Consequent which way it is indeed requisite yea so Reason is requisite for perceiving every word of God and without it we should not be capable of the Principles of Religion more than Brutes are So also our Ears are a necessary Instrument for hearing the Word Preached or Read and our Eyes for Reading of it Thirdly It uses to be objected That the Gospel is above Reason Answ The Gospel is above Reason in regard of the matter and mysteries which it teaches which Reason cannot reach or understand but not in respect of the manner how it teaches them which is suited and accommodated to human capacity Or else no Man upon the accompt that he is endued with Reason should be one whit more capable so much as Grammatically and Historically to understand any one saying of the Gospel than his Sheep and Oxen which is beyond all measure absurd for then Brutes should be no less capable of the Gospel Doctrine than Men and Men no more than Brutes Lastly It is objected That the Learned only are able to perceive Consequences Answ That is most false seeing not only the Learned but also the unlearned have a rational discursive faculty and some measure of the use thereof except they be Distracted or in meer Infancy and so being furnisht with the Principles are capable to discern their evident Consequences both in things Natural and Supernatural albeit the Learned are indeed able more promptly to perceive Consequences and to perceive more Consequences lying far remote from the Principles and therefore they are ordinarily more knowing than the unlearned Now by the Quakers grudging of Grammar Logick and Philosophy unto Ministers of the Gospel and by their opposition to the Scripture-Rule and Scripture-Consequence a Man may if he be curious learn the Description of a Minister of the Quakers choice viz. He must neither have Grammar Logick nor Philosophy he must reject the Rule at least the Supremacy of the Rule of Scripture both Express and by good Consequence That is to say He must not know how to speak Sence nor how to Define Divide Judge or Argument he must abandon the Light of Nature and throw by the Word of God at most being but a Secondary-Rule and a Subservant to their Queen Regent the Light within That the Quakers may not think I wrong them this Description is their Principles clearly explained by me in the foregoing Queries And will not such a Man be a rare Minister a worthy Messenger an Interpreter among a Thousand he is very like to have more feet than hands methinks SECT III. Concerning Baptism with Water Being now arrived at the main Subject of the present Query which is Baptism before I handle the Question concerning Infant-Baptism I must here inquire whether Baptism with Water be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and to continue to the end of the World for albeit the the Quakers have here omitted it yet it is the main and most proper debate concerning Baptism betwixt us and them wherein the Quakers take the Negative yea and George Keith charges Baptism with Water upon us as a Popish Doctrine forsooth in his Quakerism no Popery page 100. Wherever Baptism is mentioned in the New-Testament and the word Water is not expresly added the Quakers do always deny Baptism with Water to be there meant sometimes alledging it to be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine which is when the Word is Preached to People sometimes of the work of Regeneration and sometimes of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit all which are in the Scriptures Metaphorically and Improperly sometimes called Baptism Matth. 21.25 Joh. 1.33 Act. 1.5 And this they do that if success would answer they may not be forced to acknowledge Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament We shall therefore as we proceed clear every Text that we make use of where need is from the false Glosses of the Adversaries This premised I Assert against the Quakers that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and an Ordinance which it shall be evident is appointed to continue to the end of the World I prove it First The Baptism of John was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment belonging to the New Testament but that was with Water Matth. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Therefore Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution belonging to the New Testament The Scriptures cited prove the Minor I prove the Major For that the Baptism of John was of Divine Appointment is clear from Matth. 21.25 Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 And that it belonged to the New Testament appears seeing John was the very first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which see Matth. 11.12 13. Luk. 16.16 Together with the breaking forth whereof and never till then God appointed this Ordinance of Baptism with Water to be dispensed by John Secondly The Baptism with Water dispensed by the Disciples or Apostles of Christ was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment under the New Testament as we shall presently see But the Baptism of John was substantially one and the same therewith for their Author or Efficient cause was the same by comparing Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 with Matth. 28.19 Joh. 4.1 2. Act. 10.48 Their External Matter or outward Element was the same by comparing Matth. 3.11 with Act. 10.47 Their Internal Matter or the thing signified and their ends and so also their Internal form which results from their Institution and Ends were the same by comparing Mark 1.4 Luk. 3.3 with Act. 2.38 and 22.16 So then they being one and the same as to all their causes are undeniably the same Baptism Substantially and I defie any Man to shew any substantial point wherein they differ and so the one being an Ordinance of the New Testament so must the other But say the Quakers with Papists The Baptism of John was substantially different from Christs Baptism seeing John Baptized only with Water but Christ Baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Ans This objection cannot prove the Baptism of John to be substantially different from the Baptism dispensed by Christs Apostles at his Order seeing theirs so dispensed was no less with Water than his and they could no more Baptize with the Holy Ghost and with Fire than he Therefore John does not there viz. Luke 3.16 distinguish his Baptism from Christs External Baptism Administred by his Apostles but he distinguishes his own Work and Office and of all Ministers in Baptism from the Work and Office of Christ viz. That he and other Ministers do Administer the Water and External Sign but that its Christ that bestows the inward Grace and thing signified Secondly It is objected here That these who were Baptized with Johns Baptism were again Baptized with Christs by Paul Act. 19.3 4 5. Ergo Johns Baptism did substantially differ from Christs or else these would not have needed to be Baptized over
was some necessity for his arising to be Baptized with Water that he might go where there was Water Seeing then the Circumstances of these Texts will not permit these improperly so called Baptisms to be meant therein and its certain that some sort of Baptism is meant therein or else the word Baptize must be razed out of them It inevitably follows that Baptism with Water must be therein meant or else no Baptism at all which Impudence it self dare not say and so much the less seeing the Circumstances of these Texts do very well agree with the Circumstances of Baptism in other Texts where the word Water is expresly added And in these Texts we see what care the Apostles took for the speedy Administration of the Baptism therein mentioned to the Disciples appearing such and to all appearing such And these things evidently prove our Antecedent of this second Argument Thirdly our third principal Argument for proving Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament is taken from Act. 2.38 which Text I have now proved to be meant of Baptism with Water where Peter Injoyns Baptism with Water to all these New Testament Disciples as a necessary Sacred Symbol or Pledge for Sacred it must be in regard of its Sacred and Spiritual signification of a Spiritual Benefit of the Remission of Sins For his Injoyning them to be Baptized for the Remission of Sins doth plainly hold forth some necessity thereof though not by necessity of Mean yet by necessity of Precept Therefore Baptism with Water must be an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Instituted For certainly Cancelled Jewish Ceremonies much less Humane inventions or any thing not appointed of God could never thereafter be necessary for Justification or Remission of Sins though sometimes they might be necessary for avoiding the Offence and stumbling of weak brethren as Act. 15.29 and 16.3 Fourthly whoever under the New Testament hath probably received the Spirit of Grace hath a right in the Churches Court unto Baptism with Water and she is bound to admit them thereunto Therefore Baptism with Water is surely an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Instituted or otherwise these could never have any Right thereunto in her Court nor she be bound to admit them into it without a Divine appointment making it due unto them but on the contrary they should be bound to abstain from it and she to Discharge them therefrom as unwarrantable Will-worship in the Scriptures Condemned Colos 2.20 21 22. These things clearly prove the Consequence The Antecedent is proved by Peter Act. 10.47 where he says Can any man forbid water that these should not be Baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we where by the Holy Ghost as often else where Act. 1.5 and 8.16 17. and 19.6 is meaned the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost as is clear from the Context So then Peter Argues here from these Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on them as a probable Evidence though not an Infallible one See Mat. 7.22 of the Spirit of Grace bestowed on them That therefore they had a Right unto Baptism with Water and no man could Debar them from it for that were absurd as the Expression bears Can any man forbid c. So then according to the Apostle a probable Evidence of the Spirit of Grace received doth immediately infer a Right in the Churches Court to which his Discourse is here directed unto Baptism Water and so whoever hath probably received the Spirit of Grace hath that Right and the Church is bound to admit them to it and they are as absurd as Quakers that would Debar them from it These things plainly prove the Antecedent Fifthly there is one Baptism mentioned Ephes 4.5 which is certainly an Ordinance of Divine Institution and belongs to the New Testament as can never be gotten denyed But that must be Baptism with Water and can be no other for when Paul says There is one Baptism either he means of one properly so called which is Baptism with Water seeing the signification of the Word Baptize Primarily and properly agrees unto it or else he means there is one Baptism Improperly and Metaphorically so called but that cannot be seeing there is not one but many of these sorts of Baptisms as we have already seen whereof therefore to mean it would be a contradiction to the Text. Sixthly Baptism with Water is necessary to Salvation under the New Testament viz. by necessity of Precept and so as not the simple privation of it when it cannot be had but the Contempt of it when it may be had is Damnable Therefore Baptism with Water must be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament The Consequence is manifest seeing a material piece of Divine Worship necessary to Salvation not appointed of God is a Will-worship necessary thereunto which is repugnant to the Scriptures I prove the Antecedent The Baptism mentioned Mark 16.16 is there made a necessary Antecedent of Salvation under the New Testament by the plain Sentence of the Text But the Baptism there mentioned is Baptism with Water Therefore Baptism with Water is necessary to Salvation under the New Testament The Major needs no more proving I prove the Minor because the Baptism mentioned in that Text of Mark doth in adult persons we shall speak afterwards of Infants pre-require Faith in Christ as the Text shews without which some way appearing by external Signs they have not a visible Interest and cannot be accompted Disciples by the Church but the Baptism of Doctrine does not pre-require that or else no man might be admitted to partake of the Gospel-Doctrine but such as before-hand probably believe and so it should never have been Preached to the Gentile-world Nor does the work of Conversion pre-require Faith in Christ to a mans partaking of it self otherwise it should pre-require it self without which there can be no such Faith before partaking of it self that is it self without it self which is repugnant Nor yet can it be meant of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit seeing these were never necessary to Salvation as this Baptism mentioned in the Text is And I am sure the Quakers will not say that Baptism here is meant of the Baptism of the Cross under which they do not use to seek shelter or in any other Text that we have named seeing the Apostles and other Ministers of Christ are the immediate Administrators of the Baptism mentioned here and in all of these but were not so of the Cross they had no Commission for that Seeing then there is a Baptism meant herein Mark 16.16 And it cannot agree with any of these Improperly so called Baptisms but only with Baptism with Water which is properly so called it must Inevitably be meant of Baptism with Water wherewith it agrees or let the Quakers prove that it disagrees with that too and then I am sure it shall agree with none at all and
2.38 and 8.16 and 10.48 Lastly It must be a desperate cause that forces it's Patrons to such contrary defences presently they affirmed that Baptism with Water was dispensed in the Name of the Lord now they cry About Ship and deny that Baptism in the Name of the Lord is Baptism with Water Are not these Men indeed in a mixture who in the unjust defence of falshood thus run upon such desperate 〈◊〉 of splitting Contradiction But fourthly They except against the same Text that Baptism with Water cannot be meant therein because the Apostles say they had no commission to Baptize with Water seeing Paul says 1 Cor. 1.17 that Christ sent him not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospel Ans But in despight of this Exception all our forementioned Arguments do plainly prove the Baptism mentioned in the Text to be Baptism with Water and so also that the Apostles had a Commission to Baptize with Water Secondly The Quakers are bound by this their reasoning to acknowledge the Baptism there mentioned viz. 1 Cor. 1.17 to be Baptism with Water or else they will lose the whole ground pretended for their exception which acknowledged as we have also before proved it truly to be it presently appears from the Context of the same place that the Apostles had a Commission for Baptizing with Water seeing Paul plainly there declares that he Baptized some of these Corinthians which doubtless he did not without Commission or else he had been a manifest Intruder and Usurper of an Office in the Church and Worship of God for which he had no Order or Warrant which must be false I answer therefore lastly that the meaning of these words of Paul is plainly Comparative viz. that Baptism was not the principal and chief work that he was sent for but the Preaching of the Gospel such as is the meaning of that expression Hos 6.6 I desired Mercy and not Sacrifice and such as is the meaning of that Joh. 15.22 If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin that is nothing compared to what they now have Lastly They except against the same Text that Baptism with Water cannot be meant therein because say they it is not therein expresly mentioned Ans First A Man might upon this ground much rather argue against Christs demonstration Luk. 20.37 that the rising of the dead is not expresly taught Exod. 3.6 from whence he brings his Argument where God says I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and that therefore such a thing cannot be there meant Or that Circumâ—sion of the flesh of the Foreskin is not expresly mentioned under every distinguishing Character thereof Galat. 5.2 3. where the flesh of the Foreskin is omitted and that therefore it cannot be that which is there meant but our Spiritual Circumcision in Christ that is our Regeneration must be the thing which Paul there disputes against and condemns and is not that well argued Secondly As Baptism with Water is not here expresly named in respect of every punctilio of its designation So far less is any of the forementioned improper Baptisms here expresly mentioned seeing the name Baptism is proper to that of Water and not to the other Therefore by the Quakers own Rule none of these is meant here either and so if the Rule be good no sort of Baptism is here meant but the word Baptizing is set down here for an impertinent Cipher signifying nothing Thirdly I have shewed before that there is much Doctrine meant in the Scriptures which is not therein expresly taught but implicitly only and so this Rule of the Quakers is most false I answer therefore lastly that albeit the word Water be not here Matth. 28.19 formally exprest yet the circumstances of the Text the Analogy of Faith and other Scriptures that I have compared it with in my Arguments do manifestly and irresistibly demonstrate the Baptism here mentioned to be Baptism with Water Let the Quakers answer my Arguments if they can I mean at the Greek Calends All the particular exceptions of the Quakers against our Argument from that Text of Matthew being so overthrown and answered The Quakers have as yet one general Argument whereby they hope to overturn Baptism with Water viz. Baptism with Water say they was but a figure that Christ might be made manifest to Israel who had diverse Baptisms imposed on them till the time of Reformation but Christ the Substance being come the shadows must flee away This Objection they lay down in their Confession of Faith page 25. Ans Whether Baptism with Water be a Figure or not I have now abundantly proved it to be an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Appointed due in the Churches Court to all the visible or appearing Disciples of the New Testament and necessary to Salvation under the same and to continue to the end of the World And what then dare the Quakers say against it Or how dare they oppose their own meer Brain-sick fancies to the Word of God and Dictates of the Holy Ghost Secondly Let Baptism with Water be a Figure manifesting Christ to Jews and Gentiles too that is to say a sacred Symbol of Christs blood shed not to be shed and so not a shadow of a thing to come on the Cross and a Seal of Remission of Sins there through Yet Christ by his Incarnation Death and Resurrection did not cancel all manner of Figures universally seeing the Bow in the Cloud is still a Figure to us or a Symbol and Pledge rather that God will no more destroy the World by Water Gen. 9.11 12 13. Nor did he thereby cancel all manner of Figures I would rather call them sacred Signs and Symbols if the Quakers would too representing Christ and his Passion and Blood Shed for we shall moreover prove at the Survey of their next ensuing Query that Christ hath Ordained Bread and Wine to be in the Eucharist a Sacred Sign and Symbol of his Body and Blood to the Worlds end But he hath only cancelled thereby Old Testament Figures shadowing forth Him and His Death and Passion to come Thirdly If Baptism with Water was only a Figure to manifest unto Israel Christ Jesus why then did the Apostles dispense it afterwards to the whole Disciples of the Gentile Church without ever cashiering it and with so much speed and diligence after the appearing of their Discipleship Lastly Gospel Baptism which is done with Water as the External Symbol is so far from being a shadow that should have fled away when Christ came in the Flesh and Dyed and the time of Reformation was come that on the direct contrary it then first received its Institution after Christ was come and together with the breaking forth of that Reformation viz. the New Testament way of Dispensation and is by Christ put into the Commission of the Ministers of that Reformation as an Ordinance to be continued to the Worlds end and was thereafter accordingly carried along
we must raze the word Baptize out of the Text. Secondly I prove the Antecedent of this Argument from the first Epistle of Peter 3.21 where the Apostle shews Baptism with Water to be necessary to Salvation under the New Testament while he says The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now Save us And that Baptism here is meant of Baptism with Water appears by the comparison which he uses comparing our Saving by Baptism to Noahs Saving by Water as being the last the Type and the first the Anti-type for the word which we have here turned like Figure is in the Original Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anti-type Now there must be some near resemblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type which is very little or rather none here betwixt Noahs Temporal Saving by Water and any of these Improper Baptisms but very great betwixt that and our Eternal Saving by Baptism with Water which may be understood by comparing them which we may not stay to do Secondly the explication which he subjoyns in place of a Caution shewing how Baptism now Saves us viz. that its not by putting away the filth of the Flesh or by the meer external washing of the Body which Water had a fitness to do or by the very work wrought as Papists would but by its object which it signifies and Seals viz. the Blood of Christ which causeth the Answer of a good Conscience towards God will not allow it to be meant of any other Baptism but Baptism with Water which he so carefully explains nor can any man make Sence of the explication applying it to any of these Improper Baptisms Lastly Christ gives most express Commission to his Apostles and other succeeding Ministers of the New Testament for the Apostles were not to live to the worlds end which is the duration of the Commission to Baptize with Water all the Disciples that should come unto him under the New Testament to the end of the world Mat. 28.19 20. Therefore Baptism with water must uncontrolably be an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Instituted and to continue to the end of the world The Consequence hereof is beyond the exception of all the world The Antecedent will also be clear if I can but prove that by Baptism here is meant Baptism with Water which if I do not good Reader I Intreat thee believe me not henceforth Therefore first the Baptism here mentioned in this Text of Matthew pre-requires Discipleship in the party to be Baptized for the Words in the Original Language are Go make Disciples all Nations Baptizing them c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Baptism of Doctrine does not pre-require that or else a man might not Preach the Gospel to any that is not beforehand a Disciple and so it should never have been Preached to the Gentile or Heathen world Nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship or else no man might indeavour the Conversion of an Heathen or Pagan or of any man who is not before-hand a Disciple Nor can the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit be here understood by Baptism seeing the Baptism here mentioned is to continue to the end of the world which these Gifts were not as no man even a Quaker will deny Therefore seeing none of these Improper Baptisms are here meant and some Baptism is meant it must be meant of Baptism with water seeing the Text cannot agree with any other Secondly the Baptism mentioned here in Matthew is the same with that mentioned in Mark Mark 16.16 seeing Matthew here and Mark there are manifestly giving a Narration of the self-same thing and Commission as needs no proof But that Baptism mentioned in Mark is Baptism with Water as is before proved Therefore so also is this mentioned here in Matthew seeing they are the very same as said is Thirdly the whole Tenor and Circumstances of the Commission for Baptism in this Text of Matthew do agree with the Baptism with Water thereafter dispensed by the Apostles and other Ministers in their times at their Order and can agree with no other Therefore the same must be here meant and no other The Consequence is so easie that except we resolve utterly to abandon and renounce our Reason and turn absolute Brutes we must understand every Saying of that wherewith it agrees and not of that wherewith it disagrees I prove the Antecedent For this Commission in Matthew for Baptism pre-requires the Discipleship of the Party Go make Disciples Baptizing c. or it requires that they first be made Disciples before they be Baptized or none to be Baptized but Disciples as is most clear 2dly It requires them to Baptize all the Disciples of whatsoever Nation if they appear to be such viz. as the Connexion of this Baptism with the Condition required whereupon it is to be dispensed declares and the Relative word Them not being restricted with any limitating Circumstance does still repeat its whole Antecedent and is of the same full extent therewith 3dly It requires them without delay with the first convenience after the appearing of their Discipleship to Baptize them Go make them Disciples Baptizing as if it should instantly be done there being no more now to be waited for after discovery of the condition and by this all needless delays are cut off And lastly It requires the Baptism therein mentioned to be dispensed in the Name of the Lord as is plainly exprest in the Text. These things express the tenor and circumstances of this Commission such as are any ways Intrinsecal Now all these things do plainly agree unto the Baptism with Water thereafter dispensed by the foresaid Persons and as is already proved cannot agree with any other That they agree unto that I prove for the Baptism with Water dispensed by them pre-required Discipleship or it was dispensed to none but Disciples Secondly It was dispensed to all that became Disciples and appeared such to the Church of whatever Nation Thirdly It was without delay dispensed to them upon the appearing of their Discipleship Fourthly It was dispensed to them in the Name of the Lord. All which appears from our second third and fourth Arguments before and the many Scriptures cited therein See Act. 2.41 and 8.12 13 36 37. and 10.47 and 18.8 and 22.16 and 1 Cor. 1.13 Lastly All the Baptisms except Baptism with Water that can be alledged or pretended to be meant in this Text of Matthew as the Baptism of Doctrine of Conversion of the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit and let the Baptism of the Cross be added too are only Improperly and Metaphorically so called as needs little demonstration I think seeing pouring dipping sprinkling and washing which the word Baptize signifies in the Original Language being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be proper to any of these and to that any of them agreeth in a proper sence as any Man without preserves may see Having premised this ground I again prove that the Baptism mentioned in this Text of Matthew
and in all the Texts that I have named which here I advertise that this evident Argument may be cumulatively applied to every one of them is Baptism with Water Because we may not throw about the words of any Text of Scripture from a proper to an improper meaning except some necessity either of the Analogy of Faith in general which is the constant and perpetual sentence of many perspicuous and bright shining Scriptures concerning things essential to Salvation or else of the particular scope and circumstances of the Context it self constrain us so to do otherwise we may without any necessity constraining us at our alone will and meer pleasure without any other ground imaginable moving us throw about from a proper to an improper meaning the most properly meant saying in all the whole Scriptures and reject the proper sence and meaning of every Text and make them every where at our meer pleasure to speak improperly but that is utterly absurd and would enervat and turn to nothing the very body of the Scriptures as needs no Demonstration I am sure but there is no such necessity in this or any Text we have Argued from to throw about the word Baptism from being meant properly of Baptism with Water to be meant of any of the fore-mentioned improperly so called Baptisms Or else we charge the Quakers to shew and make good that necessity if they can which we defie them and a whole Legion of their Inspirers ever to do Therefore by this irrefragable Argument from the Analogy of Faith Baptism with Water which alone is properly so called is both meant here in Matthew and in all the Texts that we have named Analogum per se positum stat pro principali Analogato Having so demonstrated that Baptism with Water is meant in that Text of Matthew hence it is manifest that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance which God hath appointed to be continued to the end of the World for the promise there subjoyned of Christs presence with his Ministers there Commissionated alway even unto the end of the World for their encouragement in the Execution of that their Commission doth most plainly shew their Commission to be of that continuance Secondly I have shewed that Baptism with Water was once in the New Testament Church necessary unto Salvation as was explained and due in the Churches Court to all who probably had received the Spirit of Grace Let the Quakers shew us if they can when it became unnecessary and when or where that Bond and Tie was taken off the New Testament Church Thirdly seeing by all our preceeding Arguments it is evident that Baptism with Water was once of Divine Institution under the New Testament the Quakers must either yield the continuance thereof to be to the end of the World or else they must say That it is since the Institution repealed again Let them shew us then where the repealing thereof is Recorded or to be found in the Scriptures which are the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners for the Quakers bare word spoken may be in a mixture when the Moon was at the Full is not enough for it And if they can shew us nothing for it which is sure and yet will say It is repealed they may upon the same ground that is to say without any ground say that the Commandments to repent believe fear and love God and all the rest of them are repealed and then we may do what we please and follow the Light within at the top-speed But now because in Justice we are bound to give the Quakers fair Game we must hear what they have to say against our preceeding Doctrine and we need not doubt but their Infallible heads are furnisht with forcible Arguments Therefore first because from thence they fear their greatest danger albeit I have proved the business by many other convincing Arguments and could without that Argument irresistibly make good the point they assault the Argument from Matthew with several devices First then They alledge that Baptizing in that Text is the same with Disciple-making which is not meant of Baptizing with Water and so neither is that Ans First They ought to shew us some necessary ground for this Metaphorical Commentary upon the word Baptize which we have not seen as yet Secondly Unto this conceipt we shall oppose our second and last Arguments whereby it is proved that Baptism with Water is meant in the Text in despight of this Exception Consider the Arguments for we need not repeat them Thirdly All their grounds for this Exception is because when it is said Go make Disciples c. the word Baptize is subjoined in the Present Tence of the Participle Baptizing but by this ground if good Teaching which presently follows too and in the same manner shall also be the same with Disciple-making and so the whole Commission shall consist of one and the same thing thrice repeated which is most absurd and no Man though as absurd as a Quaker will say it For who shall think or why that Christ committed such a three-fold Tautology in delivering so short a Commission that would neither have suited the wisdom of the Person nor the nature of the thing Secondly They except against the same Text with their old Friend Socinus that the Apostles dispensed their Baptism with Water only in the Name of the Lord Jesus whereas the Baptism mentioned in this Text of Matthew is to be dispensed in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and so they cannot be one and the same Ans By this Argument they might as well prove that Paul Preached not in the Name of any other Person of the Trinity but of the Lord Jesus only because he only is mentioned Act. 9.27 29. or that he and Timothy served no other Person of the Trinity because he only is mentioned Philip. 1.1 Secondly I shall oppose unto this Exception my first second and fourth Arguments whereby maugre this exception Baptism with Water is proved to be meant in this Text of Matthew Thirdly The rest of the Trinity are omitted in the History though it follows not that so they were in the action partly for shortening the Narration which is usual and partly because it being the great doubt and controversie of the time If Jesus was the true Messias for that cause his name is more frequently mentioned than the rest of the Trinity in the whole New Testament Thirdly They except against the same Text that the Apostles are therein commanded to Baptize in the Name of the Lord which sort of Baptizing is with the Spirit say they not at all with Water Ans Unto this Exception I shall first oppose all my Arguments whereby over the belly thereof I have proved Baptism with Water to be meant in the Text. Secondly Was not Baptism with Water say ye dispensed in the Name of the Lord See it done I pray and commanded to be done that ye may not pretend ignorance hereafter Act.
Covenant hath a Divine right unto Baptism under the New Testament but Children of believing Parents are by God Adopted and received within the Covenant as is plain from Gen. 17. ch Mat. 19.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore Children of believing Parents have a Divine right unto Baptism under the New Testament The Minor is Evident by the Scriptures Cited I prove the Major because Baptism under the New Testament is the Initiating Seal and Symbol belonging and appended to our Entry and Reception into the Covenant as was before proved under the New Testament and so it belongs to every person that is received into the Covenant upon the accompt of their Reception or else it shall belong to their Entry and Reception as is supposed and above proved and yet not to them as Entered and Received which involves a manifest Contradiction Thirdly all who are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration have a Divine Right under the New Testament unto Baptism in the Churches Court and she ought to admit them thereunto as was before proved from Act. 10.47 48. But the Children of believing Parents are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration under the New Testament Therefore they have a right unto Baptism in the Churches Court and she is bound to admit them thereunto The Major was evidently proved before I prove the Minor for Gods taking them in within the Covenant Gen. 17. chap. makes it probable His promising to Circumcise the hearts of the Children as well as the Parents Deut. 30.6 makes it probable Gods Sanctifying some of the Children of believers from the Womb Jerem. 1.5 Luk. 1.15 makes it probable Pauls calling them Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 viz. federally and externally makes it probable And if it were not probable that the Children of Believers did partake of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration then it could not be probable that any of them Dying in Non-age should be Saved seeing none but such as are Born of Water and of the Spirit can enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.5 And lastly for I am sure I need no more Christs declaring and asserting their Interest into the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 Luk. 18.16 whereunto they cannot enter without being Regenerated makes it probable These things make it Infallibly certain as to the Kind or Quoad Speciem and probable as to particular persons or Quoad Individua But against this Last the Quakers except with the Aâ—abaptists That Christ does not in these Texts say that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to these Infants that were brought to him and such other Natural Infants but unto Spiritual Infants whom he means of when he says Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Ans But then Christs reasoning runs thus suffer little Children these were true Natural Infants that were brought to Christ as we shall presently see wanting Interest in the Kingdom of Heaven to come unto me for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to mature persons regenerated which are Spiritual Infants and Infants Improperly so called This would have been so bad a Consequence that it would have bereft the Discourse of all Sence Secondly hereby they shew that in their opinion there are no Infants that have Interest into the Kingdom of Heaven otherwise they should have granted Christs words in respect of Infants properly so called and then farewel to the Objection Thirdly we here appeal the Analogy of Faith without some necessity from which the words must not be detorted from a proper to an Improper Sence Secondly they except that these were not young Infants that were brought to Christ but grown to some pretty Age because Christ says Suffer them to come intimating that they themselves could Walk Ans But when I Marvel did Come begin so necessarily to signifie walking on ones own Feet A man is said to Come from America albeit he should lie all the while in a Ships Cabin The Text shews that these Children came not on their own Feet For in the Text of Luke they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sucking Infants And in all the Texts there is a word used for their bringing that signifies to bear or carry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again Christ took them in his Arms and Blessed them but never a word of his Teaching them These that brought them spoke as the Texts Intimate but never a word in their head And if they had been in any small measure capable of Christs Doctrine the Disciples it seems would not have forbidden their coming Lastly they except against the Body of the Argument that it cannot be discerned if Infants have received the Spirit or not Ans I have shewed before how as to the Kind quoad Speciem it may be Infallibly discerned and probably as to Individuals Now probable Evidences are sufficient for the Baptism of particular persons Old or Young or else none at all should be admitted to Baptism seeing heart-searching is Gods Prerogative Jer. 17.9 10. nor did the Apostles themselves Infallibly discern peoples hearts as may be seen Act. 8.13 with 23. and 9.26 27. 1 Joh. 2.19 Fourthly all the visible or appearing Disciples of Christ ought to be Baptized under the New Testament as is evident from Mat. 28.19 Where Christ commands to make all Nations his Disciples Baptizing them c. From which Text it is as clear as Noontyde that whoever is once visibly or appearingly become Christs Disciple for the Church cannot go beyond probabilities here ought to be Baptized and that forthwith assoon as it can be conveniently done as the Expression imports Go make them Disciples Baptizing as if they should be Baptized in the very same instant that their Interest and Discipleship appears without requiring or expecting any further that as being the Condition being once probably discovered But the Children of believing Parents are visible Disciples of Christ Therefore they ought to be Baptized under the New Testament The Major needs no more proving I prove the Minor for all the visible Members of Christs School are his visible Disciples seeing to be a Member of ones School and to be his Disciple are both one thing as is undeniable but the Children of believing Parents are visible Members of Christs School seeing Christs School is his Church whereof the Children of believers are certainly Members seeing they were Members thereof in the time of the Old Testament and doubtless Christs coming in the Flesh when the Grace of God was enlarged hath not deprived them of so merciful a Priviledge surely not and since God received them into the Covenant we never heard of his putting them out again and they are Holy viz. federally and in order to Church-membership and of such is the Kingdom of Heaven all which iâ— already declared The Anabaptists use to urge this Text of Matthew against Infant-Baptism reading the words as they are in our Translation Go ye therefore and Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. From whence they