Gold Refined, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Containing an Anſwer to ſeveral other Arguments brought for Infant-Baptiſm.
Object. 1.Mr. Sidenham's Treatiſe. THough there is no plain Scriptures for Infant-Baptiſm, yet it may be proved by Conſequences; you, it appears, deny direct Conſequences from Scripture to be mandatory, and ſo obliging, and of Divine Authority.
Anſw. We affirm, that in all poſitive or inſtituted Worſhip (ſuch as Baptiſm is) which wholly depends upon the meer▪ Will and Pleaſure of the Law-giver, it is abſolutely neceſſary there ſhould be an expreſs Command, or plain and clear Examples, tho in other reſpects we allow of natural Deductions and Conſequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of Duties, and for the Comfort and Inſtruction of God's People. But as there is neither expreſs Command nor Example for Infant-Baptiſm; ſo it can't be proved by any Conſequence or Inference, that naturally and … r…s from any Scripture, as we have proved, nor does draw any ſuch Conſequences to prove it.
Object. 2. But there is nothing in all the New T…ſtament againſt Infant-Baptiſm, saith … ▪ Smythies. If indeed our Saviour had declared that Infants ſhould not be baptized, or if we had read of the Apoſtles Refuſal of them; then, &c. There is no hint from any expreſs word dropt from Chriſt, saith Mr. Sidenham, or his Apoſtles, nor any Phraſe which doth forbid ſuch an Act.
Anſw. We will anſwer with Tertullian: For this is a certain Rule, ſaith he, if it be ſaid 'tis lawful becauſe the Scripture doth not forbid it; it may equally be retorted, it is therefore not lawful, becauſe the Scripture doth not command it. That which is done in the Worſhip and Service of God without any expreſs Word dropt from Chriſt or his Apoſtles, nor any Phraſe which doth ſignify it is his Will and Mind it ought to be done, is unlawful and no better than Will-worſhip. Muſt Chriſt forbid Infant-Baptiſm? muſt he declare in plain words they ought not to be baptized, or elſe may they, ought they to be baptized? Is this good Divinity with Mr. Smythies? Certainly this Man can't long keep out of the Romiſh Communion: Hath our Saviour declared indeed that you ſhall not have Crucifixes, Beads, Altars, and that you ſhall not uſe Salt, Spittle, Oil, or Chriſm in Baptiſm? that ye shall not go on Pilgrimages, nor pray for the Dead? Hath Chriſt, I ſay, or his Apoſtles, as you read, forbid theſe things, and many more of like nature? Or, did God forbid Nadab and Abihu to offer ſtrange Fire, who were deſtroyed for doing it? Levit. 10. 1, 2. Did God forbid Abraham to circumciſe his Female Children, or forbid him to circumciſe his Male Children on the ninth day? and might he therefore do theſe things—becauſe God did no where tell him he ſhould not do ſo? The like might be ſaid concerning Bowing at the naming of the Name of Jeſus, Croſs in Baptiſm, Surplice in reading the Service, Kneeling at the Sacrament, ſet Forms of Prayer; you do theſe things becauſe not forbidden, and why not admit of other Rites and Innovations as well as theſe? Moreover, what expreſs word againſt Infants receiving the Sacraments? Beſides, are Bells forbidden to be baptized? hath Chriſt ſaid indeed, ye ſhall not baptize Bells? is it therefore lawful to baptize them? You will object, May be that Bells are not …it nor capable Subjects of ſuch an Ordinance? But why are they not? wherein are they uncapable? Can you not ſprinkle a little Water upon a Bell, and uſe the words of Inſtitution in as ſolemn a manner as you do when you ſprinkle a Child (baptize it as you ſay)? But are they uncapable becauſe there is no word of Inſtitution, nothing from the Mouth of Chriſt or his Apoſtles, to juſtifie ſuch a Practice? We ſay the ſame in reſpect of your baptizing Children; and if you ſay, Bells are not capable of the uſe and end of Baptiſm; we have proved the like concerning Infants. If God had pleaſed, he could have made them by an Inſtitution capable of ſome ſacred uſefulneſs, yea capable of Relative Holineſs or Conſecration, as Aaron's Bells; Nay, and ſince we read of Bells of the Horſes that ſhould be Holineſs to the Lord, Zech. 14. 20. Why may not that Text be a Proof that Bells in Churches ſhould be baptized, and so made holy likewiſe? There are thoſe you know who plead for that Practice (and have baptized them for many Ages) and they ſay there is as much ground from Scripture to do that, as there is to … Children, both depending, as they will tell you, upon the Authority of the Church.
Sad it is that ſuch a Gap as this ſhould be opened to all or any Inventions or Traditions of Men: remember who it was that ſaid, Add thou not to his Word. That God has in all Ages teſtified his Abhorrence of Will-worſhip, and that from this very reaſon, becauſe he commanded them not:Jer. 7. 31. 'tis evident they have built the high places of Tophet, &c. which I commanded them not, neither came it into my Heart. Ezek. 43. 8.For this cauſe God threatned Judgments upon Iſrael; They have ſet their Threſhold by my Threſholds, and their Poſt by my Poſts, wherefore I have conſumed them.
God diſcovers his ſevere Diſpleaſure againſt them, not for neglecting any part of his Worſhip that he had commanded them, but for their Preſumption in adding other things thereto, calling them his Ordinances, which he had not appointed nor commanded them. Will-worſhip (Sir) is an horrible Sin, when he who is to perform the Duty ſhall dare to appoint the Laws: Implying a peremptory purpoſe of no further obſervance, than may conſiſt with the allowance of his own depraved Judgment and Self-Intereſt; whereas true Obedience muſt be grounded on the Authority of that Power that commands not the liking or approbation of the Subject. Some Men will obey ſo far as it conſiſts with their Intereſt, and alter, add to, or diminiſh from, as they ſee good.
1. This ſavours of horrible Pride: Shall Man preſcribe unto God ways how he ſhall be worſhipped?
2. Moreover, this of Will-worſhip was that very Sin that overthrew the Nation of Iſrael; see Iſa. 24. 5, … the Ordinances, &c.
3. And it alſo is ſaid to wound the Heart of God, Ezek. 6. 9. namely, their ſuperſtitious and corrupt Mixtures in his Worſhip. And,
4. This renders the Service of Men abominable, when they make void the Commands of God by their Traditions, and all they do to be in vain, for ſo ſaith our Saviour, In vain they worſhip me, teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men.
Object. 3. But is it to be imagined, ſaith Mr. Smythies, that our Saviour, who took little Children up in his Arms, ſhould allow no Ordinance for them by which they ſhould be admitted into his Church?
Anſw. Muſt he needs baptize them becauſe he took them up in his Arms? and becauſe he bleſſed them, muſt he receive them into his Church? We have proved that they are not capable Subjects of Goſpel-Church-memberſhip, neither did our Saviour baptize any with his own Hands, Joh. 4. 1, 2. therefore not thoſe Children he took up into his Arms; nor is this any proof in the leaſt, i. e. that Chriſt muſt allow them an Ordinance, becauſe he ſhewed them the favour to take them up into his Arms. 'Tis ſaid he look'd upon the young Man, and loved him; muſt he therefore make him a Member of his Church, whether he was ſitly qualified for it or no? Chriſt ſhewed many great Favours unto divers Perſons, that we do not read he admitted into his Church. He may ſhew one Favour to you, and yet deny you another which you may not be capable of receiving.
Young Children,…uther in Poſt…l. ſaith Luther, hear not, nor underſtand the Word of God, out of which Faith cometh; and therefore if the Commandment be followed, Children ought not to be baptized.
Beſides, they might be Children able to receive Inſtruction as far as you know, for ſuch we take ſome times up into our Arms.Tertullian in his Book of Bapt. …ap. 18. Tertulllan, speaking of this place, ſaith, Indeed the Lord ſaid, do not ye hinder them to come unto me, let them come therefore, while they grow to Years, let them come while they learn, and while come, let them be taught; let them become Chriſtians, when they are able to know Chriſt: Why doth innocent Age haſten to the Remiſſion of Sins? Men will deal more w…rily in Worldly Aſſairs; ſo that they who are not truſted with an Earthly Inheritance are truſted with an Heavenly one; let them aſk for Salvation that thou mayſt appear to have given it to him. See our further Anſwer to this Text, Coap. 9.
Object. 4. But Infants were commonly baptized before. How can we, ſaith Mr. Smythies, imagine that our Saviour ſent to baptize Nations in which Infants before had commonly been baptized, and yet intend they ſhould be excluded?
Anſw. This is a new kind of Argument, but proves nothing.
For firſt, 'Tis denied that Infants by any Command of God were ever baptized in any Nation, no not amongſt the Jews, much leſs among the Gentile Nations; but if they had been baptized before, he might as well have in…erred (and much better) Infants Right to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and have ſaid, Can we imagine Chriſt would have excluded them from that, conſidering they were before admitted to the Paſſeover (which there is no great cauſe to queſtion.)
But ſecondly, We reaſon thus; If they were before baptized, either they were baptized as it was a Jewiſh Rite and Cuſtom, or elſe as an Heatheniſh one: If Baptiſm of Infants before was a Jewiſh Rite, it was either appointed of God, or elſe a Tradition of their own: If it was a Tradition of their own, can you ſuppoſe our Saviour would go about to own and eſtabliſh a Jewiſh Innovation, or one of their human Traditions? and if it were an Appointment of God, it is very much that no Man ever found it out before in all the Old Teſtament.
But thirdly, If there had been any ſuch legal Ordinance, it had been abrogated, with all other Jewiſh Ceremonies, which ſtood (as the Apoſtle ſhews) in Meats and Drinks, Heb. 9. 10.and divers Waſhings, and Carnal Ordinances impoſed on them until the time of Reformation. All thoſe divers Waſhings that were under the Law it is evident ceaſed in the Eſtabliſhment of the new Teſtament; and therefore how abominable falſe is that which Mr. Smythies ſays concerning Goſpel-Baptiſm?
Object. 5. Our Saviour, (says he Pag. 88.) took this Ordinance from the Cuſtom of the Jews, who were wont to baptize thoſe who forſook Heatheniſm and embraced the true Religion. And whenſoever they made Proſelytes, they did not only baptize the Parent, but the Child likewiſe.
Anſw. Did any Man aſſert till now the Baptiſm of Chriſt to be a Legal Rite, or rather that it ſprung from Human Tradition? for 'tis evident the Jews were not required to baptize them by any Appointment of God: for Circumciſion was the Rite by which Proſelytes (who were Males) were added to the Jewiſh Church.
Beſides, doth not our Saviour plainly intimate, that John's Baptiſm was directly from Heaven, and not of Men? And if Baptiſm had been ſo frequently practiſed amongſt the Jews, wherefore did they ſay to John, Why doſt thou baptize, if thou art not that Chriſt, nor Elias? Joh. 1. 25. But doth not Chriſt ſay, that the Doctrine he taught, he received from the Father who ſent him? not from Moſes nor the Jews:John 12. I have not ſpoken (saith he) of my ſelf; but the Father which ſent me, gave me Commandment what I ſhould ſay, and what I ſhould ſpeak. Now Baptiſm is poſitively called a Principle of his Doctrine,Heb. 6. 1, 2, 3. it was he that inſtituted it and gave it forth, Mat. 28. 19, 20. as a pure Goſpel-Ordinance, as the alone Soveraign Lord and Lawgiver of his Church. Moreover, if all thoſe divers Waſhings and carnal Ordinances amongſt the Jews are aboliſhed, as you heard before; how came this ſuppoſed Jewiſh Rite to eſcape? Theſe things conſidered, we may perceive 'tis Ignorance through Tradition that makes a Pedobaptiſt, or rather a No-Baptiſt, and not Ignorance (as he affirms) through length of time that makes an Anabaptiſt (falſly ſo called) Pag. 91. But 'tis the knowledg of God's Word, through the help of the Spirit, by which they, whom he ſo calls, come to caſt off that unwritten Tradition of Babes Rantiſm, and to own no Baptiſm but that which Chriſt hath commanded, and was practiſed in the Apoſtolical Church.
And whereas he affirms the baptizing of Children was all along uſed in the Primitive Church by the Holy Martyrs, &c.
We anſwer, It was never practiſed till the Church came to adulterate the holy Inſtitutions of Chriſt, and fell away to Error and Superſtition.
For,Curcellaeus …nſtitut. Relig. Chriſtian. l. 1. c. 12. ſaith Curcellaeus, in the two firſt Centuries after Chriſt, Infant-Baptiſm was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth it was allowed by ſome few; in the fifth and following Ages, it was generally received into Cuſtom.
And if the Cuſtom of the Church is enough to juſtify Infant-Baptiſm, it will oblige us as to receive many other Traditions or Ceremonies likewiſe.
Object. 6. But there are divers very learned Men who hold Infant-Baptiſm.
Anſw. And are there not many very learned Men who are againſt baptizing them? who ſay 'tis an Invention of Men and no Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt? Beſides, were not the Phariſees and Lawyers learned Men, who rejected the Counſel of God againſt themſelves, being not baptized? God's purpoſe is to confound the Wiſdom of Man. If Learning once comes to be made an Idol of, God may leave thoſe learned Men to themſelves, and let them grope in Mid-day as in the Night, notwithſtanding all their Light, Knowledg, and Learning.
Beſides, there are learned Men of all Opinions, many learned Cardinals, Prieſts, and Jeſuits in the Church of Rome, yet you will not make that an Argument to believe Tranſubſtantiation, and other Errors maintained by them.
Object. 6. But there are many very holy and pious Men, yea Paſtors of Churches, that are for the baptizing of little Infants▪ Nay, and why ſhould ſo few learned Men be of your way if it were a Truth, for moſt ſpeak againſt thoſe of your Perſwaſion?
Anſw. 1. The more cauſe of Grief. But what though I muſt tell you God's Word is to be your Guide, and not Men: every Man muſt give an account to God for himſelf.
Moreover, ſome Godly Men who have had great Light, and were glorious Reformers too in their day, yet lay ſhort of ſome great Things and Duties; as Jehoſaphat, &c. who did not remove nor pull down the high Places.
2. Light and Knowledg of Divine Truths have broken forth gradually. When Reformation firſt begun, thoſe godly Men laboured to reſtore the doctrinal part of the Goſpel, and yet great Corruptions remained in point of Diſcipline (which Errors God hath ſince by degrees diſcovered.)
3. Had the beſt and late Reformers (for ſuch you will find at laſt the Baptiſts to be in point of the Adminiſtrations of God's Houſe and holy Temple) been generally learned Men, 'tis very like this Truth would have been more readily received among ſuch (I mean learned Perſons) than we ſee now it is, ſo hard a thing is Self-denial.
4. Moreover, the baſe Reproaches caſt upon the true way of Baptizing, hath doubtleſs laid a great many of good Men under Temptations, there being hardly any one Truth that has been rendered more odious and contemptible than Baptizing, (i e. dipping of Men and Women in Water) tho 'tis generally acknowledged by all, that no other Action then that was practiſed in the Goſpel-days in the Adminiſtration of this Ordinance.
duplicate page duplicate page 5. Some ſay thoſe Errors or unſound Principles (as I look upon them to be) maintained by divers Baptiſts (who I doubt not are godly Chriſtians) have likewiſe hindred the Reception and Promulgation of this bleſſed Goſpel-Inſtitution among many worthy Perſons,For the Doctrine of Free-will; Falling away totally from a ſtate of true Grace, &c. are not look'd upon as capital Errors, viz. ſuch as will exclude Men out of the Kingdom of Heaven. and kept them may be from indeavouring their Satisfaction herein; tho 'tis ſtrange that ſhould be a ſtumbling Block to any, ſith there were many Chriſtians in the Apoſtles Times, who in many things did diſſent and differ (in as great matters) one from another: beſides, there are Men almoſt of all Perſwaſions that hold thoſe very Principles.
6. Others think the Remiſneſs of ſome of the Baptized Churches about taking care of their Miniſters hath contributed ſomething to it alſo: for nothing lies more clear in God's Word, than that thoſe who preach the Goſpel, ſhould live of the Goſpel; yea, have a comfortable Maintenance, i. e. that they may be wholly ſequeſtred to the Work of the Miniſtry (and be in a capacity to give to others,1 Cor. 9. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. and ſo ſhew themſelves Examples in Hoſpitality); and that their poor Wives and Children after their Deceaſe,Matth. 10. 10. may not be expoſed to Want and Poverty. But I am glad to ſee it,Luk. 9. 3. our Churches are now daily enlightned into this indiſpenſable Duty, and do endeavour to reform accordingly; and would they alſo labour to follow the Primitive Saints in ſinging of Pſalms, and Hymns, and ſpiritual Songs *Eph. 5. 18, 19., I do not doubt but it would add to their Comfort and Glory,Col. 3. 16. and many more than now do would joyn with us†Some good Chriſtians are not willing to take up one Ordinance, and ſo joyn in with the Baptiſts, and thereby loſe another which they believe is as great, and a moſt ſweet and Soul-conſolating one..
7. But to proceed: Be ſure the Examples of the beſt Men under Heaven will never be a Plea ſufficient for any in the day of Judgment, in doing any thing in God's Worſhip that he has not commanded (or given grounds for the Obſervation of) or in their neglecting doing of that which he hath expreſly required. Shall any be allowed at the laſt day to plead thus, viz. ſuch and ſuch good Men and able Miniſters did ſay this was a Truth and my Duty? ſurely no.
8. When Reformation is required of Men in so great a caſe as this, viz. that which tends to the razing the whole Conſtitution or ſtanding of their Church, which has been alſo of ſuch a long continuation; it calls for great Reſolution, Courage, and Self-denial, which is hard for ſome Men to arrive at; conſidering alſo what great Perſons and Reformers have been on their ſide; and they not ſeriouſly minding the words of the wiſe Man,Prov. 4. 18. where he ſays, that the Path of the Juſt is as a ſhining Light, that ſhineth more and more to the perfect day; the Church as it was then look'd out of the Wilderneſs but as the Morning, and but as fair (comparatively) as the Moon; Cant.but ſince (bleſſed be God) greater Light hath broken forth, yea to ſuch a degree that now ſhe ſeems to be come forth as clear as the Sun, &c. And ſad it is to ſee Men content themſelves to walk only in that Light thoſe worthy Chriſtians had in the Morning of the Reformation, and refuſe to follow and embrace a higher and more clear, and Sun-ſshining Glory. They might be accepted then, ſince their Day did not afford greater Manifeſtations of Truth in thoſe reſpects; but it may not excuſe our Brethren, nor may they be accepted in following them, ſith Truth is broke forth more perſpicuouſly in theſe latter times.
Object. The People called Anabaptiſts lie under great Reproaches, as if you baptiz'd People naked.
Anſw. Dr. Featly and Mr. Baxter formerly contracted no ſmall Guilt and Shame to themſelves upon this reſpect; ſee Dipper▪ dipped, writ by Featly.'Tis no more than our Saviour foretold ſhould befal his own People and faithful Followers, They ſhall ſpeak all manner of Evil… againſt you falſty for my Name ſake, &c. I am not ignorant what odious Lies and Reproaches have been caſt upon us in reſpect of baptizing Men and Women naked: whereas 'tis notoriouſly known to be utterly falſe and abominable, which thouſands can teſtify to the contrary, who are of different Perſwaſions to us, who daily ſee Perſons of both Sexes baptized by us, always in very comely and decent Garments, provided on purpoſe upon that account.
Object. You have been formerly ſtigmatized and accuſed, as if you were againſt Magiſtrates, or refuſe to obey Kings, and ſuch as are in Authority; and refuſe lawful Oaths: What ſay you to the Munſter-Story?
Anſw. Theſe things our Enemies know to be falſe and vile Slanders, our Confeſſions of Faith from time to time do witneſs the contrary; What People plead for Subjection to Government and Magiſtrates which God has ſet over us, more than we always do? And as touching that old Munſter-Story of John of Leyden, &c. they that read the beſt Hiſtories of that buſineſs, may find many things to be falſe which are charged againſt thoſe Anabaptiſts: beſides, the Story of them was either written (as some have very well obſerved) by the malicious Papiſts, their old mortal Enemies; or elſe by envious Proteſtants, who are willing to take up any baſe Reports, and improve tho…e S…ries to blaſt the Reputation of the whole Party. Alas, I could here ſoon recite ſome Writings of inveterated Spirits, who have in as baſe a manner viliſied and calumniated the Epiſcopals, nay and the Presbyterians, and Independents alſo, giving Inſtances both in reſpect of their vile Principles and Practices. Certainly 'tis a ſhame for any good Men to take up a Charge againſt ſo great a Party of godly Chriſtians from the venemous Pens of ſuch ſhameleſs Perſons.
But ſuppoſe the Munſter-Story as to matter of Fact were true, and that ſome of thoſe Anabaptiſts were very ill Men, and guilty of ſeveral immoral Actions, and held great Errors, yet how unreaſonable and uncharitable a thing is it to render all thoſe People of that Perſwaſion in thoſe times, and alſo ſince to be as bad and as like guilty? eſpecially conſidering that the Principle and Practice of baptizing believing Men and Women in it ſelf is ſo harmleſs a thing, and no ways tends to lead Perſons to ſuch Evils? For by the ſame Rule might not the beſt and moſt holy Church and People in the World, or ever were in the World, be cenſured and reproached, and neither the Church of the Jews, nor the Goſpel-Church in the Apoſtles days eſcape, ſith in the firſt there were very ill Perſons, as Chora, Dathan, and Abiram, and many others, and in the laſt a Judas, a Diatrophes, an inceſtuous Perſon *1 Cor. 5. 1, 2., who was guilty of worſe or more ſhameful Fornication then what was amongſt the Gentiles, as the Apoſtle affirms? Beſides, as Mr. Danvers obſerves, thoſe of the ſame Opinion in former times are acknowledged to be godly and good Men, or have an honourable Character given them, and this too by the ample and authentick Teſtimony from their greateſt Enemies; he cites Rai…trus, the Bloody Inquiſitor of thoſe in France, and Baronius, and Caſſander of thoſe in Germany; nay, and Mr. Baxter… himſelf, who, though he has been found free enough in his Reproaches, yet to give him his due, is pleaſed to witneſs to our Innocency in this Nation, take his own words: saith he,Baxter in his Book Principle of Love, p. 7. That Anabaptiſts are godly Men that differ from us in a Point ſo difficult, that many of the Papiſts and Prelatiſts have maintain'd, that it is not determined in the Scripture, but dependeth upon Tradition of the Church: And I know as good and ſober Men of that Mind, as of theirs who are moſt againſt them, &c. And again he ſaith, that Auguſtin, and many Children of Chriſtians were baptized at Age; and that the Controverſie is of ſo great difficulty, that if in all ſuch caſes none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the World or Church, but endleſly excommunicate or proſecute one another. But bleſſed be God we need not the Teſtimony of Men, having the Teſtimony of our own Conſciences (which is our rejoycing) as the Apoſtle ſaith,2 Cor. 1. 12. that in Simplicity and godly Sincerity, not by fleſhly Wiſdom, but by the Grace of God, we have had our Converſation in the World. Tho there may be ſome of our Communion who may be under Guilt and groſs Enormities, and miſtaken Principles and Notions, to our great Grief and Sorrow (as well as amongſt other Communities of godly Chriſtians) but Charity will cover a multitude of Faults.
Object. 8. But you lay too much ſtreſs upon Baptiſm?
Anſw. What ſome may do, I know not, but I am ſure generally, we lay no more ſtreſs upon it than we ought; we ſay, it is a Duty incumbent upon all Believers—a holy Ordinance of Chriſt, one of the great Sacraments of the New Teſtament, and they that reject it, do reject part of the Counſel of God. Yet we do not lay ſuch streſs upon it, as ſome do upon Infant Baptiſm. We do not ſay, Men cannot be ſaved, unleſs they be baptized; provided they do not ſin againſt their light and clear convictions of their own Conſciences. 'Tis evident there are thoſe who have aſſerted, That Infants that die unbaptized, ſhall not, cannot be ſaved; which certainly is abominable to affirm: For were it our duty to baptize our Children, yet can any think, that the omiſſion of our duty to them herein, can exclude them the Kingdom of Heaven? but 'tis evident it is not required, they are not the ſubjects of it.
Object. 'Tis no where ſaid, that Women received the Lords Supper, yet 'tis given to them: Why may not Infants be Baptized as well, tho there is nothing mentioned of their being Baptized in the Scripture.
Anſw. To this we Anſwer, That there is ground enough from the Scripture, for Women who are baptized Believers, to receive the Lord's Supper; Let a Man examine himfelf, and ſo let him eat, ſaith the Apoſtle, viz. Man or Woman. For ſo the Greek word foreign ſignifies. There is one Mediator between God and Man. Is not Woman as well as Man intended there? If there come into your Aſſembly a Man having a Gold Ring, &c. A double-minded Man is unſtable in all his ways. Are not Women as well as Men, comprehended and meant in thoſe places as well as Men, tho not expreſſed?
2. Were not Women as well as Men (who believed) Baptized?Act. 8. 12. Were not Women Diſciples, and commanded to be made diſcipline by the preaching of the Goſpel in the Commiſſion,Mat. 28. 19, 20. as well as Men?
And are not Males and Femals all o… in Chriſt Jeſus? Is not this a meer trifling Vanity, and nought but a piece of Foolery and Deceit, to darken Counſel with words without Knowledg?
Women were Baptized; we read of Lydia, an honourable Woman that was Baptized. And when they heard this, Acts 8. 12.'tis ſaid, they were baptized both Men and Women. And they that were required to be Baptized, and did partake of that Ordinance, continued together in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and in Fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread and Prayer. This ſufficiently proves Women received the Lord's Supper.
When ſhall we ſee the like proof for Babes Baptiſm?
Were not Women Members of the Chur… ▪ and does not the Holy Supper belong to all … lar Members thereof? This Objection ſeems to repreſent theſe Men like a perſon almoſt drown'd, who catches hold of any little Twig, or Flag, to help him: But, Brethren, theſe things will never do your buſineſs.
Object. If we have no Scripture-Example to baptize Infants: no more have you for the baptizing ſuch Perſons as you do baptize, viz. thoſe of Age, whoſe Parents were baptized and educated from their Youth in the Chriſtian Religion; for evident it is, thoſe we read of in the New Teſtament who were baptized, were ſuch who were newly Converted either from Judaiſm, or Paganiſm, to Chriſtianity.
Anſw. What tho we have no Example in the Scripture of any beſides ſuch you ſpeak of that were baptized, (that …eing the very beginning of that Goſpel-Admini…ation) yet is not the Commiſſion a perfect Rule to ſucceeding Ages, as well as it was to that preſent Age? Evident it is that by virtue of the Commiſſion, none were to be baptized but ſuch as are diſcipled, or firſt taught, before admitted to that Ordinance. If the perſon be a Believer, we have no ground to refuſe him, becauſe his Parents were Jews or Heathens; ſo we have no reaſon to receive others at all the more, becauſe their Parents were Chriſtians.
2. Can you prove that difference as to the ſtate of the Parents (in reſpect of what you ſpeak of) doth give you a warrantable ground to act contrary to the order and nature of the great Commiſſion? Matth. 28. 19, 20. By the authority of which, the Apoſtles did baptize (and all Miniſters ought to adminiſter the ſame Ordinance to the end of the World.) The nature and order of the Commiſſion cuts this Objection to pieces: For if the perſon be a Diſciple, a Believer, he is to be baptized, let his Parents be Jews, Heathens, or Chriſtians, 'tis all one. If you had the like grounds to baptize Infants, we ſhould contend no longer with you.
3. When you can prove the Faith of the Parents, or their ſubjection to the external Rite of Baptiſm, adds any ſpiritual advantage to their Children, or ſuch as gives them a right to Baptiſm, we will give up the Controverſie.—
Object. But whereas you ſay, Baptiſm was always done by dipping the Body all over in Water, how can that be, ſince ſome were baptized in Houſes?
Anſw. I anſwer, That is a fancy, a thing aſſerted without the leaſt ſhadow of ground, tho no leſs Men than our late worthy Annotators ſeem to affirm this very thing; for notwithſtanding the Jaylor, Acts 16. 23.and thoſe of his, were baptized the ſame hour of the Night, &c. Yet can any ſuppoſe they could not go out of the Houſe ſo late? might there not be a Pond, or ſome River near? whitherſoever they went, or whereſoever it was done, it is no matter, they were baptized; which has been ſufficiently proved to be Immerſion, or dipping the Body in Water.
Object. But ſay what you will, the Baptiſm of Infants is of God; for there was a multitude of Children of old baptized to Moſes in the Cloud, and in the Sea.
Anſw. We have ſhewed you that was but tropically called Baptiſm; and alſo that Baptiſm is a pure New-Teſtament Ordinance; tho 'tis like that (as ſome Learned Men have ſaid) might be a Type of this Ordinance, they being as it were buried or overwhelmed in the Sea, and under the Cloud. But if that may juſtifie Infant Baptiſm, it will allow you to baptize Unbelievers alſo; for there was a multitude of mixt People who went through the Sea with Iſrael, beſides much Cattel, And a mixt multitude went up alſo with them, and Flocks, and Herds, even very much Cattel, Exod. 12. 38. All theſe were doubtleſs baptized metaphorically and typically, as well us Children under the Cloud, and in the Sea; therefore this can be no proof for Infant-Baptiſm.