Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 1
Anti-Paedobaptism, OR A Full Review of the Dispute concerning INFANT-BAPTISM.
SECT. I.
Of the Reason and Purport of this writing,
HAving by my Postscript, Antidote, Addition to the Apology, Praecursor, and Ample disquisition of the meaning of the ingraffing, Rom. 11. 17 The promise, Acts 2. 39. The holinesse of Children, 1. Cor. 7. 14. formerly printed, endeavoured to vindicate my self, and the doctrine of Anti Paedobaptism, which I assert, from the objections which have been published to hinder the entertainment of it; I now proceed with the divine assistance to review the dispute about Infant Baptism, which was made publick by the Printing of my Exercitation and Examen of Mr. Marshal's Sermon in the year 1645. which is become the more laborious and tedious to me by reason of the many Antagonists, and their several writings since published, notwithstanding the equal and serious motion I made in the Epilogue of my Examen, that I might see some one writing, either of the Assemblies, or of their Commitees, or the London Ministers (who in their attestation ceasur'd my Positions as erroneous and pernicious) in which the whole strength of the proofs for Infant-baptism might be put together, and Readers with my self eased of the trouble and charge of buying and perusing so many several writings, which some disclaim, and others magnifie. But this motion which would have quickly brought the matter to an issue, and made a shorter dispatch of the dispute than is now likely to be, being so far from meeting with a ready acceptance, that thereby an occasion was taken to misrepresent me as a braving challenger, and one that minds self-ost…ntation more than the truth of God (which is an artifice unworthy the users) and an opposite course taken to bear me down with a floud of injurious calumnies, and impetuous rather than considerate Antagonists, I am put to this choice, either to weary my self by answering so manie several writings, or else give advantage to them who are ready to take all advantages how indirectly soever (as appears by master Baxters dealing with me about the dispute at Bewdly, master Simon Ford of Reading his dealing with me about the passages in the Act at Oxford 1652.) to possesse people with prejudices against me▪, and of the unanswerablenesse of what is brought for Infant-baptism, if they can but pretend that it is declined, though it be neglected onelyonly for the futility and feeblenesse of it. But the former being more eligible for the truths sake, I conceive my self engaged to proceed in the Review of the Dispute. The writings which with mine own I am to review, are either such as are directly written against me, or such as at least for the truths sake I conceive meet to examine, whether they meddle with my writings or not; of the former sort are Master Stephen Marshals defence of his Sermon, Master John Gerees Vindiciae paedobaptismi, and Vindiciae Vindiciarum, Doctor Nathanael Homes his Animadversions on my Exercitation, Master Thomas Blake his Answer to my Letter, and a great part of his Vindiciae foederis, and most of all Mr. Richard Baxter his plain Scripture proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism▪ and together with these, what Mr. Thomas Cobbet of New England, in his just vindication hath thought fit to oppose against my Examen, sent in a manuscript to New England, and delivered to him to examine, as Mr. Cotton informed me by his letter, though I be not named in Mr. Cobbets book Others there are, which though they do not expresly oppose me, yet Mr. M. Mr. B. or some other, do direct me to them, as Mr. Cottons Dialogue, Vossius his Theses, Mr. Baillees Anabaptism, Mr. Drew, Mr. Church, Mr. Stephens, Dr. Featly, Mr. Lyford, Doctor Hammond, &c. Mr. Rutherfurd is one, to whose writing Mr. Baxter pag. 211. directs me, but I have not yet met with …ame other thing which he hath written about this argument, than what I find in his Temperate plea, chap. 11, 12. yet when any other thing of his, or any other Authors, occurrs, which suggests any thing considerable, besides what others before have published, and is already answered, I do intend to take it into the Review, and to deal impartially, as one that seeks truth, and is sensible that he is accountable to the Lord about writing as well as speaking; neverthelesse, in handling thereof, I shall not tie my self, any further than I see necessary, to set down each Authors words at large, but so much of them as I conceive requisite, and according to their meaning, and the force of their arguments, as rightly as I can. The method I once intended to use in this Review was according to the order of my Examen, but I shall now use such an arbitrary method as I shall judge most clear and comprehensive, beginning with Mr. Richard Baxter his three first chapters of the first part of his book fore-named.