Defense and Justification of Tithes and Infant Baptism, Argument and answer 34
The Anabaptists Anſwer.
The reſt of your places of Scripture you alledge are all of the ſame nature, and all conſequences. I ſhall only name them, and leave the judicious Reader to judge. The Scriptures follow, John 15.8. Mark 13.37. Lu. 21.36. Mat. 13.11. Lu. 14.33. 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. & 11.28, 29. … Cor. 6.4. 1 Th. 5.2, 3, 4, 5. Heb. 6.11.12. 1 Th. 2.11. Ep. 2.2, 3. Theſe are the Scriptures you alledge, and to all or moſt of theſe you add an ergo, a therefore, becauſe little children cannot do that which Chriſt requireth of men of ripe years, therefore (ſay you) they are nor, they cannot be Diſciples of Chriſt, nor members of Chriſt's Church.
Mr. Bourns Reply.
Firſt, For Reply, Theſe are all Conſequences ſtill, and not Scripture-proof as clear as the Sun at noon day without a conſequence or illuſtration: Contrary to your vapour at the firſt. And they are falſe conſequences alſo; for God doth not require as much of little children to make them Members of the Church, as he doth of men and women of ripe years; and yet they may be Members of the Church of Chriſt, as no doubt Jeremiah, and John the Baptiſt and Iſaa… …ere even in their Infancy; yea, and all the elect children of God to the end of the world, yea, members of the viſible Church when they are admitted by Baptiſm, as Iſaac was when he was admitted by Circumciſion. A Light frō chriſt, pr. 1646.But I have anſwered this long ago in my greater Light from Christ, leading unto Chriſt, noted before, p. 284, 290, 291. I give a diſtinction of Church-members.
1. Men and women of ripe years converted to the Faith of Chriſt, and of theſe a declaration of faith and repentance is needful to a compleat memberſhip in the Church, and to practiſe thoſe duties Chriſt requireth in thoſe places of Scripture you have alledged.
2. Children of believing Parents, … in the Church, and of theſe, thoſe duties are not required to be admitted Infant-members of the Church: But when they grow up in the knowledge and faith of Chriſt, then a declaration of their faith and repentance is neceſſary before they be admitted to the Lords Supper, that great and diſtinguiſhing Ordinance of Chriſt, in which there is a ſweet communion of members with Chriſt their Head, 1 Cor. 10 16, 17. My Book, pr. 1646. Mr. Marſhall, pr. 1646. M. Blake pr. 1653. Mr. B…xter, print. 1656.and one with another. I refer you further to my own Book recited before, and to the labours of ſo many Learned and Godly men, who have writ of this Subject; to godly and learned Mr. Marſha his Sermon for proof of Infant-Baptiſm, learned and laborious Mr. Blak… 's Treatiſe of Birth Priviledge, and Covenant Holineſſe of Believers, in anſwer to Mr. Tombes, Learned and laborious Mr. B…xer's …lain-Scripture-Proof for Infant-Baptiſm. …r. Cook's Font Uncovered. And the Reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confeſſions, and Profeſſion of pure and holy Faith, in all the Kingdoms, Nations and Provinces of Europe, Allowed by publick Authority, and Imprinted by Tho. Thomas, Printer to the Univerſity of Cambridge (1586) now about 72 years ſince. The Anabaptiſts Doctrine denying Infant-Baptiſm, is condemned, and Infant-Baptiſm is approved, as lawful in the Churches of Chriſt.
Thus the Churches of Helvetia, we condemn (ſay they) the Anabaptiſts who deny that young Infants born of faithful Parents are to be baptized, for according to the Gospel theirs is the Kingdom of God, and they are written in the Covenant of God, and why ſhould not the ſign be given to them? Thus the Church Reformed in Bohemia confeſſeth they baptize their children. And the Reformed Church in Bel…ia, Commending Baptiſm, they conclude, Therefore here we do deteſt the errour of the Anabaptiſts, who are not content with one only Baptiſm, and that once received, but do alſo condemn the Baptiſm of Infants, yea of thoſe that be born of faithful Parents Thus the Reformed Churches in France. The Engliſh Confeſſion. The Reformed Church in Saxony, We baptize Infants becauſe Chriſt ſaith, Suffer little children to come to me, for to ſuch pertaineth the Kingdom of God. And Origen writeth upon the ſixth to the Romans, that the Church received the cuſtom of Baptizing Infants from the Apoſtles, and ſay they, Many things are written and publiſhed in our Churches by which the Anabaptists are refuted. I let paſs the Confeſſion of the Reformed Churches of Wittenberge, and others of the ſame Judgment. By which it is evident that the Opinion of the Anabaptiſts, then ſpringing out, was condemned in all the Reformed Churches now above threeſcore and ten years ago: And theſe are but a ſpawn of that horrid ſect which did work miſchief in Germany, and have been long ſince condemned by the Churches of Chriſt. And whatſoever is written to the contrary, either by your chief Teachers, or by other your miſerable, ignorant and ſcribling later Pamphlets, it is already anſwered or replyed unto by ſuch Reverend, Learned and Godly men before mentined, and others of our Judgment, and that with ſufficient Scripture-proof, and full evidences from the voice of the Spirit of God ſpeaking in the holy Scriptures, far better than your falſe and non following conſequences, you have brought againſt Infant Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm, although you find fault with us for conſequences. Read your beſt Teachers, and ſee if you can find one proof or ſhew of proof againſt Infant-memberſhip of Believers children, or their Baptiſm, without a Conſequence or Illuſtration.
This is the proof of your writers againſt it by conſequences. Read Mr. Tombes, Mr. Haggar, Mr. Goſnold, and the reſt. And if you uſe conſequences againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and conſequences which will not follow, why may not we uſe conſequences to prove the lawfulneſſe of Infant-Baptiſm? Pr. by J. S. 1657.Read your late friend Mr Goſnold (as honeſt and learned as any of you) his diſcourſe of the Baptiſm of water and of the Spirit, read his firſt Chapter to prove a Truth, That water-Baptiſm is to continue, he proveth by a conſequence. That which was once commanded by Jeſus Chriſt, and never repealed by him, is ſtill in force and to continue, but water Baptiſm was once commanded by Chriſt and never repealed by him, therefore it is ſtill in force and to continue. Thus I may argue againſt you for Infant-Baptiſm.
That which was once commanded by Chriſt, and never repealed by him is ſtill in force and to continue. But an outward ſign and ſeal of the righteouſneſs of Faith, and priviledge of Church memberſhip was once commanded by Chriſt and appointed for Believers and their infant-children, Gen. 17.7.viz. circumciſion to Abraham, & Iſaac at eight daies old, and never repealed by Chriſt; Therefore a ſign and ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of Faith, and priviledge of Church-memberſhip is ſtill to continue to Believers and their children: And if children muſt have the ſame ſign with their Parents, then what but Baptiſm; but you caſt off our conſequences, though you make bold with them your ſelves. I urged this argument twelve years ſince, therefore I leave it off.
Again read John Goſnold his ſecond Chapter, where he labours to prove the manner of Baptizing, that it was by dipping the whole body in water, his ſeeming proof is by conſequence.
1. From mens teſtimony.
And 2. From the nature of the word ſignifying to dip, though the word doth not only ſignifie to dip, and no Scripture ſaith that they did dip the whole body in water. And if they had, yet a circumſtance in Baptiſm may as lawfully be changed, as the time of celebration of the Lords Supper was changed, which was a circumſtance.
Read his third Chapter, in which if he could, he would prove the ſubjects of Baptiſm to be grown perſons, fitly qualified, and not Infants. His ſeeming proofs are by conſequences, and falſe conſequences too, like thoſe it ſeems you borrowed of him; requiring thoſe qualifications for Baptiſm, all which are only requiſite in men and women of ripe years, not of Infant-children of Believers, to admit them to an Infant-memberſhip in the Church. And what are his arguments and anſwers in his Book, but conſequences, not one place of Scripture as clear as the Sun at noon-day; as you boaſted in your anſwer. And if both uſe conſequences, and agree in the uſe of theſe, wherfore is there ſuch bitterneſs of ſpirit becauſe we cannot agree in Opinion? Wherefore are you ſo violent to deny us to be Miniſters of Chriſt, to affirm us to be Miniſters of Antichriſt, and our maintenance Antichriſtian, as if you would deſtroy us and our Calling out of the Nation. If you have ſuch liberty to live …uietly in the Land, wherefore do you think us unworthy of it? The Lord heal our breaches, and unite our ſpirits in Chriſtian love if it be his bleſſed will.
A DEFENCE OF Humane Learning.
I Come now to another ſandy Pillar and Popiſh Foundation, as you term it.