The Antidote Proved a Counterfeit, Text
A Plain and Impartial Inquiry into the Antidote, and upon Examination found a Counterfeit.
COULD any have expected leſs then that this Gentleman's Book, in the Body of it, ſhould have anſwered the Title-Page, namely, Infant-Baptiſm Vindicated; which indeed proves nothing but a Bravado, and flouriſh; for if it be Vindicated, it muſt be either becauſe Chriſt commanded it, or ſome of his Apoſtles practiſed it; ſome commended for its Obſervation, or others reproved for its Neglect; but not one word of all this appears in his whole Diſcourſe: Then how can Infant-Baptiſm be Vindicated? Alſo he comes as ſhort in the other part of the Title, An Antidote to prevent the spreading of Anabaptiſm, he means Believers Baptiſm. Can he ſtop the courſe of the Sun, the ebbing and flowing of the Water? Can he number the Clouds and Stars, or weigh the Wind, and the Fire, or the great Mountains? Then he may anſwer his Title. What! is this Man reſolved to ſet himſelf in a poſture of War againſt God and his Word? Doth he think in this to proſper? Will he endeavour to prevent the ſpreading of that which our Lord Jeſus Chriſt hath given his Miniſters in Commiſſion to ſpread? He ſeems to be grieved at our Tranſlation of a Book concerning Baptiſm, from Engliſh into Welch; but if this be to be Vile, we ſhall be more Vile. What can be expected when a Man ſhall be an Advocate againſt the Truth?
HE tel's us of ſome few Reflections upon ſome remarkable Paſſages in a Book of H. C. of Wapping. What ſhould be the Reaſon this Gentleman did not anſwer that Book? He hath not ſaid any thing to the Argument of it; but pickt a little here, and a little there, which he thought he could deal withal; but the Argument of the Book is untoucht. He calls them, a few Reflections; he may well call them a few; for in 139 Pages he hath not ſpoken to as much Matter as Three Pages contain. As for Argument, in his Book, it is ſo little, that I was dead to the anſwering of it a long time, not fearing his making many Proſelytes to Pedo-baptiſm, nor hinder the ſpreading of the Truth, tho he did his Endeavour; but the Book being ſo full of Scurrility, baſe and abuſive Language, and he being, as it is to be feared, blinded with Prejudice, when he wrote it, could not ſee his Evil; therefore theſe few Lines are intended, in the room of an Oculiſt, to open his Eyes to behold his Error in Judgment and Practice, before he leaves the World. I have in my Book laid down ſeveral Arguments to prove the right Mode or Manner of the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm to be by Dipping, not Sprinkling, and that the Subjects are to be Ʋnderſtanding Believers, not Ignorant Infants. I have ſpoken to above 20 Objections, but he doth not pretend to give the leaſt Anſwer to either, what ſhould be the Reaſon that he did not take Paragraph by Paragraph, and anſwer it fairly, like a man of Sence and Reaſon? Some are ready to argue thus, and they cannot help it; It is either becauſe he could not, or would not: Not becauſe he would not, for that would argue little warmth for his own way, yea, a kind of betraying his Cauſe. I will conclude he is more true to his own Principle; therefore ſome ſay Ergo, in the Negative, he could not; but if he can, the Preſs is yet open for him, or any other: and if he be conſcious to himſelf he cannot reſpond to it, let him fall in with the Counſel therein given.
AS for the Eight Queries, they are reducible to Five, becauſe the 4th, 7th and 8th, are all of one import. As for the major part of thoſe Queries, they affect not us; only he makes a Man of Straw, and fights with it, or his own ſhadow. 'Tis certainly an Argument of profound Confidence, for a man to pretend to the World the diſcovery of the Errors of a People whoſe Principles he knows no more, comparatively, than I know Ʋtopia; or elſe why doth he begin with this queſtion, Whether it be poſſible for children dying in their Infancy, to be ſaved? But if it be not from Ignorance, then it is from a worſe Root; for it's apparent enough that he labours to inſinuate unto the world, as if we imagined no Infants dying in their Infancy unbaptized could be ſaved; but if his Book were well conſidered, he rather deſerves Auſtin's Title, the hard Father of Infants. Now, tho I know none of another mind, but that Children muſt ſtand in the Day of Judgment before God's Tribunal, yet his Topicks and Mediums, I think, are not ſound to prove it by: He quotes a Text which tells us, That every perſon ſhall be judged according to his Works. This Text cannot affect little Infants, which have no Works, good nor bad. Was the Scripture written for the ſake of Infants, or the Adult? Was not this written to the end Men ſhould look to their Works, that they might give a good Account. It is well this Man is not the Peoples Eyes, for if he were, I fear they would be all quickly with him in the Ditch of Error: What! becauſe Rev. 20.12. ſaith, I ſaw the dead ſmall and great ſtand before God; that therefore the Small here are little Infants. The latter is exegetical of the former, every one being judged according to his Works, argues, That the ſmall are either the poor oppoſed to the rich in the world, or thoſe not come to the perfection of Men, in oppoſition to them which were, yet knew good and evil, ſo were judged every one according to his Works. Thoſe in this Text are judged according to their Works; but little Infants have no Works, good nor bad; therefore they cannot be here intended.
THE ſecond Query is, Whether Infants are ſaved by any other way than by Faith in the Imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt? In page 5. he aſſerts Infants are ſaved by Habitual Faith in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt; That Infants are ſaved by Chriſt, we have aſſerted, becauſe we know of no other Name but Jeſus; but that they are ſaved by Faith; Habitual Faith in Chriſt; I muſt confeſs I never read it in all the Book of God; I wiſh he could ſhew me the Chapter where Chriſt ſaid any ſuch thing, That Infants are Saved by Habitual Faith. What! would this Man make a New Bible, have a new Rule to tell us of things never heard of? Had he the Notion by Inſpiration he ſhould have told us ſo. Now I do not wonder the man is ſo well pleaſed with an unſcriptural Baptiſm, when he aſſerts an unſcriptural way of ſaving Infants; and yet this Gentleman will adventure to prove this in ſuch a way, and by ſuch Topicks and Mediums, that both the Univerſities could hardly ever think of; for he brings, to make good this Theſis, all thoſe Scriptures which ſpeak of the abſolute neceſſity of the Adult, of Men and Womens Regeneration, and believing, and applies them all unto little Infants; as that in Mark 16.16. He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; but he that believeth not ſhall be damned. (We have not left out the latter part of the Words now, for I remember the falſe charge.) But to this Text in Mark, when Chriſt gave a Commiſſion to his Apoſtles to go into all the World to preach the Goſpel, and to inform them, If they believed, and were baptized, they ſhould be ſaved; but if they believed not they ſhould be damned; were they to preach this to little Infants? That they were to believe upon the penalty of Damnation; (I do not ſay, baptized upon the penalty of Damnation, tho you have unwarily aſſerted ſome of us are like the Jews in Judea, who aſſerted no Circumciſion no Salvation, ſo no Baptiſm no Salvation) But to our buſineſs, it ſeems Miniſters are bound to go into the World, and preach to Infants as well as the Adult, that they believe upon the penalty of Damnation; for this is the great Text brought once and again for Infants Baptiſm, becauſe they have faith; but how came they by it? was it by hearing the word preached, according to the Commiſſion in that place? No, no, ſaith the good man, 'tis habitual Faith inſpired. Why then doth he bring this Text? becauſe he is almoſt at his Wits end, and famiſhed for want of Arguments, and ſo will catch at any thing.
PRAY take one argument to think on before we go further, If none are here intended in Mark 16. but Men and Women Capable to Hear, and actually to Believe the Goſpel of Chriſt, then Infant Habitual Faith is not here intended; but the former is true, therefore the Latter (you ſee the mans great Bullwark is thrown down at once.) It is a wonder to me that a man who hath been ſo long a profeſt Chriſtian ſhould be ſo long ignorant of the word of God; what was the Scripture Calculated and written for? to be preached … why then did he not carry his children when Infants to … ſaith no, the Goſpel was not written for Infants, why then doth he bring that Text that hath no manner of relation to Infants, but only to the Adult? You are in the pound, Sir, get out if you can. Then he comes with a home queſtion; But may ſome ſay how ſhall we know that Infants have habitual faith? How ſhall we know it indeed? for my part I cannot tell how, I wiſh this Gentleman could ell me; for he hath oftentimes aſſerted no Faith no Salvation, neither for Old or Young. But how do you think he Anſwers this queſtion? by asking another, and as weakly anſwering it; How do we know any children, ſaith he, are ſaved but by the Judgment of charity, and ſome Scriptural Intimations? Ah, poor man, this had been better in then out, by ſome Scriptural Intimations? pray give us ſome Scriptual Intimations that Infants have faith, and we will ſay no more. Your bringing a Prophecy of Chriſt out of the 22 Pſalm 9, 10. will not do it, and though I give you all you can deſire that it may alſo be applied unto David, it ſignifieth nothing to the point; Thou didſt make me hope when upon my mothers breasts; that is, thou didſt give me ſufficient ground for hope and truſt if I had been capable of acting that grace and v. 10. I was caſt upon thee from the womb, thou art my God from my mothers belly; that is, I was like one forſaken by his parents and caſt wholly upon thy Providence; ſee our late Annotations. But for all this Infants have habitual Faith, ſaith our Antagoniſt, but his arguments are ſo feeble that maintain it, that it's like a tottering Fence; well, but what if I ſhould ask, what do you mean by Habitual Faith? I think there cannot be leſs in the word than this, that they have an Inclination to believe, and that they have Power, Might, Ability to believe; and if it be ſo, what is the reaſon they do not believe? ſurely if they have Power, Strength and Ability to believe, is it not reaſonable they ſhould be damned if they do not believe? which are his own words, page 17 no Faith, no Salvation neither for Young nor Old. If by Habit he meant an Inclination to believe, a diſpoſition to believe, then let him prove they have ſuch a diſpoſition; and what it is that hinders their believing; we ſay a perſon that is diſpoſed to a thing, hath power actually to do it. If he do not underſtand the meaning of the word habitual, why did he write it? was it to confound the Ignorant with the word Infant-ſeed of believers being in Covenant; what is meant by being in Covenant? there are thouſands of themſelves know nothing of it. Seeing they do not mean the Election of Grace for my part I think Tranſubſtantiation, habitual Faith, and the Infant ſeed of believers in the covenant are terms equally allowable and probably equally underſtood among their various Profeſſors; this habitual Faith in Infants is much of the likeneſs of our Athenian aſſertion, that Infants have faith Potentia, tho not Actu viſibli; ſo you ſay they have habitual, though not actual viſible Faith; for my part I think it calls for a prodigious Faith for any man to believe Infants have faith potentia, or habitual; all you have done is only begging when you ſhould have been a digging: But I think you have given away your Cauſe, and habitual Faith too, in page 26. in theſe words, God is a free Agent, and beſtows his Gifts of Grace and Mercy upon whom he pleaſeth. May not an earthly King beſtow his bounty upon a poor dumb Cripple that can neither ask nor go to him for it, no, nor return him vocal thanks? Is not this to allow and ſay what I have ſaid, That Infants are happy through the imputed righteouſneſs of Chriſt; tho as poor dumb Cripples that can neither ask nor go, nor return thanks? So that tho in effect he ſaith, as I do, yet calls my Sentence a ſtrange Sentence, which aſſerts Infants ſins are done away by the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, page 18. And would any man, but one void of common ſenſe urge ſuch Scriptures for Infant inherent Faith, as Rom. 3.26. God is the juſtifier of him that believeth in Jeſus, Eph. 2.8, 9▪ By Grace are ye ſaved through Faith not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt, Gal. 3.22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under ſin, that the promiſe by Faith of Jeſus Chriſt might be given them which believe. And Mark 16.16. He that believeth, and is baptiſed, ſhall be ſaved. And Gal. 6.15. For in Jeſus Chriſt neither circumciſion nor Ʋncircumciſion availeth any thing, but Faith which worketh by Love, or a new Creature. And he might as well have added, 1 Cor 7. But the keeping of the Commands of God, Rom. 5.1. being juſtified by Faith, we have peace with God through our I L… …ſus Chriſt, Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude a Man is Juſtified by Faith without the deeds of the Law. Doth this man think in his Conſcience that ever theſe things were written or Preached unto Infants, or in any ſenſe intended that Infants ſhould have the comfort of it; if not, why are all theſe Scriptures applyed unto them, when God never intended it for them? I hope he hath been taught better to Expound the Scripture; But ſtill he poſitively aſſerts Infants have Faith, and do believe, and proves it by two Infallible Witneſſes, as he thinks, the one is Mark 9.42. And who ſo ſhall offend one of thoſe little ones which believe in me, it were better for him a milstone were hanged about his neck and caſt into the Sea. Theſe little ones he aſſerts are Infants; but I would fain know, had I a mind to offend a believing Infant, how ſhould I know which were him? There is no more appears in one Infant than another. Secondly, Men muſt know ſuch a one which owns Chriſt, for it is becauſe he owns Chriſt that any of the wicked offend him: But how ſhall I know the Infant with his Inherent Grace and Faith, what Family he is in, where he dwells, ſhould I have a mind to offend him? Again, how ſhall the Infant know I am offended with him for his believing in Chriſt? Mark, Reader, the verſe before, Whoſoever ſhall give a Cup of Water to drink in my Name, becauſe they belong to Chriſt, ſhall not loſe his reward. Then the next words are, And whoſoever ſhall offend one of theſe little ones which believe in me. So that you ſee theſe little ones Chriſt ſpeaks of, are ſuch as go under the notion of Chriſt's Diſciples, making a viſible profeſſion; and if we do the leaſt kindneſs for them we ſhall not loſe our reward. But how ſhall I know which Infant it is that hath habitual Faith, that ſtands in need of this Cup of Water? It cannot diſcover its own thirſt, and ſo the poor Infant may Die, though I had a mind to relieve it. The Eighteenth of Matthew, is brought in by Chriſt upon the ſame account to abate the pride of the Diſciples who were diſco…rſing who ſhould be greateſt and be the higheſt in Heaven; upon this Chriſt calls a little Child, and tells them, except they were Spiritually what that Child was Naturally, in Meekneſs, Humility, free from Revenge and Pride, They could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. So he goes on, whoſo ſhall offend one of thoſe little ones which believe in me; not the little Infant or Child called and ſet in the midſt, but thoſe Believers that were like them in Humility, wrought by Faith in Chriſt; for had I a mind to pleaſe or diſpleaſe an Infant with his habitual Faith, I know not where to find him; and ſurely our Lord did not ſpeak of ſuch who were never like to be known: Oh, when will you ceaſe to pervert the right word of the Lord? How diſingenuous are you in ſaying, I owned they were Infant-Children, but would not own they believed? My ſpeaking thoſe words was not from thoſe Scriptures, but two others, namely, Luke 18. and Matt. 19. See my book, page 35. 36. where Children were brought to Chriſt to be touched; from whence ſome infer they were Baptized. But I need not wonder you are ſo unfair with me, when you are ſo with the very Word of God, when God ſaith, Acts 16.34. That the Jaylor believed in God with all his Houſe; you poſitively ſay, here we read of none but the Jaylor which did believe, and yet notwithſtanding, ſay you, his whole Family was Baptized. I hope, Sir, you believe there is a Judg. Mr. Charnock ſpeaking of an Habit, tells us, It is an inward Frame enabling one to Act readily and eaſily, as when an Artificer hath the habit of a Trade; the new Creature conſiſts in gracious qualities and habits, which beautify and diſpoſe the Soul to act righteouſly and holily: Hence habits are as Seeds which make the Earth capable to bring forth good Fruit; but what good Fruit hath an Infant with all his habitual grace? This habit, ſaith he, is expreſt by a fountain of Living Water ſpringing up to Eternal Life. Page 75. Some ſay indeed that Regeneration is conferred in Baptiſm upon the Elect, and exerts it ſelf afterwards in Converſion; but how ſo active a principle as a Spiritual Life ſhould lie dead or a ſleep ſo long, even many years, which intervene between Baptiſm and Converſion, is not eaſily Conceivable. Where theſe habits are, there is a Spirit of Love, of Grace, whereby as their underſtandings are poſſeſt with a knowledg of the Excellencies of his ways, ſo their wills are ſeaſoned by the power of this Habit: And further, as Chriſt had a Body prepared him to do the work of a Mediator, ſo the Soul hath a habit prepared to do the work of the new Creature as the corrupt Nature is the habit of ſin, ſo the new Nature is the habit of Grace; God doth not only call us to Believe, Love, Obey, but brings in the Grace of Faith and Love and Obedience; this habit receives various Denominations, either from the Subject, or Object, 'tis ſubjectively in the Eſſence of the Soul; but as it ſhows it ſelf in the Underſtanding 'tis called the knowledg of God; as 'tis in the Will, 'tis a choice of God; as in the Affection, 'tis a motion to God; and from the Object it is diverſified; as it cloſes with Chriſt Dying, 'tis Faith; as it rejoyces in Chriſt Living, it is Love; as it lies at the Feet of Chriſt, it is Humility; as it obſerves the Will of Chriſt, it is Obedience; as it ſubmits to Chriſt afflicting, it is patience; as it regards Chriſt offended it is grief; yet all ariſeth from one habit; but where doth any of theſe things appear in the Infants habitual Faith; he tells you further, where the habit of true Grace is, there is a ready diſpoſition to every good work, becauſe Seminally in every renewed perſon.—And, ſaith he, as 'tis ready in reſpect of diſpoſition, ſo it is in the activity of motion; yea, 'tis naturally active according to its divine Nature, moreover 'tis voluntarily active, where theſe habits are there is a kind of natural neceſſity of motion from life and habit; yea 'tis fervently active, the nobler the Being of any thing is, the greater degree of activity it is attended with; yea, 'tis unboundedly active, alſo powerfully active, eaſily active, and pleaſantly active, the entire inclinations of the Soul ſtands right to good actions. Mr. Charnock, 2 vol. page 85. to 94. Now let all thoſe Characters of Habitual Grace be put together, and …hen conſider whether any of theſe things can affect little Infants. I hope by this time you have enough of Infants Habitual Faith. I will only add this further, page 94. There is in this habit an orderly motion and activity, and a permanent activity, a Spring of perpetual motion, even unto everlaſting Life; how then can all the infant Seed of Believers have this Habitual Faith, when ſo many of them make their Parents Hearts to ake? This is like Mr. Marſhall's Notion in his Sermon before the Parliament, God doth Seal the Infant preſently, and puts their name into the Deed, and that God accepts of ſuch a Seal on their parts as they are able to give in their Infant age, expecting a further Ratification when they come to riper years, and that in the mean time affords them the favour of being in Covenant with him; and that the ſurety of the New Covenant is pleaſed to be their ſurety, yet ſaith, when grown men, they may refuſe to ſtand to this Covenant and nullity all: Oh amazing! How inconſiſtent is this with perſeverance? Take this Ar…ument for a cloſe of your ſecond Query, and Anſwer it, Thoſe Children of Believers which Die in an Ʋnregenerate State, either never had the Habits of Grace or elſe if they had them, they have loſt them; But there is no loſing Habits of Grace; Ergo, they never had them. If you ſay they had them, and have loſt them, that is againſt your own principle about perſeverance: If you ſay they never had them, then you contradict your own …ook, which aſſert, That all the Infants of Believers have it, and therefore you Baptize them: get out of this Priſon as well as you can▪
FOR your third Query▪ What if I allow all Believers are wholly paſſive in …generation, and can …o more …egenerate th…mſelves, than a … …hat is all … Faith? Is this a concluding Argument? Surely no; Pray Sir go to School and learn better Logick, for this is no Argument in Barbara; There is no more, ſay you, in Children to hinder Grace, than in the Adult: Ergo, they believe, (what think you Sir, is this good Arguing) Christ can raiſe of ſtones Children unto Abraham, Ergo, ſtones believe, or Stones are wholly paſſive, and have nothing to hinder Regeneration, Ergo, Stones are Regenerated; When you bring better Topicks and Mediums to prove your Argument by, more may be ſaid to it; but you may think I have ſaid too much to diſcover your Ignorance of Divine things already. Here we may give a hint to your fifth Query, Whether Children may not have the Golden Oyl of God's Free Grace, as well as Adult perſons? Anſwer, What little Infants have, or what they may have, lieth not within our Sphere; ſecret things belong unto God, Revealed things unto us; but the queſtion is, how this Gentleman will prove that infants have this grace which qualifieth them for Baptiſm; my neighbour is capable of being King of Ʋtopia, Ergo he is king of Ʋtopia, doth this Conclude? the Scripture ſaith Men and Women ought to believe who are capable of knowing good and evil; therefore infants do believe who know neither good nor evil. Your 4th, 7th, 8th. Queries look one way, and we do aſſert infants may be fit for the Kingdom of God, as our Lord hath ſaid; and yet not qualified for Goſpel Ordinances: Can it be ſhewed that ever our Lord Inſtituted Goſpel Ordinances for Infants? Could it be made appear that Infants have Repentance, Faith, and are taught of God, have the anſwer of a good Conſcience profeſſedly, they would have a Right to the Ordinance of Baptiſm; but this Logick will never paſs the Schools. My Child ſhall be heir to my Inheritannce, ergo, he is capable of underſtanding the ſigning and ſealing of it at eight days old; had you ſaid he had been capable of underſtanding the ſealing this Eſtate over unto him at One and Twenty, it had carried more of Truth and Reaſon in it. Why are Children denyed the Lords ſupper if fit for baptiſm? what, are Children believers, and kept from the Lord's Table? do we ever read it was denied to a true Believer? what, are Children New Creatures, Regenerated, Born again, and deny them the Elements of Bread and Wine: Oh! hard Father of Infants Men as wiſe as your ſelf gave Infants the Euchariſt for ſeveral hundred years, from ſome of your own Topicks, and will you deny it them? all your long harangue about Infants being capable of one Ordinance, and not of another, is but wind; will you ſay in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, there muſt be inherent Grace, and alſo Grace exerciſed; but a ſtate of Grace, tho not exerciſed, ſay you, is ſufficient for Baptiſm; But how doth this Gentleman know Infants are in a ſtate of Grace to qualifie them for Baptiſm? the word doth not help him here, and if he conclude ſo from Charity, then there is the ſame reaſon to have the ſame Charity for Children of Unbelievers, and more too ſome times, becauſe the Believers Child often falls from a pretended Covenant, State, Faith, Inherent Holineſs, New Birth, Regeneration, when the Unbelievers, Child abides in all Truly. But how comes this Gentleman ſo bold as to Aſſert and Print, That Actual Grace is not neceſſary to Baptiſm? Did not Philip call for Actual Grace of the Eunuch before Baptiſm? If thou Believeſt thou mayeſt: How then can Perſons be wholly Paſſive in Baptiſm? Did the Eunuch go down into the Water, and come up out of the Water? Did Chriſt go almoſt Forty Miles to be Baptiſed, and did it as an Act of Righteouſneſs, and yet wholly Paſſive? If you can ſhew me another Bible where Chriſt ſince hath ſaid, Perſons need not Actual Faith, and are wholly Paſſive in Baptiſm, I may change my mind. Whereas he doth Magnify the Lord's Supper ſo much above Baptiſm; I do Aſſert what ever is Sealed to a Believer in one Ordinance, is Sealed to him in another; nay, there is more particular words of Incouragement added unto Baptiſm, than to the other: 'Tis true, 'tis all comprehended in this, This is my Body broken for you, and my Blood ſhed for the Remiſſion of your Sins, but for Baptiſm in Acts 2. you have the promiſe of Remiſſion of Sins and gift of the Holy Ghoſt: In Acts 22. 'tis ſaid to Waſh away Sins Symbolically, Mark 16. Salvation is annexed unto Faith and Baptiſm; the Lord's Supper was never ſo Dignified as Baptiſm by the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt; and it is a Symbol of Regeneration and Juſtification, Rom. 6. Do I ſee my Sins Pardoned, my Perſon Juſtified, God Reconciled, my Perſon Sanctified, Heaven aſſured at the Lord's Supper? I behold the ſame in Baptiſm, there I ſee my Sins Buried in his Grave, as in the other Nailed to his Croſs; here I behold my Soul Waſhed in his Blood, Juſtified by his Righteouſneſs, Saved by his Death; and is not this a Marriage Feaſt? And ought I not to have the Wedding Garment now as at the Table of the Lord?
BUT this Gentleman tells me, I have Written ſeveral ſtrange Poſitions; I am not aſhamed the World ſhould ſee them: You muſt know one of the firſt Arguments of the Church of Rome for Infants Baptiſm, is, That it Waſht away Origional Sin: Now becauſe I ſay in oppoſition to that, we know a better way to Waſh away Original Sin, namely, The Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs: This is one of my ſtrange Poſitions. But pray which is moſt ſtrange, this, or the applying all thoſe Texts, which ſpeak of Regenerated Men and Women unto little Infants, and what they ſpeak of the neceſſity of Faith in them, to apply it unto Babes, who neither know Good nor Evil.
2dly, ANOTHER ſtrange Poſition is, becauſe I ſay, That as Circumciſion was the Door into the Jewiſh Church, which was National; ſo Baptiſm is the Door into the Goſpel Church, which is Congregational: Now this being true in his own Opinion; why ſhould it be a ſtrange Poſition? Why, Becauſe I will not allow, it came in the room of Circumciſion: Cannot I make two Doors to my Houſe, but one muſt be a Type of another? Or rather, Cannot I pull down my Old Houſe and Build a New; but my Door of my Firſt Houſe muſt be a Type of the Door of my laſt. The Door of God's Goſpel-Houſe is larger than the Door of his Legal Houſe; that Door was only large enough for the Jews, and few poor Proſelyted Gentiles; but the Goſpel Door entertains all commers, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarians, Sythians: So that the Firſt Door could not be an Exemplar or Type of the Laſt; Then only Males were Circumciſed; now Males and Females Believing may be Baptiſed; therefore Circumciſion could not be the ſhadow of Baptiſm; the Subjects that enter the Door are not the ſame; one are Ignorant Infants, the other Perſons of Underſtanding. Under the Law the Subjects were wholly Paſſive, but now Church Members muſt be Active in the Operations and Acts of Repentance and Faith; not only thoſe called Conformiſts, but the Non-Conformiſts alſo have loſt the Door, and the Subject that ſhould enter the Door; for here are they wholly Paſſive, when they ſhould be Active; ſo that the very Eſſence of the Ordinance is loſt; here is neither right Form, nor right Subject, and what are they that enter not in by the Door, but climb up and come in ſome other way into the Houſe?
READER, conſider whether this ſaying of mine be ſo ſtrange as his, which he hath put in two Mercuries, ſhewing I was not the Author of his Book, which I would not have been for the World: He tells the People, I was never guilty in Writing nor Preaching of any ſuch Extenſive Evangelical Truths: Is not this a piece of Arrogance with a witneſs? How hath he expoſed his Profeſſion and Name to the World? beſides he knows not what my Preaching is, nor hath Read, I ſuppoſe, a third of what is written; ſo that he ſpeaks in the dark. And whereas he ſaith, I never was guilty of Writing or Preaching ſuch things, I hope I never ſhall. Again, Is not that a ſtrange Poſition of his, page 25. Becauſe I ſay, John Baptist required, Matt. 3. of the Phariſes and Sadduces Repentance from dead Works, in order to qualifie them for Baptiſm and Goſpel Church Memberſhip; every Tree, ſaith the Text, that brings not forth good Fruit is hewen down, and caſt into the Fire.
HE from hence concludes, and tells the World, that my judgment is, That little Infants, becauſe they cannot bring forth good Fruit, must be cut down by the Ax of Divine Wrath, and cast into Eternal Fire: and ſaith, I and my party are for ſaving Infants, by and for good Works. Did ever man ſpeak more impertinently, and wrong his Antagoniſt more unreaſonably? What, cannot I ſpeak to the Adult and ſay, Ʋnleſs you Repent you ſhall all periſh, but I muſt intend Infants who are not capable of it; and except you believe, you ſhall be damned: And when I ſay, He that ſows to the fleſh, ſhall of the fleſh reap corruption, but muſt intend Infants: Surely the Doctrine of the Goſpel was never Calculated for Infants; theſe Lines of his muſt be Written through Ignorance, Inadvertency or worſe; however it was, he ought to do his Neighbour right by a publick Recantation; and alſo of that in page 24. where he ſaith, I ſmell rank of Rome, Popery, and Free Will, becauſe in my Book I give a reproof to the Seekers who put a ſlight upon the Bleſſed Ordinances. See page 60, 61, 62. I little thought he would have been an Advocate for them. As to my Judgment, about Juſtifying Faith, it is well known both from the Pulpit and from the Preſs; but this is like the reſt of his Writing, who labours all he can to blacken the ways of God, and render the Profeſſors of it as odious as poſſible, or elſe he would never have raked into the Grave of one Godly Miniſter who hath been Dead almoſt twenty Years: He mentions ſeveral who have Apoſtatized from the Truth, Judas being one of them, Accumulates the Errors of ſome in Principles, and others in Practice, and jumbles them all together to make the name of a Baptiſt Odious; nay, Publiſheth one particular paſſage of a Faithful Miniſter of Chriſt (wherein he ſuppoſed ſome Weakneſs, tho there was none) who is now Living, and an Honourable Perſon in the Church of God, whom he calls a Paſtor of a Congregation, page 49. And becauſe we with hold from Infants what Chriſt would not have given them, he tells the World we make no better of Infants than Dogs, page 11. That we have Crafty Poſitions, uncouth Gloſſes, that we mince and limit the Fundamental Doctrine of Mans Salvation, page 48. Doth he not acquire the name of an Exquiſite Calumniator, when he tells the World, Some of them are Arminians, ſome Socinians, ſome gone back to Judaiſm, others of them Gormandizers? page 51. Now Courteous Reader, conſider what dreadful work ſhould we make in the Church of God, if we ſhould Preach and Publiſh in Print the Errors of ſome of the Pedo-Baptiſts, both in Principle and Practice; but while we are Mourning under the Evil of others, I hope we ſhall not fall into the ſame our ſelves: He endeavours to make thoſe Hearts ſad God would not have made ſad, by Miſrepreſenting our Opinion to the World, as if we held no Baptiſm no Salvation; and that we account all Babylon, and none of the New Jeruſalem but them of our Opinion, and very ſtreight in our Love and Affection: Is not this the Man David ſpeaks of, That Travelleth with Iniquity, Conceived Miſchief, and brought forth Falſhood? Remember, remember John Child, whoſe chief cauſe of Deſparation, was his ſpeaking and writing againſt thoſe very People of God you now do.
NOW I come to your Challenge in your Book, page 12. I Challenge all the Anabaptists in the World to produce but one plain Text of Scripture either in the Old or New Teſtament, from Gen. 17. to the very last of the Revelations, to prove that ever the Children of Believing Parents were caſt out of Covenant by any Authority from God, and then I will Submit unto them.
MY fear is, this perſon is ſo prepoſſeſt that all a Man can ſay, tho never ſo much to the purpoſe, it will not be regarded; however, becauſe he hath made ſo fair a promiſe, we will try if we can make him ſubmit; but, pray Sir, do not Anſwer this Book and theſe Arguments as my firſt Book, for I expect a full Anſwer if you Write.
YOUR demand is, That we prove Infants In-covenanting, and the priviledges Children once had with their Parents, repealed.
THEREFORE that the Covenant of Peculiarity made to Abraham, and his Natural Seed, as ſuch, is Aboliſhed, I prove from theſe four or five Arguments following, laid down in ſo many Enthymems.
Argum 1. THE Natural Branches are broken off, Ergo, Childrens viſible Incovenanting is Repealed; the Antecedent of this Enthymem is cleared from the Apoſtles Aſſertion, Rom. 11.19, 20, 21. The Branches are broken off, By the Natural Branches, without Controverſy is to be underſtood the Natural Seed of Abraham, and the breaking off muſt either be meant from a Viſible Church Memberſhip, and External Priviledges thereunto belonging, or the everlaſting Covenant of Grace; it cannot be the latter, becauſe that Covenant is Immutable, therefore it muſt be the former: God ſhewed Zachariah the Prophet, Chap 11.10, 14. upon a Proſpect of the Jews Unbelief in the Meſſiah, and their putting him to Death, that he would take his staff of Beauty, and his ſtaff of Bands and break it, to ſignify he would break the Covenant he had made with Iſrael and Judah, who until this time were accounted the only Viſible People of God in the World, tho now the Partition Wall is broken down, and all the Gentile Nations in the World are with the Believing Jews, all one in Chriſt. Hear worthy Mr. Cotton on the Covenant, page 15. John Baptiſt's Miniſtry, ſaith he, did burn like an Oven againſt all the Scribes and Phariſes, and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant, nor the Branches of their own good Works, Matt. 3.9. In the Preface to Dr. Owen's True Nature of Goſpel Church, he ſaith, God took that numerous Progeny which came from Abraham's Loyns to himſelf in one Viſible Body and Viſible Church Memberſhip. The whole Nation being the ſame Politick Eccleſiaſtical Body, ſaith Mr. Tombes, which Church ſtate was only Carnal, as their Ordinances were; but, ſaith the Preface, when God had divorced that People, Aboliſhed their Moſaical Conſtitution by breaking their Staff of Beauty and Bands; then he erects his Goſpel Church, calls in Diſciples by his Miniſtry, forms them into a Body, and furniſheth them with Officers; ſo that this Covenant is taken up by the Roots, and the Natural Branches broken off, none excepted, but the Natural Branches which remain ſo by Faith in the Meſſiah, and ſo they broken off, may be Grafted in again; but until then, they remain broken off, ergo, the Viſible Incovenanting of Infants is Repealed, for they could not be broken off the Everlaſting Covenant of Grace, therefore it muſt be the Covenant of Pecularity made with Abraham.
Arg. 2. NONE are Christ's Diſciples but ſuch as take up his Croſs and follow him, ergo, Infants are not Diſciples, and ſo no Viſible Members of a Goſpel Church.
The Antecedent is fully proved from our Saviours Aſſertion, Luke 14.26, 27. If any man come unto me, and hate not his Father and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brethren and Siſters, yea, and his own Life alſo, he cannot be my Diſciple, and whoſoever beareth not his Croſs, and commeth after me, he cannot be my Diſciple, twice repeated, as if our Saviour had foreſeen how men would boldly aſſert Infants Diſciples who were wholly uncapable of it. Let this put you to everlaſting Silence from mentioning Matt 28.18. your great Bulwark you always run unto; now you may plainly ſee our Saviour did not mean Children, when he ſaid, go Diſciple all Nations; if he had intended Infants to have been Diſciples alſo, he would have made that exception; but our Lord knew they were in no wiſe capable of being taught, taking up Chriſt's Croſs and following him, without which it's impoſſible, ſaith our bleſſed Lord, you ſhould be my Diſciples. Thus you ſee that Children are excluded the Commiſſion; becauſe they cannot be Diſciples, being wholly uncapable to take up the Croſs, and ſo conſequently not Viſibly in Covenant, nor Church Members; therefore that Covenant of Peculiarity with Abraham and his Natural Seed is Repealed.
Arg. 3. The Promiſe of Remiſſion of Sin, and the gift of the Holy Ghoſt unto the Children of Believers, is upon the terms of Repentance and Obedience, Ergo, the Promiſe is not to the Fleſhly and Natural Seed of Believers as ſuch.
The Antecedent is proved from Gods word, Acts 2.38.39. where the Jews upon Conviction by St. Peter's Sermon, of their being the Murtherers of the Meſſiah, cries out unto the Apoſtle, Men and Brethren, what ſhall we do? Peter Anſwers them, Repent and be Baptized in the name of Jeſus Christ for the Remiſſion of Sins, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoſt; for this Promiſe is to you and your Children alſo, yea, to the very Gentiles afar off, if they are called. Repent, Believe and Obey the Meſſiah, for tho you called for the Guilt of Chriſts Blood to be upon your Heads, and your Childrens, yet for your Comfort it ſhall not be upon either. If both have theſe Qualifications before mentioned, therefore the conſequent roundly follows that the Promiſe is not made to the Natural Seed of Believers as ſuch, therefore the Covenant of peculiarity made with Abraham and his Seed is Repealed. But if you will not yet comply with this plain ſenſe of the Words, but that the Promiſe of God in this Text is to the Infant Seed of Believers as ſuch; conſider your task; if God hath made ſuch a Promiſe as Sins Remiſſion, and the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt to all the Natural Seed of Believers as ſuch, then you are to make this appear that the Believers Infant Seed as ſuch, are indeed Partakers of theſe Promiſes which God hath here made, or elſe you Reflect unfaithfulneſs on God for non-performance of his Covenant, ſo that unavoidably all the Infant Seed of Believers, as ſuch, muſt be Saved, ſince God hath made the promiſe of Sins Remiſſion, and the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt unto them, unleſs you ſuppoſe ſome may Eternally Periſh which have theſe Gifts; but if you will add, and ſay, we never believed they ſhould be the better for the Promiſe, without an Actual taking Hold of the Covenant; then ſhew us what Promiſe and Priviledg the Child of a Believer hath, more than the Child of an Unbeliever, or Gentile afar off, if they do alſo actually take hold by Faith of God's Covenant. Thus you ſee that the Promiſe is not to the Fleſhly Seed of Believers as ſuch, but upon the terms of Faith and Obedience; therefore the Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham, and his Natural Seed, is Repealed.
Arg. 4. Abraham's Seed under the Goſpel Diſpenſation are only Actual true Believers, Ergo, the Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Infant Seed, as ſuch, is Repealed.
The Antecedent is clear, from Gal. 3.29. If ye are Chriſts, then are ye Abraham's Seed; you boaſt, ſaith Chriſt, Abraham is your Father, but you are the Children of the Devil, for ye ſeek to kill me, ſo did not Abraham; boast not of your Birth Priviledges, it ſignifieth nothing except you are born again, for the Children of the Fleſh, tho the Children of Abraham, are not the Children of God, but the Children of the Promiſe, viz. The Children of Faith are counted for the ſeed, Rom. 9.8. The conſequent follows naturally, That the old way of Infants Viſible Incovenanting is Repealed, unleſs you think Infants do believe; ſo that whatſoever was comprehended in that Promiſe made to Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17.7. can no ways affect the Seed of Believing Gentiles, as ſuch for my Seed, as a Gentile cannot be the Natural Seed of Abraham, a Jew; nor the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, becauſe ſuch are reckoned according to the Spirit and Faith; So that that Text, Gen. 17.7. hath been very improperly applied all along to the Seed of Believing Gentiles, as ſuch, being neither the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham: And to advance a little further, know this that no particular Believer can infer they are a Holy Root to their Poſterity; becauſe Abraham is called the Father of the Faithful, for Abraham is accounted a Spiritual Father, but we are accounted Natural; So that the Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed, as ſuch, muſt be Aboliſhed, becauſe we are not accounted Abraham's Seed now, but as we believe in the Meſſiah, and for a Gentile Believers Natural Seed, as ſuch, cannot be the Seed of Abraham, neither in a natural nor Spiritural Sence, therefore cannot in any wiſe affect them: Here you have brought your ſelf again into a Nooſe, and I cannot help it. Now ſeeing the Seed of Abraham are Actual Believers, therefore the Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham, and his Natural Seed is Repealed.
Arg. 5. Infants are not capable of the Qualifications of Goſpel Church Memberſhip, Ergo, Infants Incovenanting and Church Memberſhip is Repealed.
THE Antecedent is clear from their being wholly uncapable of being Taught and made Diſciples, by taking up Chriſts Croſs and following him; alſo of Self-Examination. In the Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham; the Infant Church Members were wholly Paſſive in ſuffering the ſign of the Covenant under the Legal Oeconomy. But Members of a Goſpel Church are Active; the Corinthians gave themſelves firſt to God, and then to the Apoſtles, by the Will of God, in a Church State; in a Goſpel Church they are Innitiated after Converſion, or a leaſt a Profeſſion of it: It's ſaid of ſuch. They that gladly received the Word were Baptiſed, and they eat their Meat with gladneſs and ſingleneſs of Heart, and went to their own Company, lift up their Voice in Prayer, and were Obedient to the Faith; but Infant Church Memberſhip no ways agree to a Goſpel Church State, who are ſaid to be Sanctified in Chriſt Jeſus; Saints by calling. Holy Brethren, Living Stones, Chriſt's Spiritual Temple, and Houſe of God. Church Members, now are to be Active; they are not to go, as Auſtin abſurdly ſaith of Infants going to Baptiſm with others Feet, believe with others Faith, Covenant with others Tongues. I am ſure Chriſt went upon his own Feet to Baptiſm near forty Mile, and the Eunuch alſo, and believed with his own Faith, and Covenanted with his own Tongue. Now for the Concluſion, I ſay, Infants are not now Viſibly in covenant, it not being within my Sphere what they are as to Gods Decrees, yet conclude well of all that Die in their Infant State. But ſeeing there are ſo many Qualifications required individually to Goſpel Church Memberſhip, your task is to prove, that Infants have them; or give up the Cauſe, according to your Promiſe, and confeſs the Covenant of Peculiarity made unto Abraham, and his Seed, is Repealed.
Whereas you mention Jeremiah and John Baptiſt Sanctified from the Womb; on Jeremiah, our Annotators ſay, I have Appointed and Approved thee as a fit Miniſter for the Work, I have Prepared and Ordained thee for Publick Service, viz. not with Saving Grace, tho that need not to be excluded; and of John the Baptiſt, they ſay, being filled with the Holy Ghoſt from his Mothers Momb; this is true both as to Prophecy, which is an extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghoſt, and alſo of the Holy Ghoſt conſidered as a Sanctifying Spirit; Now conſider, our Annotators lay the great ſtreſs of thoſe two Men Sanctified from the Womb, upon their being fitted for publick Work, for as much as they had inſuperable Difficulties. which in thoſe degenerate and corrupt Times they muſt unavoidably Encounter with; but what if it ſhould be granted thoſe two Men were not only Sanctified from the Womb? That is, ſet a-part to publick Work, which the word Sanctified ſometimes imports; but that alſo they were Savingly Sanctified in their Hearts: Is this a good Argument to prove, that all the Infant Seed of believers have Habitual Faith from their Mothers Womb? If ſo, how comes it to paſs that ſo many of them Die unſanctified? Logicians will tell you, its unſafe Arguing from particuliar Inſtances to general; is this a good Argument? Solomon was a very Wiſe man, ergo, all men are very Wiſe. Sampſon was a Strong Man, therefore all Men have Sampſon's Strength. Abraham was a great believer… therefore, all Men have great Faith. Moſes was a Meek Man, therefore, all Men are Meek, and all Men Patient, becauſe Job was ſuch; I hope we ſhall never have theſe inſtances urged any more of John Baptiſt, and Jeremiah, for to prove that all the Infant Seed of believers have Habitual Faith.
SEEING ſome have queried, where you find that Children are forbidden to be Baptiſed, tho you know it is rather your work to prove the Poſitive, That there is a Command for the Baptiſing of Infants, than for me to prove the Negative, That there is none; for if you would but prove the former, you would ſave me the Labour from proving the latter; however I ſhall attempt it for once.
TO prove the Baptiſm of Infants Forbidden.
ALL poſitive Commands Prohibit whatever is repugnant thereunto; but the Baptiſm of Infants is repugnant to the poſitive command of Chriſt for that Ordinance, ergo, the baptiſm of Infants is prohibited.
The Major is undeniable, the Minor I thus prove: I… Ignorance be oppoſed to underſtanding, the want of an act of Repentance, Faith and Obedience be oppoſed to the Act, and Teaching be oppoſed to them not capable of it. If a few drops of Water be oppoſed to a burial in Water: In a word, if a wrong Subject and a wrong manner of Adminiſtration be oppoſite to a right Subject and manner of Adminiſtration, then Infants Baptiſm is repugnant to Chriſt's Command for that Ordinance, and therefore roundly Prohibited; for no man of Senſe can imagin that our Lord can allow of any Practice repugnant to his own Commiſſion; the word all Nations, in Matt 28. is referable only to the Teaching of all Nations; all poſitive Commands, prohibit whatever is repugnant thereunto We might Illuſtrate when we are commanded to Worſhip God in Spirit and Truth, it forbids all Ignorant Devotion, Formallity and Hypocriſy, and when commanded to Worſhip God, all Idols and Idolaty is forbidden; to eat bread and drink Wine in remembrance of Chriſt, forbids a belief of his Corporal Preſence; what need I do any act to put me in remembrance of him who is Corporally Preſent, when God's Word aſſerts we are ſaved by Grace, it forbids Works as Meritorious; ſo when God Commands Perſons that Profeſs Faith and Repentance to to be baptiſed, it Prohibits all that are uncapable of thoſe Qualifications. Take heed of incurring Divine Diſpleaſure, by commanding that in the Name of the Lord, which he never commanded: Oh! what a dreadful Judgment did God threaten againſt Jeruſalem for doing thoſe things which God Commanded them not, In offering their Children to Molech in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, which I commanded them not, ſaith God, neither came it into my mind, Jer. 19.5. The Geneva Note on that place, ſaith, Whatſoever is not Commanded by God, touching his Service, is againſt God's word, becauſe not commanded: Was not Nadab and Abihu prohibited falſe Fire when commanded to take Fire from the Altar? Is not Tertullian's Notion true, every poſitive Command of Chriſt includes a Negative? by this Argument you may ſet up a great part of the falſe Worſhip in Rome, by Interrogating where it is forbidden, read Matt. 28.18. Acts 2.37. Mark 16.16. Rom. 6.4 Acts 8.36, 37. Acts 10. All which Scriptures ſhew, that Infant Baptiſm muſt be Repugnant unto that Baptiſm which is from Heaven, therefore is Prohibited.
Syllogiſtical Arguments againſt Pedo, and for Believers Baptiſm.
Arg. 1. THAT which hath no Divine Command nor Example, none Commended for its Obſervation, nor Reprehended for its neglect, cannot be of God, or Divine Authority; but the Baptiſing of Infants hath no Divine Command nor Example none Commended for its Obſervation, nor reproved for its Neglect ergo, the Baptiſing of Infants is not of God or Divine Authority.
Arg. 2. THAT which hath a Divine Command and Example, ſome commended for its Obſervation and others reproved for its neglect, muſt be of God and Divine Authority; but the Baptiſm of Believers hath a Livine Command and Example; ſome commended for its Obſervation, others Reprehended for its neglect ergo, the Baptiſm of Believers is of God and Divine Authority, Mark 16.15, 16. Luke 7.29, 30.
Arg. 3 THAT which was the Practice of the pure Primitive and Apoſtolick Times, about Initiating perſons into the Church, ought to be the ſame unto the Second Coming of Chriſt: But to Initiate perſons into the Church by Baptiſm, upon a profeſſion of Faith, was the Practice of the pure Primitive and Apoſtolick times; ergo, to Initiate perſons into the Church by Baptiſm upon a profeſſion of Faith, ought to be the ſame unto the Second Coming of Chriſt. This Argument doth ſtand Immovable againſt the Churches for Pedo-Baptiſm; unleſs they can aſſign the time and place where Chriſt altered the Conſtitution of his Churches, and changed the manner of Initiation into them, or e…ſe to their Peril be it, who Conſtitute Churches any other way, or Initiate Members contrary to the Apoſtolick Practice.
Arg. 4. THAT which is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of John, Chriſt and his Apoſtles, is of Human Invention.
BUT the Baptiſm of Infants is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of John, Chriſt and his Apostles, ergo, the Baptiſm of Infants is of Human Invention.
FOR the Minor; That the Baptiſm of Infants is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of John, Chriſt and his Apoſtles, the whole New Teſtament Witneſſeth: That the Subjects of this Ordinance were Underſtanding Believers, not Ignorant Infants, and Dipping, not Sprinkling, the manner of Adminiſtration; and therefore the conſequence of the Major is true, That Infant Baptiſm is of Human Invention.
Arg. 5. That Practice which hath no Promiſe Annexed unto it, either of Sins Remiſſ…on, Divine Preſen…e, the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, nor Salvation, cannot be of God, or Divine Appointment.
BUT Pedo-Baptiſm hath no Promiſe annexed unto it, either of Sins Remiſſion Divine Preſence, the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, nor Salvation, ergo, Pedo Baptiſm cannot be of God, or Divine Appointment.
Arg. 6. That Practice in the Church, which hath the Promiſe of ſins Remiſſion, Divine Preſence, the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, and Salvation annexed unto it, is of God, and Divine Authority.
BUT the Baptiſm of Believers, upon Profeſſion of Faith, hath the Promiſe of Sins Remiſſion, Divine Preſence, the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, and Salvation annexed unto it, Mat. 28.18. Acts 2.38. Mark 16.16. Ergo, The Baptiſm of Believers, upon Profeſſion of Faith, is of God and Divine Authority.
Arg. 7. THAT manner of Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, which no way anſwers the Commiſſion nor Intention of Chriſt the Law-maker, cannot be Authentick.
BUT the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm by Sprinkling, Pouring or Dropping, doth no way anſwer the Commiſſion, nor Intention of Chriſt the Law-maker, ergo, the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, by Sprinkling, Pouring or Dropping, is not Authentick.
The Minor is clear, That the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, by Sprinkling, Dropping or Pouring, doth no way anſwer Chriſt the Law maker's Commiſſion, becauſe he Commands the Subject to be Dipt, Immerſed, Buried; in purſuance of which Command, the Apoſtles did always ſo Practice. Secondly, It can no way anſwer the intention of Chriſt the Law-giver, becauſe his Intention was, That it ſhould be a lively repreſentation of the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt, together with the Believers Death to Sin, and a Reſurrection to a new Life; all which appears, Rom. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Coloſ. 2 12. Now what Similitude or likeneſs is between Sprinkling, and Chriſt's Death, Burial and Reſurrection, I leave to all the Judicious to conſider; would Chriſt take ſuch care to have his Death ſet forth in Lively Figures at the Lord's Table in breaking Bread, and pouring out Wine? And would Chriſt appoint a Dead Figure in Baptiſm? No, no.
Ar… 8. THAT Baptiſm which hath manifeſt Abſurdities cannot be of God;
But the Baptiſm of Infants hath manifold Abſurdities, ergo, the Baptiſm of Infants cannot be of God.
The Minor is thus proved; It's full of Abſurdities, becauſe aſſerted by ſome. That perſons have Regeneration in their Baptiſm before Vocation, and may be viſible Church Members before Converſion; moreover that perſons may be baptiſed by anothers Faith, and making a National Goſpel-Church, inſtead of a Congregational, and bringing in a Carnal Fleſhly Seed into Chriſt's Church, in the room of a Spiritual Seed.
That Faith and Repentance is required of perſons before baptiſed, yet confeſs that Children, unto whom they apply it, have neither.
Again, They profeſs that Baptiſm is a Demonſtration of a Spiritual Marriage between God and the Believer, and yet Aſſign it unto One as uncapable of ſuch a thing as a Stock or Stone: Moreover, that the Baptiſmal Covenant enters into the Viſible Church, yet deny Church Members the Lord's Supper.
Arg. 9. That Baptiſm that Introduceth Groſs Errors into the Church, cannot be Divine, but Human.
But the Baptiſm of Infants introduceth groſs Errors into the Church, ergo, the Baptiſm of Infants cannot be Divine, but Humane.
The Minor thus appears of its introducing Errors; It was firſt uſed to waſh away Original Sin which nothing but Chriſt's Blood could do. Again; It's uſed to work Grace and Regeneration, and Effect Salvation by the Work done; and againſt all ſence ſome ſay, It is an Apoſtolical Tradition, and that Children have Faith, are Diſciples of Chriſt, that all Children of believers are in the Covenant of Grace, defiling and polluting the Church with falſe matter, and confounding the Church and the World together, introducing many Traditions and Inventions of Anti-chriſt with it, as Goſſips or Sureties, Biſhoping or Confirmation, Chriſm, Exorciſm, Conſignation; finally, it hath made a great deal of Contention in the World, and filled many with prejudice.
Arg. 10. The proper Subjects of Baptiſm are ſuch who are capable of hearing the Word, and Teaching, of Repenting, Confeſſing of Sin, believing in Chriſt, and doing it as Chriſt's Commiſſion, a part of Goſpel Righteouſneſs, as Gods Councel, and as the Anſwer of a good Conſcience, and ought to do it as a Symbol of Chriſt's Death and Reſurrection, together with our own Death unto Sin, and Reſurrectito a New Life, ergo, Infants are not the proper Subjects of Baptiſm.
Mr. Perkins ſaith, The Greek word foreign, Interrogation, 1 Pet. 3.21. of a good Conſcience, ſignifieth a Stipulation or Promiſe which the perſon Baptiſed makes in Baptiſm; and further ſaith, He hath a double Interrogation, one from the Miniſter, which he Conſcientiouſly Anſwers, to perform the things Covenanted; and the other Interrogation is of his Conſcience unto God, whether he will accept him, if he Dedicate himſelf as his Faithful Servant, tho a poor miſerable ſinner? But how can theſe things affect Little Infants? How doth it appear they have the Anſwer of a good Conſcience in Baptiſm?
To Conclude, Courteous Reader, I pray grant me one requeſt, and that is, That you would be pleaſed to take my book of Baptiſm, and conſider my Antagoniſt's Anſwer unto it: I alſo deſire you would ſeriouſly compare my Anſwer with his Book, and I hope you will find no…hing material left unanſwered, tho he hath not ſpoken to the Matter contain'd in three pages, of one Hundred Thirty and Nine of my Book of Baptiſm; pray conſider, if he doth give any Anſwer to my Anſwer, or whether he ſaith any thing to the Arguments or Argumentative part of my Books, and be not put off with Shadows inſtead of Subſtance, nor with a Shell inſtead of a Kernel; for you have Reaſonable Souls, do not therefore ſuffer your ſelves to be impoſed upon to take Braſs for Gold, Non-ſence for Reaſon, nor mens Inventions for Gods Inſtitutions; but like the Noble Beraeans, ſearch the Scriptures to ſee whether thoſe things be ſo, or no; and believe nothing becauſe I, or any other Man ſaith it, but becauſe Divine Writ affirms it. In ſo doing you ſhall profit your ſelf, and oblige him who wiſheth you Everlaſting Proſperity.
FINIS