Truth Prevailing Against the Fiercest Opposition, Part 15 – Part 16
Your ſixteenth Conſideration for ſubſtance this: THat you have no need of Baptiſme after Repentance and Faith (which you call new Baptiſme) becauſe your old ſprinkling in infancy is as effectual to all ends and purpoſes of Baptiſme, which you reduce to three heads:
1. For declaring perſons the profeſſed Diſciples of Christ.
2. For obliging perſons to be the loyall Diſciples of Christ, in which they covenant ſo to be.
3. For matter of edification and comfort to the inner man.
To which I anſwer, by denying utterly that Infant-ſprinkling is as effectual to all or any of the ends and purpoſes of Baptiſme, as the true baptiſme of perſons after faith and repentance, neither is there any weight in your Argument to that purpoſe.
1. You ſay it declareth you with more advantage than ours to be the profeſſed Diſciples of Chriſt to the world.
And that 1. Becauſe yours the world knoweth, ours is a kind of Barbarian to the world.
2. The generality of men doe not look upon it as any thing more ſignificative, of owning the Name and Faith of Jeſus Chriſt.
To both which Arguments I anſwer. 1. To that plea, that the world is better acquainted with your way than ours.
'Tis moſt true, that yours being from the world, the world muſt needs know and love it better than ours, becauſe it is her own, and ours being from heaven, to which the Spirit of the world is a ſtranger, no marvell if it be a barbarian to them, but whether the worlds natural liking and greedy falling in with yours, be not an Argument of its carnal, earthly original, and on the contrary, its diſliking ours, be not on the contrary a probable though not demonſtrative Argument of the heavenly pedegree of it, let the Scriptures judge, John 15.19. The world loveth her own; becauſe ye are not of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Of this onelyonly by the by.
But how cometh Mr. Goodwin to conclude from the dear acquaintaince the world hath with Infant-ſprinkling, above what it hath with Beleivers baptiſme, that therefore Infant-ſprinkling is more efficacious, to declare perſons the profeſſed followers of Jeſus Chriſt, then Baptiſme after faith, ſince in the baptiſme of Infants, there is no profeſſion made at all, by which the world ſhould take any cognizance of the parties belonging to Chriſt, neither is the poor creature capable of making any? ('Tis true, the Biſhops being aſhamed of Baptiſme without profeſſion of faith, deviſed a remedy by allowing Sureties, who they called God-fathers and God-mothers, which being a piece of ſuperſtition too groſs for the light of this day, it is gone off the ſtage without much regret.) Whereas in the true Baptiſme of the New Teſtament ſealed in Chriſts heart bloud, the party himſelf; (and not another for him) being a beleiver, made a diſciple by Teaching, maketh publick profeſſion of his faith in Chriſt, as you ſee the Eunuch did,Acts 8, in his own perſon, and declareth his willingneſs to accept of Chriſt, on his own terms, and to be liſted in his army,Gal. 3.27. and voluntarily putteth on Chriſt thereby (which is the Sctipture expreſſion) as a ſervant putteth on his Maſters Livery.
Who then (that is not beſpoke) but will judge, that Baptiſme into Chriſt after faith, at a mans own requeſt (in the preſence of God, Angels and men) is more to declare ones relation to Chriſt, than the paſſive, ignorant reception of it in infancy.
But to come cloſer, and to take light from the Scripture, what it is that both maketh a man called Chriſts Diſciple, and what it is declareth him ſo? now 'tis plain by the Scripture, that as following the inſtructions and examples of Chriſt, maketh a man called his Diſciple, Luke 9.23. John 8.31. So alſo doth it moſt ſignificantly declare our diſcipleſhip to Chriſt: The Scripture is as expreſſe for this as for the other, By this ſhall ALL men know that ye are my Diſciples, if ye love one another AS▪ I have loved you: If they would take his counſell to love one another, eſpecially if after his own example, AS he had loved them, then he ſaith, By that ALL MEN ſhall know, they ſhall not onelyonly be his Diſciples, but ALL MEN ſhould know, that they are his diſciples: So that we have a plain rule laid down in Scripture, to guide us, what it is that doth, with advantage, declare men the profeſſed diſciples of Chriſt, and that is the walking after him according to his word, what made the Jews known to be the diſciples of Moſes, but the following of his doctrine, and example: Have we then any thing more to do, to determine this, but onelyonly to lay the two waies, to the rule; for how can any one imagine with any ſhew of reaſon, that walking contrary to Chriſt, ſhould declare perſons his diſciples.
If then believers baptiſme and that by burying the body in water; be that the Scripture ſpeaks of, as that wherein we follow Chriſt, and are one with him, which I have proved already, and as for Infants ſprinkling, not a word of it in all the New Teſtament, then out of all controverſie, the way to declare men the diſciples of Chriſt,Col. 2.1…. is to go our way, becauſe Chriſt walked this way, as we have proved already, and therefore all that will be called Chriſts Diſciples by Baptiſme, muſt go this way and no other.
But you ſay the world looketh not upon beleivers Baptiſme by dipping as any thing more ſignificative of owning Chriſt, but the contrary, even diſobliging them rather, from what their firſt baptiſme obliged them unto than otherwiſe.
To that I anſwer, how willing you are to affirm things looſely, that is like to reproach this cauſe, is much more plain, then the truth of your affirmation, and whether it be not ſo, I leave the world to judge.
Further to this cruel inſinuation againſt the poor people and way of God, whereby you ſeek to pervert the ſtrait wayes of the Lord, I ſhall ſay little, but Lord lay not this ſin to your charge.
Suppoſe they ſhould do ſo, ought the errors of men to be indulged or corrected? onelyonly let me mind you of your own words, which, as at many other times, ſo at this, riſe up in judgement againſt you.
Sir, in one of your Letters to Mr. Tho. Goodwin, p. 11. you have theſe words, If we judged it any advantage to the truth and cauſe we maintain againſt you, we durſt vye morrall imputations with you, and are confident, that we could aſſign and ſuggeſt againſt you, both as many and as likely indirect and fleſhly grounds for your departure from us, as you can againſt us, for keeping our firſt ſtanding and profeſſion. BƲT the truth will never be made GREAT by ſuch demonstrations or arguments as theſe on either ſide.
If Mr. Goodwin thinkes the truth will never be made great by ſuch demonſtrations as theſe, it is becauſe he judgeth there is no reaſon why it ſhould, and if ſo, as on the one hand it condemneth him for uſing them, ſo on the other hand it juſtly begetteth ſuſpition of error, concerning that opinion, that ſuch Arguments are uſed to maintain.
But to proceed, you ſay; that as to another end of Baptiſme, namely, the obliging perſons to be the loyal Diſciples of Chriſt, you ſay, your Infant-ſprinkling or baptiſme is as operative that way upon the Conſcience, as out Baptiſme is upon ours, or would be upon yours, if you ſhould come under it.
Here is two things affirmed, but neither of them proved, nor indeed is it poſſible to prove them; one is, that your Baptiſme is as bearing upon your conſcience to become Chriſts Diſciples, as our Baptiſme is upon ours; this is a thing which you affirm at randome, not knowing how the baptiſme of thoſe, that are indeed rightly baptiſed, and that take up the wayes of God in uprightneſs, I ſay, how it heareth upon them, nor ever are like to doe, becauſe your prejudice is grown ſo great that you know not how to interpret any action they doe charitably, nor ſcarce word they ſay.
Another thing you affirm is, that your Infant-baptiſme is as bearing upon your conſcience, as ours would be if you came under it, and how can you tell that without tryall?
Truly Sir, I ſhould hope, that paſſing under that figure, wherein in ſo fully repreſented Chriſts death, buriall and reſurrection, and your death, buriall and reſurrection with him, being approached unto in the Name and fear of God, and in obedience to Jeſus Chriſt, that it might be a meanes of killing that ſpirit of cruelty that haunteth your pen in many of your controvert all writings, to the diſhonour of God, and diſcredit of the opinion you maintain in them: the ſtrait wayes of truth, as they have no need of the crooked wayes of ſin to build them with, ſo they are never like to be built by them.
But thirdly and laſtly, You ſay, your Infant-baptiſme is as edifying and comforting.
To which I anſwer: You muſt firſt prove it to be of Chriſts appointing, or elſe you impoſe upon us to beleive, that the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of edification and comfort, will take as much pleaſure to concurre with mens inventions, as his own Ordinances, which is quite contrary to the Scripture,Mark 7.7. In vain doe they worſhip me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.
But 2. You ſay your ſoules have thriven under that Baptiſme. 'Tis probable ſo, but that doth not prove it was by the meanes of Infant-baptiſme (of which you are ignorant, whether ever any ſuch thing was done or no) onelyonly that you have heard ſo (if this arguing be like Mr. Goodwin in other things I am much miſtaken.)
Chriſt telleth the Jewes, John 649. That their Fathers did eat Mannah in the wilderneſs, and are dead: but can any body gather from hence, that their death was cauſed by the eating of Mannah? Theſe are your own words, p. 44. Of Water dipping: And is not your reaſoning in this place much after the ſame manner? you were baptiſed in Infancy, and thrive in godlineſſe when grown up to yeares of diſcretion; but it no more followeth, that your thriving in godlineſſe was by the meanes of your Infant-baptiſme, than that their death was cauſed by eating of Mannah.
And is it likely, that ignorant worſhip of God ſhould have any lively operation upon the ſoul, much leſſe, that it ſhould have as much as that which is done knowingly and voluntarily, and bel…ivingly, the ſoul having communion with God in it?
And why may you not as well ſay, that hearing Sermons in infancy is as edifying as at age? I know not; Infants would underſtand as much of the one as of the other; and when grown up, it might be told them what was (ſaid) then, as well as now they are told what was (done) then in Baptiſme; is the darkneſs of the darkeſt night more void of light than this propoſition is of truth? Reader judge.
Your ſeventeenth Conſideration for ſubſtance this: IT doth not appear from Scripture, that any Church of Chriſt, or embodied Society of Beleivers was commanded by Chriſt, or the Apoſtles to be dipt, nor yet threatned or reproved for the non-practiſe of dipping.
I anſwer: It is very true, becauſe the Apoſtles did not uſe to ſpend their breath in vain, they would not command that to be done twice, which Chriſt had ordered to be done but once, nor to reprove where there was no cauſe.
If you would have the Reader feel any weight in this Argument, you are bound to find us a Society of embodied Beleivers undipt, which is a task too hard for you, but yet this light ſuppoſition is the very foundation of your Argument, which being rotten and ſandy, the building falleth of it ſelf, I need ſay no more to it.