covenant of grace and so to Baptism the seal of entrance into the Covenant and that it is agreeable to Gods word that constituted Churches should be continued by baptizing of children that are members thereof But first let us hear what you say for your way You proceed thus That the Baptisme of beleeving men and women by us practised H.H. J.B. is the Baptism of Christ we prove by these Scriptures Ans For the answering of your Scripture-proofs taken from Christs command and the Apostles practice I will first propound some things in general to be considered secondly make answer to the several Scriptures 1. I answer therefore That neither any nor all these Scriptures do prove plainly positively immediatly and directly without consequence or syllogism which I take to be your meaning when you call for plain and positive Scripture which I have heard that some of your way abhor and protest against that the Baptism practised by you is the Baptism of Jesus Christ In none of these Scriptures it is expressely said The dipping of beleeving men and women practised by Henry Huggar and James Brown is the Baptism of Jesus Christ Nor do we reade in the Evangelists Go Henry Huggar and Ja. Brown teach all Nations and baptize c. Nor do we reade that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel to every creature Nor do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles that H.H. and J.B. said to the Jews Repent and be baptized or that the Samaritans heard you two preaching or that the Eunuch went down with you to the water or that the Jaylour or Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue were baptized by you or either of you If you have any plain positive Scriptures mentioning your selves you may produce them Neither have you cause to take it ill to be urged thus Seeing
the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost which is your practice these Scriptures I am sure contain no such command or practice If you say you finde a warrant for rebaptizing Act. 14.3 4 5. I answer Ob. According as the Original will well bear it Ans in the History the fourth and fifth verses may be so understood as to contain but a relation made by Paul rehearsed by Luke concerning the nature of Johns Baptism for the satisfying of those twelve Disciples that whereas they had been baptized by John that was sufficient in respect of the outward sign For thus saith Paul John truly baptized the Baptism of repentance saying to the people that they should beleeve in him which was to come even Jesus Christ But they which heard him or the hearers viz. of John were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ meaning not only those twelve but all Johns hearers as they were taught by him to beleeve in Christ for they were baptized by him into the Name of Christ so that we must not judge that in the fifth verse Luke makes relation of what was done at that present time by Paul to those twelve disciples but sheweth how Paul continues his speech to satisfie them and others present that the Baptism which they had received of John was the true Baptism in the Name of Christ so that they needed no more external and material Baptism nor had any cause to scruple the truth of their Baptism And this reading is confirmed by these considerations 1. The conjunctions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning of the fourth and fifth verses argue strongly that those two verses make up but one compleat sentence and so that it is the continued speech of Paul holding on his discourse concerning Johns doctrine and Baptism as sutable both of them referring to Christ the one leading the other dedicating people to him 2. Whereas our Translatours render the beginning of the fifth verse When they heard this it may be more properly read so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Original But the hearers or they which had heard or when they had heard they were baptized the word this is not in the Original 3. This reason also may be added If Johns Baptisme was not sufficient but that they must have a new Baptism it will follow that Johns Baptism was not the same for substance with Christs and his Disciples which is not to be granted seeing Christ was baptized by John And as our Saviour shewed his fellowship with the Jews Church by receiving the same Circumcision which they had so he shewed his communion with the Christian Church by receiving the same Baptism for substance with them 2. Others understand the fifth and sixth verses to speak of the same things and hold that these men were indeed baptized again yet not with water but with the holy Ghost Mat. 3.11 Act. 2 3 4. Act. 10.11 11 15 6. Act. 8 15 16 17. by the laying on of hands according to that of John I indeed baptize you with water but he that cometh after me shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and sire And agreeably to those relations in the Acts of the Spirit in the shape of fire descending on persons according to that prediction and at other times given by laying on of hands a good time after Baptism and thus understood it will make nothing for you 3. If we should grant it to be understood of different baptisms with water it will make nothing for you For the Learned which hold that say that Johns Doctrine Mat. 11 11. Ministry and Baptism were introductory to Christs and though higher then the Ministry of the Priests and Prophets yet inferiour to the full Gospel-Ministry Now you cannot say that the case is here alike and that our Ministry is subservient and introductory to yours by Gods appointment as Johns was to Christs 4. Act. 19â—7 This Scripture will do you no service if it be granted that those men were baptized again for they had not so much as heard if there were any holy Ghost but those whom you rebaptize were baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost and were often instructed in the doctrine of the blessed Trinity If you reply Though these whom you dip had heard of the holy Ghost yet they had never felt the work of the holy Ghost in them I answer That indeed is too probable at least in many of them that because they have plaid the hypocrites so long being destitute of the spirit of sanctification 2 Thes 1 10 11 12. Iud. v. 19. and right discerning through their own fault they are thus miserably given over to strong delusions to beleeve lies separating themselves from Gods humble people and powerfull Ordinances because they are sensuall not having the spirit 5. Yea though we should grant that these were baptized again by the Apostle here it was for this end that by laying on of Pauls hands they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost with speaking strange tongues and prophecying vers 6. This you cannot procure for them whom you rebaptize Therefore plead not this place for your practice Now I come to consider of the particular Scriptures which you bring First say you The commands of Christ Mat. 28.19 20. Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost c. Mat. 16.15 16. And he said unto them Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel unto every creature He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be condemned Ans To these Scriptures I answer three things 1. They make nothing for your opinion and practice For 1. These commands were given to the Apostles 〈◊〉 15.21 22. â— Cor. 10.15 1â—â— who were to lay the foundation of Christian Religion where Christ had not been heard of as is plain in these very Scriptures and by the example of Paul and other Apostles acting by vertue of this Commission But you do not so but boast in things without your measure even of other mens labours and boast in other mens Lines of things made ready to your hands 2 Cor. 10 15 16. as the Apostle implies the false teachers at Corinth did It is well known that you go to them which are by profession Christians already 2. Though these Scriptures command to make Jews and Gentiles disciples and baptize or to preach to all creatures and baptize yet they forbid not baptizing those that are not capable of outward teaching and preaching to for the present If you gather from the order of the words that none but those that beleeve actually and personally must be baptized you may as well gather none but those that are baptized shall be saved for as in the text beleeving goeth before baptizing so
Idolatry The assumption which would by us be denied you back thus It hath no command from Christ Therefore it is without an institution Ans In answer to this I desire you to take notice of two distinctions necessary to remove mistakes 1. We must distinguish between the essentials of an Ordinance and the accidentals and circumstantials in respect of the application of it to such or such persons in such a time place or manner This is necessary to be observed Christ instituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and bloud of Christ but never expresly commanded that it should be administred to women It 's sufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture He hath instituted Baptiâ—â— but nâ—ver expresly commanded that it should be administred to or by Ta 〈…〉 Wâ—avâ—rs Jersey-combers or Coblers If from general rules of Scriptuâ—◠〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by such persons thâ—â— being found to have such qualifications as the Scripture requires in these cases it is sufficient It is an Ordinance of Christ that his people should reade the Scripture but it 's no where expresly commanded that such as understand not the original should reade it in a translated printed English Bible it sufficeth that this may be proved out of Scripture by good consequence The second distinction is this An Ordinance in respect of circumstantials or applications may be said to be instituted by Christ either expresly and immediatly or so as that the institution is to be gathered by consequence of this later kinde is a beleeving womans receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ and meer English-mens and English-womens reading the Scripture for spiritual instruction and edification in a printed English Bible distinguished into Chapters and Verses There is no expresse command for admitting women to the Lords Table nor for the translating and printing of Scripture for the help of ignorant people yet these are not Will-worship and Idolatry It may be sufficiently proved from Scripture that these are good and warrantable and that Gods people should be greatly wronged if women should be driven from the Communion and those that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek should be debarred from reading the Scripture I answer therefore 1. By granting the proposition taken in a right sense viz. That whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance and worship of Christ without an institution from him at least in respect of the essentials yea whose essentials and circumstantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture either expresly or by good consequence is at least Will-worship if not Idolatry and therefore unlawfull to be maintained or practised But I deny the assumption for the essentials and substantials of Baptism are expresly commanded in Scripture Mat. 28.19 20. Mar. 16.15 16 c. The particular application of Baptism to Infants though not expresly in so many words in Scripture yet may be gathered therefrom by good consequence as shall appear hereafter God assisting Therefore the assumption being false in that sense wherein the proposition is true nothing can be concluded I come now to your second argument which is this It cannot be proved that Christ or his Apostles practised Infant-Baptism Which reason stands in its whole strength thus What cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised that is unlawfull in Gods worship But it cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised Infant-baptism Therefore it is unlawfull Ans The proposition is not universally â—rue we may not argue from the practice of Christ and his Apostles universally either affirmatively or negatively not affirmatively for they might do some things as such eminent persons which it is not the duty of nor possible for all Ministers or Christians ordinarily to do so Nor negatively for there may be some things which are the duties of inferiour men which yet were below Christ and his Apostles We reade not that they practised or submitted to the Office of Pastors Elders or Deacâ—â—â— properly so called will it follow therefore that these are Will-worshiâ— They never as can be proved translated Bibles or read the Scripture 〈…〉 â—â—unded the text of a Sermon out of a translated printed Bible nor took thâ— notes of Sermons Are these therefore Will-worship If they being busied in laying the foundation of Churches practised not some things which are agreeable to our work which is for the superstruction we need not to be troubled having warrant or institution either immediate or to be gathered by consequence Neither is the assumption so clear as to be easily granted and though it might suffice for the present to deny the main proposition yet take also this answer to the assumption Though Christ did not baptize Infants nor any at all in his own person and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Ministers Ioh. 4.2 or those that may be conceived to have authority to baptize none at all must be baptized by them Yet he did that for Infants which is at least equivalent to baptizing or layeth sufficient ground to warrant their baptizing he laid his hands on them blesseth them pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Gospel and gives command to his Apostles to disciple all Nations and baptize them The Apostles acted according to this Commission held forth the promise whereof Baptism is a seal or pledge as belonging to the faithfull and their children and baptized Beleevers and their whole families of which more largely partly before partly hereafter Your third Argument is this Because they are uncapable subjects having neither understanding reason nor faith and whatever is not of faith is sin Being put into form it stands thus Subjects uncapable of Baptism are not to be baptized But Infants are subjects uncapable of Baptism Therefore not to be baptized The proposition is granted the assumption denied you endeavour to prove it thus They that have neither understanding reason nor faith are subjects uncapable of Baptism But Infants have neither understanding reason nor faith Therefore subjects uncapable of Baptism 1. I answer to the proposition by denying it if by understanding reason and faith you mean ripe actual and visibly exercised and professed understanding reason and faith such as is in persons of ripe years and I give these two reasons of my denial 1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual use of understanding which belongs to persons of age were not uncapable of Circumcision which was of the same use to Jews Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4 1â— Deut. 30.6 as Baptism is to us Christians viz. to be a seal of the Covenant and of the righteousnesse of faith and a sign of renewing and sanctifying the heart 2. That they are capable I prove it by the parts Reason and even sense and experience shews that they are capable of the outward sign there being required a meer passion of them in the Ministers application
THE FONT UNCOVER'D FOR Infant-Baptisme OR AN ANSWER TO THE Challenges of the ANABAPTISTS OF STAFFORD Never yet Reply'd unto though long since promised Wherein The Baptisme of all Church-Members Infants is by plain Scripture-proof Maintained to be the will of JESUS CHRIST and many Points about Churches and their Constitutions are occasionally handled By WILLIAM COOK late Minister of the Gospel at Ashby-Delazouch LONDON Printed by A. Miller for Tho. Vnderhill at the Anchor in Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door 1651. TO The Faithfull Servants of Christ and Lovers of the Truth in STAFFORD And the Parts adjacent and others that are concerned in this Controversie of INFANT-BAPTISM which desire to imbrace the Truth in Love Grace Mercy and Peace be multiplied through the knowledge of God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. Honoured and Beloved Inhabitants of Stafford AS your Wisdom Resolution Faithfulnesse and Activity to appear for the Truth and contend for the Faith shining forth in those whom God hath set in Civil Authority among you in that great push of temptation hath given occasion to many to glorifie God in your behalf rejoice in your stedfastnesse and pray for you and I doubt not yielded comfort to your own consciences so they have ingaged me to acknowledge my self your servant in Christ and for the Truth in this cause which doth so much concern the glory of Christ and comfort of Christians I therefore though conscious of mine own weaknesse when I heard of those many lowd and proud challenges that had been made by the contrary Party to dispute about this Subject was willing upon the advice and perswasion of some of my Brethren to undertake the Challenge relying on the help of Christ and the goodnesse of the Cause And having received the Papers of the Challengers in as short a space as I could prepared this Answer except some additions and explanations which since its return to my hand I thought meet to insert for the help of the ignorant for whose sake it is principally written upon the giving in of a Copy whereof a Reply was promised shortly by the Challengers I waited long and heard nothing of my Papers nor any Reply untill a Letter came to my hands from some of principall note among you dated Novemb. 11. expressing the contrary Parties boasting of a Reply ready long ago which was to be Printed with their Propositions and mine answered Whereupon I was then in that Letter and since by word of mouth desired to Print mine Answer lest I should be abused by others misrepresenting of the same My answer was that I would consult with my Brethren and if they should think it meet I would be willing to yield to you herein Ever since that time I have been cast on a wandring and unsetled condition as is well known far from my Study and Books Yet when I could gain a little time with the help of the Bible I added something by way of explanation for the help of meaner capacities that are not able to see the strength of an Argument or answer when it is barely propounded Two Arguments more I have also added to the former number from one Scripture whence I had only propounded one Argument at the first It may be some will demand What is the reason that their Challenge is not accepted in a way of publique Dispute seeing they have urged it frequently and confidently upbraided your Town and all Ministers that none would publiquely Dispute with them To this I Answer 1. What hope of a publique Dispute on good terms to be undertaken by a Minister of Christ when your own faithfull and peaceable Pastour might not be suffered to preach the Gospel to you a people committed to his charge 2. What incouragement can any rationall man have to Dispute with such as abhorre Syllogismes which are the rationall way of disputing 3. What hope of finding out or clearing the Truth by Dispute where there is no likelihood that the laws and rules of disputing will be observed with freedom safety peace and love with the help of a Learned Judicious and Impartiall Moderator 4. What likelihood of good by a Dispute wherein impudencie audaciousnesse and verbosity passion bitternesse and violence are like to bear sway 5. What can a publique Dispute in such a case which case there is too great cause to fear be but a sinfull abuse of pretious time of peoples patience and even of Scripture and reason it self 6. Who sees not that the drift of these men is to turn Religion into a matter of contention and to draw people together to vain-janglings and concertations as heretofore they met together at Stage-plaies Bear-baits and Cock-fights which abuse What pious heart doth not abhorre 7. It was judged that most or all these evils might farre better be prevented by calm considerate writing wherein the passions of fear anger c. and all tumults might be avoided and reason might speak and be heard 8. Yet if this way of discussing the truth shall not be satisfactory and good grounds of hopes shall be given that the afore-named evils may be prevented I doubt not but the Challenge will be accepted Otherwise no faithfull Minister of Christ may to satisfie the irrationall desires of some and answer the insolencie of others adventure on that which will be by the judgement of the prudent no better then a taking of Gods Name in vain and exposing of himself to certain danger Paul himself though full of zeal for the Truth was willing to yield to the Disciples and his Friends Act. 19.30 31. perswading him not to adventure himself into the tumultuous Theater It were much to be wished that those men which have but weak reason neither knowing how to manage an Argument nor capable of conviction thereby but are taken with plausible expressions and big words or drawn by hopes of honour pleasure gain ease or liberty into new waies like children Carried about with every winde of doctrine would make more use of their sense by which only it seems they live making no use of faith or reason in this case to observe the end and issue of these waies into which they are so easily drawn We need not go to Munster or other parts beyound the seas to see the judgement of God on these men Our own Countrey gives too many sad experiences thereof I will only give one instance of one whose name deserves to be written in the dust and doth already stink throughout the Land and therefore I will not stain my paper with it Yet he is so notorious and infamous that a short description of him will sufficiently put men in minde whom I mean In Warwickshire he appeared first crying down in his Preaching the Ministry of England and Infant-Baptisme After that he proceeded to be a great Dipper after that he became a Master of the Quakers and would cast people into Trances and Revelations as is credibly reported Lastly he became Head of
will Christ take it that his people and Churches are thus compared with the slaves and Synagogues of Antichrist 2. Yet we are not ashamed to own that which is of God amongst the Italians Spaniards and French Shall we reject the Scriptures of the old Testament or be equalled with the Jews because we embrace them as Gods word which the Jews also professe to do Or must we cast off the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and many precious truths gathered out of them because professed by the Papists who yet overthrow by many false doctrines and superstitions what truths they professe no sure Neither are we to think the worse of Infant-baptism because it is used amongst them 3. Yea we make no doubt but that if in Italy Spain and France they would hold only that in doctrine worship and practice which is agreeable to Gods word even the holy Scripture which they professe to imbrace with us and cast away superstitious idolatry and impieties contrary thereunto reforming according to the word God would own them for his Churches neither should they need a new constitution or new Baptisme any more then new Scripture They have added indeed to Scripture and Baptism of their own but let them repent of and cast away their additions and keep that which is of God in judgement practice and worship according to the Scriptures which are amongst them and they become forthwith true and good Churches The Church of Judah after it had fallen to idolatry by casting away that idolatry in the time of Asa Jehosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah was acknowledged a true and good Church without new constitution Nay more if backsliding Israel after her many abominations had returned to God when they had lien long in idolatry Ier. 3.1 2. 4.1 God would have received them as his people without new Circumcision Fourthly Whereas you say From this Infant-Baptism they are called Christians or Christendom You do not prove it We deny it and assert That we are called Christians or Christendom from our faith in Jesus Christ and the profession thereof and from our interest in the Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us in Christ the Mediatour exhibited yet granting that Baptism is the badge of our Christianity but not that which constitutes Christians What they of Rome or Spain say we passe not Fifthly Whereas you say or imply Baptism is dipping in your sense and call it sprinkling by way of scorn in our sense and would imply that Christ ordained and his Apostles practised dipping or as others expresse it dousing over the head not infusion or sprinkling We wish you to prove it if you can either from the proper signification of the word Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See the accomplishment of this Prophecie Act. ◠v. 3. 17 18. Act 10.44 11 15 16. Luk. 12.50 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isa 63 1 3. or from the nature of the Ordinance or from the historical relation of the Apostles practice or otherwise We finde that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash or bedew or imbrew lightly whether by infusion of or dipping into any liquid thing with a light touch but that it should signifie only dipping or dousing the use of the word will not allow 1. It is used to signifie the ceremonial washing of cups pots brazen vessels or tables which may be as well done by infusion or pouring water upon them as by immersion or diping into the water yea in some of them much better 2. The same word is also used to signifie Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire This cannot be so understood that Christ should dip or douse men into the holy Ghost and fire but that in the Primitive times the holy Ghost should be poured upon them as the texts in the margin shew and that Christ would in after times pour his Spirit ordinarily on his people which Spirit in respect of operation is compared to fire as giving light heat c. 3. This word is used to signifie Christs death wherein his bloud was poured forth and sprinkled on himself and he washed in his own bloud I have saith he a Baptism to be baptized with and again Are you able to be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with 4. This word is also used to signifie Christs execution of Justice on his enemies he being compared to a mighty warriour which with wounding and slaying his enemies is besprinkled with their bloud which spouts out of their body when they are gashed and pierced by him Our Translators render that in the Revelation having his garments dipped in bloud Rev. 19 13. But it may be well read as that in Isaiah sprinkled with bloud For warriours do not use to dip or douse their garments in their enemies bloud lying on the ground but well may they have their garments besprinkled therewith as it gusheth out of their bodies being wounded by them 2. As for the nature use and end of Baptism it is to signifie the pouring of the bloud and spirit of Christ on our souls for regeneration remission of sins and sanctification wherein we are not said to be dipped or doused into Christs bloud or spirit but to be sprinkled therewith or to have them poured upon us Heb. 9.13 14. chap. 12.24 1 Pet. 1.2 Isa 44.3 Act. 2.18 So that Prophecie of Christs besprinkling many Nations Isa 52.15 may be understood of his sprinkling them with his bloud which having spilled he was so deformed more then any man ver 14. for justification and his Spirit which by his truth he purchased for sanctification The scope of the text and coherence speaking of Christs sufferings and the fruits thereof confirm the interpretation as most natural and proper 3. As for the relation which the Scripture makes of the manner of baptizing Iosh 3.17 Sometimes indeed it speaks of baptizing at the river Jordan but how improbable is it that they should go into that mighty stream 2 King 2.8 14. Act. 2.41 which could not be passed over safely on foot without a miracle and there be dipped with extream danger of drowning 2. We reade of baptizing in a City divers thousands in one day without any mention of their going forth to any great water to be dipped 3. We reade of baptizing a whole houshold in a City in the deep night without the least intimation of their going forth to a river or any great water to be dipped which if you consider well it may be you will not be so confident in calling baptizing dipping Sixtly You say that This baptizing or dipping of Beleevers was ordained of Christ and practised by the Disciples for the right constitution of true Churches This you speak as your own sense Ans This opinion was confuted before and by that which follows it shall further appear that neither Baptism
that you call for plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence to prove that children or infants by name should be baptized or sprinkled why may not we require of you plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence that H.H. and J. Br should dip men and women When you shew us expresse Scripture for the one we will for the other 2. But it may be you will say It will follow by good consequence from these Scriptures that your Baptism is the Baptism of Christ Ans 1. It is well if you be not afraid of syllogisms consequences and argumentation 2. Yet you have drawn no syllogisms nor arguments hence and untill we see them we cannot answer them 3. If you take liberty to use reasonings and consequences you cannot rationally deny to us the like liberty 4. If you will have these Scriptures brought home by any just consequence for the proving of your Baptism to be the Baptism of Christ you must undertake an hard task for beside your skill in Logick c. you must either prove your selves Apostles or Evangelists for to such were these commands given and of such were these histories Mat. 2â— 19 20. and that you have power and authority to preach to the whole world power to speak with strange tongues to any Nation whatsoever and to work miracles and that you ought to preach to none Mat. 16.15 16 17. Act. 2. 8. Rom. 16 15â— but or at lest principally to Jews and infidels not building on others foundations for these things belonged to those first founders of Churches Or else at least you must prove that you are Pastors or Teachers whom God hath appointed to succeed those extraordinary primitive Ministers who were imployed in founding and constituting Churches Ephes 4 11 12 13 14. which are to build on the Apostles foundation for perfecting of the Saints set apart for the work of the Ministry and for edification of the mysticall body of Christ And if so you must make it appear that upon due trial and examination of your gifts Act 14 23. 1 Tim. â— â— 2 3 4 5. 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14 5 22. Tit. 1.7 8 9. Act. â—0 28 1 Tim. â—â—3 14 15. and fitness in point of knowledge and holiness you have been set apart to that Office by the approbation or imposition of hands of the Presbytery for that is the Gospel-order You must make it appear also that you have a Flock to oversee and watch over and that you give your selves wholly to reading meditation and study and that you fully discharge your Ministry in the Flock of Christ if you will with any comfort to your selves and satisfaction to others that are godly and judicious apply the Scriptures which you have cited to your selves Besides if you be Apostles why do you build on others foundations If Pastours what talk you of constituting Churches as if that were your work 3. The reason is not in all things the same of a Church to be constituted and of a Church constituted already as I have shewed before in the example of Abraham when his family was to be made a Church under the dispensation of the Covenant sealed by Circumcision upon his professed faith and repentance he was circumcised with his whole family and after this his Domesticall Church grew up into a National his posterity being acknowledged members of the Church by Circumcision in Infancy were not to stay for Circumcision untill they actually beleeved after Abrahams example The same course was taken with Proselytes Exod. 12.48 49. they at first were to professe faith and afterwards their children to be circumcised in Infancy In like manner in the New Testament when Governours of families were baptized Act. 16.14 15. 31 32 33 34 their whole families were baptized with them of which hereafter When men are infidels they and their seed are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and therefore must actually repent and beleeve before they and their children be admitted to the Covenant But having by faith laid hold on the Covenant for themselves and theirs their children are interested therein at least externally so far as to have right to the seal of entrance There is not the same reason of the foundation and superstruction in all things nor of planting trees and their growing up and nourishing Indeed at the first planting of a Park Vineyard or Orchyard there must be a rooting or fastning of the first stock stemme or branch immediatly in that ground or grafting stock but afterward it is not necessary or fit that every sprig that sprouts forth thence should be cut off and immediatly rooted in the earth this course would hinder growth and fruitfulnesse So the first receivers of the Gospel being planted into Christ his Covenant and Church by faith do successively convey according to the tenour of the Covenant of grace the blessing to their children whiles succeeding parents the offspring of those first Beleevers continue in the faith so far forth as that their Infants have right to the Covenant and seal of entrance which runs thus Gen. 17 7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee Thus it was unquestionably from Abrahams unto Christs time the Apostle using the like similitude tels us that some of the Jews were broken off from the Olive tree by unbelief for a time Rum 11.17 else they might with their seed still have partaked of the root and fatnesse of the Olive tree as before which priviledge doubtlesse those that were not broken off by unbelief did retain and these unbeleevers when they shall return to Christ by faith shall recover and the beleeving Gentiles being for the present planted in in their room must enjoy Ephes 3 5. The same Apostle saith that the beleeving Gentiles are fellow-heirs and of the same body with beleeving Jews and so partakers of the same priviledges It is true some things are common to the constituting and founding of a Church with its continuance and superstruction these must be alike observed in both cases some things are proper to each and here heed must be taken of confounding these Heb. 6.1 2 left if we be alwaies laying the foundation we never come to perfection 4. Whereas your practice is to perswade beleeving parents to forbear baptizing of their children untill they can actually repent and beleeve Where do you prove that Christ commanded or his Apostles practised this I am sure those Scriptures which you set down mention no such thing The Apostles according to Christs command preached to Jews and infidels and having converted them baptized them with their families but no where bid them keep their children untill they professe their repentance and faith and then baptize them this you practise without any Scripture-warrant 5. Neither do any or all these Scriptures prove that it is according to Christs institution to baptize or dip those which have been already baptized Into
29.9 10 11 12. proves either that there were no little children in that assembly or that they had no right to the Covenant both which are expresly contradicted in the context vers 9. Keep therefore saith Moses the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do Vers 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Elders and your Officers with all the men of Israel Vers 11. Your little ones your wives and thy stranger that is in the Camp from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water Vers 12. That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day c. Now as Moses made this exhortation to all Israel though the little children amongst them were not able to understand it and be affected with it for the present and yet were present to be admitted into Covenant and had right to the seal of entrance thereinto and this exhortation was for their good as their parents embracing it were with their children received into Covenant and put in minde of their duty in devoting their children to and bringing them up for God and as it might serve for the childrens instruction when they should come to age So Paul and Silas might speak to the whole family amongst whom might be little ones who though they understood not the doctrine and exhortation propounded for the present yet might upon the parents imbracing of this doctrine be received into Covenant with them and to the seal of entrance thereinto and afterward by their parents instructed in that doctrine which for the present they understood not 4. It is said that he and all his were baptized straitway There is no expression or intimation that every one beleeved and made a profession of his faith for themselves severally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when the Jaylour had manifested his repentance and faith he and all his were baptized straitway It seems that the faith and profession of the head of the family was sufficient to give right to the members at least to those that did not express their dissent or refusal of it 5. The word having beleeved vers 34. is of the singular number and masculine gender and must be referred to the Jaylour only according to the Grammatical construction 6. Though it should be granted that he and his whole house may be said to beleeve which yet the words of the text prove not It may be well understood so as Abraham and all his family were beleevers in Covenant and circumcised Gen. 18.19 even those that were Infants the Head having made profession of his faith and ingaged himself to take care of all his family should be instructed in the faith and obedience of God And this last answer beside divers of the former general and special may serve for the last Scripture viz. Act. 18.8 And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved in the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians beleeved and were baptized And indeed how can it be thought probable that such families as the Jaylours the Rulers of the Synagogue and Lydias whose houshold was baptized upon her hearing and beleeving of the word no mention being made of the rests hearing or beleeving should have no children in them Hence I gather thus If at the first preaching of the Gospel the faithfull with their whole families were baptized so soon as God had opened the hearts of the governours to receive the word and beleeve then now the families and children of those that have long professed the Gospel at least so many in their family as do not stubbornly reject Jesus Christ are to be acknowledged within the Covenant and admitted to Baptism the seal of entrance But the former is true Therefore the later Whereas you conclude your first Paper thus Having proved by positive and plain Scripture what we affirm we conclude with the doctrine of the Church of England which maintains the same viz. That repentance and faith is required in persons to be baptized and that Infants by reason of tender age can neither repent nor beleeve which we leave to your consideration and desire your answer Ans How positive and plain the Scriptures cited by you to prove what you affirm and practise are we have seen and leave to the judgement of others 2. In your concluding with the doctrine of the Church of England you might have done well to have told us what you mean by the Church and in what book or place that doctrine is main ained and then we should have given answer thereto if the very citation of the place be not sufficient to answer it and make you ashamed of your citing of it But in the mean space you have our consideration and answer to what you bring out of Scripture By me William Cooke You Preface to your second Paper thus IN stead of an expected answer in writing H.H. and J.B. to this our Paper according to promise we have received another verbal request from you viz. That we would give some reasons why Infants should not be baptized By which we conclude you can give no reason why you baptize them we having so much urged you herein to prove your practice by Scripture having given you so large a proof of our practising the contrary by so many plain truths wherein you may finde reason enough against yours if you have any minde without further cavil to answer them Answer 1. IT was agreeable to reason and equity that seeing you had so fully and frequently expressed your selves against Infant-Baptism you should give your reasons thereof especially we having been so long in possession and being by you charged to want right it was fit that you should be required to produce the grounds of your charge 2. Whereas you conclude so hastily that we can give no reason of our practice we see that though you dislike syllogisms you are pleased with sophisticall Enthymems making a conclusion from so weak a premise 3. How much the many plain written truths prove for your own judgement and practice or against ours we wish you to review in the foregoing Answer and you will there finde that without cavils we had a minde to answer You proceed But that you may see how really we intend the discovery of truth and to satisfie you in every desire that may any way tend thereto we give you these further in answer 1. Because Christ hath no where commanded it And whatsoever is practised as an ordinance of his without institution is Will-worship and Idolatry Ans This your reason in its full strength stands thus Whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without an institution is Will-worship and Idolatry But baptizing of Infants is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without any institution Therefore it is Will-worship and
of water That they are capable also of the spiritual grace of Baptism Gods many promises of circumcising the hearts of the faithfull seed and pouring his Spirit upon them c. prove as also the example of Jacob and John the Baptist whereof the one was beloved of God the other filled with the holy Ghost while little ones 2. I answer to the assumption by distinction of the first second act of reason faith The power or faculty of understanding or reason which we may call the first act Infants have else they were bruits and unreasonable creatures though the actual exercise thereof which is in man they want so a seminal virtual habitual faith implied in regeneration and the gift of the holy Ghost they have not a professed faith of ripe Beleevers 2. If men will needs have actual professed faith for the admission of persons to Baptism I answer Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 As parents by faith accept the Covenant for themselves and children according as Scripture propounds the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 which is agreeable to the usual way of contracts and Covenants amongst men that parents take a Lease for themselves and infant-children and binde themselves and children to the condition as infant-children are parts and adherents of their parents having no use of power reason or will to provide for or dispose of themselves in their own persons untill they come to years of discretion so the faith of their parents may be said to be their faith as the parents act in taking a house or making a bargain may be called the childes act as no lesse beneficiall and obliging to the childe then to the parent at least untill he come to the use of reason where in his own person he may by some voluntary act ratifie or disannul it And here observe a second distinction of faith namely actual and professed It is this professed faith may be distinguished into Personal and private which is required of all persons which are at their own dispose at their first entrance into Covenant and admission to the seal of entrance and Common or publick faith which in a common or publick person may suffice in the behalf of those that are wholly under his power and at his dispose as Infants are to their parents This is sufficient for such to interest them in the Covenant and seal of admittance as we see in Abrahams and the Jewish Infants and Christians children which are holy by virtue of their parents faith 1 Cor. 7.14 and in this respect they may be said to have actual professed faith viz. of their parents If the Jews with their children were broken off by unbelief as the Apostle affirmeth Rom 11.29 then by faith they and their posterity had continued implanted untill their posterity should by actual professed unbelief break off themselves and their posterity The same is the case of the ingraffed Gentiles and will be of the Jews that are to be reingraffed vers 20.23 24 25. that by virtue of the faith of the parents infant-children should be in Covenant and beleevers even professedly by the profession of parents as it had been with Gods people for many generations before Christ for the Apostle speaks of such a growing up in the Olive tree that the implanted Gentiles and reimplanted Jews must expect as was that which the Church of the Jews had enjoyed to that time And sure if the unbelief of professed Infidels leave their infant-children in the case of professed infidelity and estrangement from the Covenant untill by their own personal individual faith they embrace that Covenant no lesse must the saith of beleeving parents leave their Infants in the state of professed or known Beleevers and persons in Covenant until by their own wilfull voluntary act they reject the Covenant for Gods promises to the faithfull and their posterity are no lesse full then his curses to the wicked and their posterity Exod. 20.5 6. 3. How ignorantly and impertinently that sentence is added by you Whatever is not of faith is sin any one may see And thus for the answer to your Arguments You prevent an Objection thus But you will say H. H. and J.B. Where doth the Scripture forbid That your Ministers will say is an unreasonable and unlearned question there being no proving negatives for then where doth the Scripture say You shall not worship the Pope go to Masse you shall not reade the Common prayer book or wear the Surplesse But it doth forbid Idolatry Will-worship which is that if you have no Scripture rule for the same and teaching for doctrine the commands of men which is this being only traditionall and that acknowledged by one of your Ministers lately in this Town that it was Ecclesiasticall and not Apostolicall Ans Deut. 4.2 Prov. 30.6 Iam 4.11 17. Rev. 22.8 9. The Scripture is such a perfect rule to Gods people of faith worship and holy walking both affirmatively and negatively that nothing may be urged as a duty Divine worship or truth but what is there commanded or taught nor charged as a sin Will-worship or errour but what is there forbidden or condemned either particularly and expresly or at least in general and to be gathered by good consequence 2. They are very ignorant and rash that will condemn worshipping the Pope going to Masse c. and yet cannot finde them forbidden in the Scripture yea they are too great friends to the Pope Masse and other superstition that will say or but insinuate that the Scripture doth no where condemn them or that will match Infant-baptisme with them 3. Forbear charging us with Will-worship Idolatry and teaching for doctrines the commands of men untill you have heard what Scripture grounds we can bring for our judgement and practice in this particular 4. Why do not you name the Minister which acknowledged this traditional and Ecclesiastical not Apostolical If there were any such let him answer for himself The Papists indeed call it a tradition of the Church to prove the imperfection of the Scripture and necessity of tradition Our Protestant Writers confute them in this shewing that it is grounded on Scripture not on tradition If any whom you call one of our Ministers speaks as the Papist against the whole current of Protestant Divines we are no more bound to stand to his principles or to defend him therein or answer for him then we are bound to do it for you and the Papists which agree with him in that opinion Now before I lay down our Arguments I must for the clearing of the truth confirm one thing which I have partly touched already It 's this That it is not only lawfull but necessary to argue from Scripture by way of consequence or deduction for the finding out of the truth neither must we alwaies expect expresse and immediate commands in Scripture for the particular circumstances and applications of the Ordinances of God or for the justifying of every matter of judgement and
practice in point of Religion It is sufficient sometimes and in some cases that by good consequence we deduce them from Scripture 1. Mat 22.32 33 This was very usuall with our Saviour and the Apostles Thus our Saviour proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob laid together with another principle God is not the God of the dead but of the living Which doctrine also the Apostle Paul proves by many Arguments and consequences 1 Cor. 15.13 to 33. 1 Cor. 15. from vers 13. to 33. So our Lord Christ argues for the lawfulnesse of his disciples pulling ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day Mat. 12.3 4 5 6 7. by consequence 1. From Davids eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath and 3. From that sentence in Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hâ—â— 6. â— Which Scripture-examples and testimony do not expressely and immediatly say It is lawfull for the disciples being hungry to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day and eat them But by good consequence each of these Scriptures much more all jointly prove it So whereas it is said Luke 24.27 44. Luk. 24.27 44. That Christ expounded the Scriptures of all the Prophets shewing that they were fulfilled in him It is not to be understood that those things which were written of Christ in Moses the Prophets and Psalmes did expressely immediatly plainly and positively say that Jesus the son of Mary was the Messias and must suffer all those things and then rise again and enter into glory But by Christs expounding them and arguing from them the two disciples were brought to see the truth So Act. 2.25 26 c. the Apostle Peter sheweth to prove the resurrection of Christ from Scripture that what was contained in Psal 16.9 10. was spoken of Christ It doth not appear immediatly and expressely but by consequence thus It was to be understood of David himself or of Christ the seed of David No of David for he had seen corruption and his Sepulchre was yet extant as Act. 2.29 Therefore it must be meant of Christ Davids seed vers 30.31 32. So the other Apostles in the Acts and the Epistles and the Prophets before them usually deduce conclusions by way of reasoning or syllogizing either from Scriptures or other known principles or both laid together as is evident to any that with understanding and care reade the Scriptures so that further to prove this were to light a candle at noonday and sure he is miserably blinde that cannot see it 2. If you deny the use of consequence you have no warrant or proof for the reading of Scripture in an English translation Printed and so you must cast away your English Bibles as well as Infant-baptism or else fall into Will-worship and Idolatry Nor for womens receiving the Communion nor for the Christian-Sabbath Overthrow these and overthrow all Christian Religion Yea I may confidently say there is no Ordinance of God or religious act can be externally observed which you can perform but at least in respect of some accidentals or circumstantials thereof you must be beholden to consequence from Scripture or else must want warrant for the using of them and so either forbear them all and cast off all religious exercise and become visible Atheists or run into that which is Will-worship and Idolatry in your conceit and act against conscience and not in faith which to do is sin 3. Whereas all Scriptures were written for our learning Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.16 that we may have patience comfort and hope and are profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction All or most of this benefit will be lost unto us if we reject the use of consequences The Scripture doth not positively and plainly make particular application to several men that live amongst us by name this must be done either by publike Ministry or private brotherly instruction and conference or by our own conscience which must by reasoning shew that the Scripture applied is pertinent and sutable to us or else we shall get no good by it 4. For what use should the Ministry of the word or preaching and teaching by others serve Pro. 2 2 3 4. or what use is there of studying and diligently searching the Scriptures as for gold silver and hid treasures if all things therein were so plain and particular to us in them that there were no need of drawing particulars from generals gathering obscurer truths from plainer Scriptures and applying them according to exigency Yea what use should there be of reason it self if we might not exercise it in this case which so much concerns Gods glory and our own and others edification and salvation I study shortnesse else it might be easily made to appear that they who deny and abhorre syllogisms and consequences in matters of Religion do not only deny the principall use of the most excellent gift of reason which God hath given to men for the finding out of the truth Rom. 2.15 Rom. 12.1 but also must cast off all right use of Conscience Scripture and Religion if they stick to that irrationall and irreligious conceit Taking it therefore for granted that no man who hath the use of reason and the heart of a Christian will deny us the liberty of reason in drawing out the truth from Scriptures by consequence I will lay down several Arguments grounded on Scripture whereof some were touched in the Answer to the former Paper what I shall here omit which there I touched the Reader may fetch thence for the baptizing of Infants Arg. Arg. 1 1. Such persons as have had by Gods gracious grant right to the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto in the time of the Old Testament and from whom this grant was never repealed by God nor cast off by themselves are not to be debarred by any man from the priviledges of Gods Covenant and the seal of entrance thereinto whiles the Covenant of grace and a seal of entrance is dispensed to the Church But the children of beleeving parents have by Gods gracious grant had interest in the Covenant of grace and the seal of entrance thereinto at least from Abrahams time to Christs which grant God did never repeal neither did the children of Beleevers cast it off but God hath continued in his Church the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto though in a different manner yet far more comfortable and glorious Therefore the children of beleeving parents are not to be debarred from the Covenant or seal of entrance thereinto which now in the time of the Gospel is Baptism For the clearing of the Proposition let these things be noted 1. Gods gracious grants of priviledges to his people wherein are also implied ingagements to thankfulnesse and obedience laid on them
particulars thirdly Answered an Objection fourthly I come to the fourth thing which I promised which is to speak of the Assumption concerning which I need say no more then that it is plainly and fully proved in the Scriptures mentioned in the proposal of the Assumption and divers others setting forth the glory of Gospel-times Arg. Arg. 7 7. To whom the promise of the spiritual blessing represented and sealed in Baptism belongs Act. 2.38 39. to them the outward sign of Baptism it self belongs so the Apostle reasons and the sign and thing signified being correlatives must go together But the promise of Gods Spirit Act. 2.39 Isa 44.3 signified in Baptism and so of Regeneration Sanctification and Adoption belongs to the faithfull and their children Therefore Baptism it self belongs to them Arg. Arg. 8 8. If in the time of the Apostles when the gouernours of families beleeved their whole families thereupon were baptized with them Now also the children of beleeving parents being parts of their families are to be baptized But where the Apostles had drawn by the Ministry of the word governours of families to the faith they baptized with them their whole family Act. 16.14 15. 33 34. Therefore the children of beleeving parents are to be baptized For the clearing of the two last Arguments to avoid tediousnesse having been more large in the former then I intended I refer the Reader to what I have said in the Answer to the former Paper in the vindicating of those Scriptures Act. 2. 16. cited by the other party Arg. Arg. 9 9. They that are holy or Saints are to be baptized Children of beleeving parents are holy or Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore to be baptized See this Argument cleared in my first Book in Answer to A.R. and hereafter more may come forth for vindicating of that Scripture 1 Cor. 7.14 from exceptions Arg. Arg. 10 10. They that are members of the Church have right to Baptism for Baptism is a solemn sign or pledge of admittance into the Church 1 Cor. 12.12 13. Eph. 5.25 26. But the children of the faithfull are members of the Church 1. So they were amongst the Israelites and never yet dismembred 2. Such promises are made to them as none without the Church have right unto 3. Else they have no interest in Christs love no benefit by his death no purification and sanctification by his bloud nor is there any hope that if they die Infants they shall be presented holy and spotlesse glorious and unblamable before God all which are the peculiar priviledges of the Church not communicable to any but members thereof Eph. 4.25 26 27. So that if the children of Beleevers be not members of the Church they are without Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel without hope without God whiles children which to affirm is most blasphemous to Gods grace Covenant and nature Therefore the children of Beleevers have right to Baptism Arg. Arg. 11 11. If the duties of the Covenant no lesse belong to Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel then they did to Jewish parents and their children under the Law It will follow that the Covenant it self and the priviledges and seal thereof do no lesse belong to them and their children then they did to the Jews and their children But the duties of the Covenant lie no lesse on Christian parents to teach and instruct their children Eph. 6.4 and on their children to learn the fear and nurture of the Lord now in the time of the Gospel then they lay on Jewish parents and children Therefore the Covenant its priviledges and the seal of admission no lesse belongs to Christian parents and their children then they did belong to Jewish parents and their children For the strengthening of the Proposition let these things be considered 1. Ordinarily and in the usual dispensation of the Covenant where God requires like duties he affords like priviledges I speak not of what God may do out of his prerogative or in some extraordinary case setting aside his dealing with men by way of command promise and threatning which is his way of transaction in Covenant 2. If there be any difference in the Christian Church compared with the Jewish and later dispensation of the Covenant compared with the former there is rather an increase of priviledges and lessening of burdens and duties then an increase of burdens and duties and lessening of priviledges 3. If you say otherwise Might not Christian parents if urged to the Religious education of their children by you answer By your judgement they are dogs and swine as being out of Covenant how can we offer holy instruction to them or exercise any Christian discipline over them bring them to publick assemblies or pray for them any otherwise then as Infidels were no this to cast Pearls to swine and give holy things to dogs Mat. 7.6 1 Cor. 5.12 What have we to do to pray with or exercise Discipline and Censure over those that are without What poor incouragements do you give us to bring them up for God when you tell us that they have no right to the Covenant of God Is not your practice in denying us the priviledge of the Covenant for our children and yet requiring the duties thereof worse then that of the false Apostles in putting a yoke on the Disciples necks which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear They indeed urged duties but allowed priviledges according to their apprehension and what had formerly been indeed a priviledge you urge duty but deny priviledges which do greatly ease burdens and facilitate duties But if you say that you do not urge the duty of Christian education of children c. as I fear practice speaks too loud What is this but to professe an intention to overthrow both the duties and priviledges of the Covenant and so bring in Atheism which if it take place in families will soon overspread the whole Church and particular persons 4. The Jews indeed were bound to circumcise their children and observe all those laws Ceremonial and Moral concerning them which were appointed by Moses but they had this ease and encouragement their children were in Covenant and had the seal thereof and they might expect the priviledges and blessings of the Covenant on their children by vertue of Gods promises Covenant and seal Now no such priviledges are allow'd to Christian parents in behalf of their children if these mens opinion stand and the Proposition hold not Obj. But if parents by their care bring them to actual faith and so under the Covenant then they shall enjoy the priviledges of the Covenant and seal thereof Ans 1. If that be all then by your opinion if they dye before actual faith as thousands of the children of the faithfull do in their infancy they perish as Aliens to the Covenant 2. The only way revealed in Scripture for parents first bringing their children under the Covenant is by faith
to accept the Covenant for themselves and their children Gen. 17.7 They that hold out a new way must shew some Scripture for the abolishing of the Old and establishing the New or must expect no regard from those that are not willing to be deluded 3. Shew the ground of this distinction Jewish children were to be educated for God as being under Covenant and seal but the children of Christians only that they may be brought under the Covenant and seal when they come to actual faith professed in their own person What Scripture or reason puts such a vast difference between them that those should be brought up Religiously as actually in Covenant and sealed these only as in a remote possibility to be brought to the Covenant and seal 5. The fifth consideration will not only strengthen the Proposition but also further answer the foregoing objection It 's this If the children of the faithfull be not already actually in Covenant from their infancy and so interested in the priviledges of the Covenant not only parents may be afraid to instruct them in Scripture Catechise and pray with them require their presence in the Congregation and family duties and their sanctification of the Lords day which are both duties and priviledges of the Covenant least they should cast Pearls to swine and judge them that are without But also the children if urged hereunto may demand of their parents What have you to do to require of us any Christian duties or to correct us for the neglect thereof or for the commission of any sin against the Gospel as profanation of the Lords day blaspheming Christ Christian Religion or the Scripture c. Might not they plead liberty of conscience and say What have you to do to judge us that are without we are to chuse our Religion and as free to worship Mahomet as Christ The Jews indeed had authority to bring up their children in the Jewish Religion as being devoted thereto from their infancy by the Covenant and seal thereof under which they were but now we children of Christians are under no such priviledges nor ingagements Which practice I fear will be the genuine fruit of this opinion argued against and swallowed down as no absurdity by those that are poisoned with Anabaptisticall fancies but must needs be detested by all that prize the Covenant of God and love Christ sincerely or their own and childrens souls spiritually To clear the Assumption let these things be considered Gen. 18.19 Exod. 12.26 27. Iosh 24.15 Psal 78.5 6. Prov. ◠3 4 5. 2 Tim. 3.15 1. How can it be doubted but that all those morall duties that lay upon Abraham and his children and the Israelites and their children enjoining the one party to teach and the other to learn the way and commandments of God lye now upon Christian parents and their children 2. Paul greatly commends Timothies happinesse and his parents care in that he had been brought up from his infancy in holy Scripture which he would not have done if either Timothy had not been in Covenant from his infancy for what have those to do with the tables of the Covenant that are strangers or aliens to the Covenant or that example had not been of moral equity to be imitated by Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel 3. That Scripture cited to prove the Assumption contains a full expresse charge which lies on all Christian parents to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and children to learn the fear and information of the Lord Eph. 6.4 which argues also that children of the faithfull are disciples of the Lord to be trained up in his school being dedicated to his discipline and nurture 4. Were not this so that moral Law which the Apostle in special manner above all the rest urgeth upon Christians children would be abrogated or greatly weakened as to the children of Christian parents at least untill they come to actual faith Children saith he obey your parents in the Lord. Eph 6.1 2. And Honour thy father and mother which is the first commandment with promise For how can they obey them in the Lord when the parents have no authority to command them any thing in the name of the Lord they not being under his yoke and Covenant How can parents challenge honour from their children by virtue of Gods command when they bring not up their children for God and to his honour Or how can children Religiously and Christianly honour their parents that have left them in the state of Infidels Especially considering this commandment Honour thy father c. as it was given to the Israelites supposed their children to be in Covenant with their parents and to have the like interest with their parents in the Covenant and its seal and the like ingagement to the duties thereof in respect of outward dispensation which is denied now to the children of Christians unlesse the Assumption yea and the main point in controversie be granted Twelfthly I argue thus Arg. 12 Children of beleeving parents must either be baptized while children or while able to professe the faith or not at all 1. This last your practice shews you will not hold and it were unreasonable to think that their being born of beleeving parents should deprive them of this priviledge seeing in the Old Testament this procured to children the seal of entrance 2. That they should be kept without Baptism untill they be able to make a profession of faith is no where commanded neither can any Scripture-example or good reason be given for it 1. Not commanded for the command which was given for baptizing of professours of faith and repentance did expressely and immediatly belong to those Jews and Gentiles which had not been born of Christian parents 2. Neither is there Scripture-example for it for the examples we reade of were according to Commission none as we reade in Scripture that were born after their parents were Christians were baptized when grown Scripture speaks only of those that had been Jews and Infidels children that were baptized by the Apostles 3. Neither stands it with right reason that Beleevers children should be left untill they professe their faith in the same state with Jews Turks and Infidels considering Gods promises and Covenant Therefore it remains that they must be baptized while Infants this being most agreeable 1. To Gods dealing with Abraham the father of the faithfull that children while Infants should be admitted with their beleeving parents and that Covenant and seal thereof 2. To the nature of this Sacrament which is to be administred the first opportunity to persons known to be in Covenant and members of the Church 3. To all those commands and examples of baptizing new converted Jews and Infidels for as their conversion did put them into the Covenant of grace whereupon they had right to the seal of entrance So these Infants being born of Christian parents doth inright them to the Covenant