The Ancient Christian Religion
Notwithstanding these things, both J. W. and R. R. would pretend to own the Ascension of the Man Christ, shrowding themselves under Christ's Words, John 3. 13. No Man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven. Now these words being spoken of that Ascension which was before the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead, doth not concern our present Controversy. For our Savior himself testifies, long after he spake these Words, that he was not yet Ascended, John 20. 17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet Ascended: But go to my Brethren, and say unto them, I Ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Wherefore, when Christ had shown himself alive after his Passion, and had given full and infallible Evidence of it, by Eating and Drinking with them, and Forty Days society with them, showing them his Hands, Feet, and Side, that had been wounded upon the Cross; then did he also make them Eye-witnesses of his Ascension bodily into Heaven; Acts 1. 9. While they beheld, he was taken up, and a Cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly into Heaven, as He went up, &c. Thus is the Ascension of that visible Body of Flesh, which was nailed to the Cross, plainly asserted in the Scripture; the Authority whereof, shall cause to vanish the idle Dreams of the Quakers, who oppose this glorious Truth.
And now to the Words of Christ, John 3. 13. Christ is here showing to Nicodemus, that he it is who was to reveal the Heavenly Doctrine of the Gospel, and the glorious things in Heaven; because no Man had that knowledge of Heaven which he had. And though he were the Son of Man, yet in regard of the Union he had with the Divine Essence, he had ascended Heaven itself, and was in Heaven; though his Humanity strictly considered, was at that time upon Earth, and conversing with Men.
Now to justify this understanding of the Text, I refer to other Scriptures, as John 1. 18. No Man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Again, John 6. 46. Not that any Man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Again, Mat. 11. 27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no Man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any Man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him. These things considered, show, That in these Speeches, he holds forth that Divine Relation which he hath to God his Father; the certain Knowledge he hath of his Will; and his continual Presence with the Father. John 8. 16. I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. But in all this, let it be well minded, how unworthily the Quakers do abuse passages of this kind, to prejudice the great truth of Christ's Ascension, in the Body of his Flesh which died upon the Cross, after his Resurrection. I return to R. Ruckhill, who sets against us in this point, with a Philosophical Syllogism, thus:
Such as the Body is, such must be the Aliment whereby it subsisteth, and is nourished. But human Bodies are of the Earth earthly, and cannot subsist without a constant supply of Aliment of the same kind. Now to affirm that the Body of Christ in Heaven hath, or needeth such a supply either of broiled Fish, or any other Maritime or Terrene Aliment, as it must do if it be a human Body, or Earthy: However it may stand with the Faith of T. G. it is such an absurdity, as my Pen even irketh to write.
Though I pretend not to Learning or Philosophy, yet I see many Errors in this one Argument: First, The terms Human, Earthly, and cannot, are ambiguous, considering our Subject is of the Body, as raised from the Dead, which sure differs much from the state of a Man as he comes into the World. And what can, or cannot be in this case, must not be concluded by Philosophical Demonstration, but by Divine Revelation. The Resurrection of the Body, whether it be considered in respect of Christ, or other Men, is not the effect of natural Causes, nor dependeth upon common Providences; but this Cause is to be tried according to the Word of God; and his Power to effect it. This is the ground of Faith concerning the Resurrection, Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious Body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. 1 Cor. 6. 24. God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own Power. Ephes. 1. 19, 20. — according to the working of his mighty Power; which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the Dead. So that this Argument may rather be exploded, as unchristian and heathenish, than to have any further answer, because it comports not with Principles of Religion; yet I shall answer it, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
And first, I deny the Major, (which he takes to be undeniable) For though the Body of Christ, was real Flesh, &c. after it was risen, and as such could and did eat terrene or maritime Food, yet it can and doth subsist without it, Mat. 26. 28. Luke 24. 42. and liveth by the Power of God, 2 Cor. 13. 4.
Secondly, I deny the Minor, in that part at least, which saith, Human Bodies cannot subsist without aliment of the same kind. For did not that Body of Christ subsist forty days when it was mor •… , without terrene Food? and cannot the same Body subsist now it is immortalized without terrene Food? What shall we say of Moses, who subsisted forty days in the Mount without Food? and of Enoch and Elias who were translated, that they should not see Death, and yet their Bodies are Flesh where-ever they are? He that believeth these Scriptures which speak of these things, cannot doubt but that God can and will cause the Bodies of Men to subsist after the Resurrection by his Power. If these Instances satisfy not, let them go to the old Cloaths of the Israelites, or their Shooes: Deut. 29. 5. And I led you forty years in the Wilderness, your Clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy Shoe is not waxen old upon thy Foot. Yea, God fed this People in such a wonderful manner in the Wilderness, as that it was an evident proof, That Man liveth not by Bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the Mouth of the Lord doth Man live, Deut. 8. 3.
Lastly; Adam in his Innocency was human Flesh, and yet had he not sinned, he had not died; For the Wages of Sin is Death: and Sin entering into the World, Death entered by Sin. Nor was it terrene Food that could have kept off old Age, but he must have lived by a supernatural Power, even the Power of God, who breathed into his Nostrils the Breath of Life, and would have perpetuated that Life (had he not sinned) forever. And hence it undeniably follows, that seeing in the Resurrection the Bodies of the Saints shall be freed from Mortality, the effect of Sin; they shall be at least in as possible a capacity to live forever, as Adam was in his Innocency; And as Adam had then the Tree of Life to support him forever, through God's Power and Blessing communicated with it, had he not sinned; so the raised Bodies of the Saints, shall also have a Tree of Life, of a more sublime nature than that in Eden, by which they shall live forever. But here they excel Adam in his Innocency; they shall be freed from danger of Sin, and be more perfect in Body and Spirit every way, for they shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven, and not marry, nor be given in Marriage, being the Children of God, as they are the Children of the Resurrection.
CHAP. IV. Of the Errors of the Quakers concerning the Ordinances of Christ.
RIchard Ruckhil rants at a very high rate against the Baptized Churches, for that they zealously observe the Ordinances of Christ made known by the Scriptures, and particularly Baptism, and the Table of the Lord. Let us hear him speak out of his own Papers.
O ungrateful Men! (saith he) unworthy (till ye repent and loath yourselves) the name of Christians. Hath the afflicted persecuted Church been banished into the Wilderness for many hundred years, and now at her return, when she is expecting a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory, both inward and outward, which her great Afflictions have wrought for her: Will ye now, I say, allow her no better Ornaments, but those very same she wore 1600 years ago; which also for many hundred years have been revel'd in, and filthily polluted by that nasty Whore of Babylon? Poor Bride, must she now put on these old Clothes, and rotten Rags again? &c. Will ye deny this beautiful Bride, the Lamb's Wife, that privilege which your own Wives will scorn to be denied by you? Ah how weak are your hearts, saith the Lord God?
Surely these are great swelling words of vanity; Let us see therefore a few of these many strange Conceits which lie couched in this Exclamation.
1. He pretends much skill in the time of the Churches going into, and coming out of the Wilderness. But, I believe, should a Man ask him the necessary Questions which concern these Matters, it would be long e're he gave a good Answer. Nay, should I ask him what this Wilderness is, he would hardly give account.
2. He would bear us in hand, that the Eternal weight of Glory is to be received at the return of the Church out of the Wilderness, both inward and outward, on this side the Grave. For,
3. In order to her putting on that weight of Glory, she must put off the Ordinances (which were her Ornaments) which she used 1600 years ago; as if Christ's Ordinances were an Impediment to the Churches Glory.
4. What he is forced to confess, were the Ornaments of the Primitive Church, he disdainfully calls now, Old rotten Rags and Clouts. As if 1600 years were time enough to wear out all the Churches Ornaments, and to rot them to pieces: Or, as if Time could decay the Commands of God, when yet God hath nowhere abrogated them; if otherwise, show the Abrogation: This was never yet done.
5. He greatly disgusts the first Churches Ornaments, because the nasty Whore of Babylon hath reveled in them, and polluted them. Strange, that R. R. will so much as read the Scriptures! for she hath reveled in them, and abused them, as much as any Ornament which the Church had on 1600 years ago. Indeed all Ordinances (which are truly Ornaments to the Church as such) are in the Scripture, and none can abuse them so as to change or misapply them, but they abuse the Scripture; And may we not as well make use of the Commission Mat. 28. which teacheth us to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, as well as the Quakers make use of Scriptures for their Thee and Thou? &c.
Remember, O Quakers, that the Ark was nevertheless to be honored upon its return from Dagon 's Temple. Shall Men's violating God's Commands, null his Commands? God forbid. Must you needs destroy Baptism and the Lord's Table, because others have profaned these Holy Things? Why then do you Pray, Preach, and own the Name of Christians, seeing they have profaned all these also? Doubtless the Quakers are worse Enemies to the Truth, than the Whore you complain of, for she gave the Ordinances of Christ good Language, though she greatly abused them. But you give them the vilest Language you can invent, and destroy the memory and use of them altogether, as much as in you lieth; to say nothing here of your intolerable enmity against the True Christ himself, and those that truly serve him.
6. By all means it's time thinks R. R. that the Church have a new Coat, her old Ornaments being rotten in his Thoughts: But stay, is not her Faith to be the same now that it was 1600 years ago? Yes, she is to contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Hath Christ said his Church should, have new Ornaments, to wit, Ordinances instead of them she had 1600 years ago? No, John Whitehead dare not say so, for pag. 44. he evades the Question thus; We need show no Authority for the abrogating of that Order of Gathering, Constituting, and Governing the Church of Christ which was in the Apostles days. And then most falsely tells us, The Quakers practice doth more establish it in the Substantial Part than the Baptists. But what is this new Coat that would be known? But surely if the Church put off her Ornaments which she wore 1600 years ago, she is like to go naked for all R. R 's skill in Apparel; Her Ornaments were these,
Now all these have been abused, by feigned Faith, feigned Love, feigned Charity, feigned Gifts, feigned Fruits of the Spirit, feigned Ordinances, feigned Patience in Afflictions. And this the Scripture foreshews: Many shall say we have prophesied, cast out Devils, done wondrous Works in thy Name. Some give their Goods to the Poor, and their Bodies to be burned; and yet all this proves but feigned, when God the Judge of all shall make manifest the Secrets of all Hearts.
I conclude therefore, there is no new Garment assigned the Church till she come to Heaven, no more than Israel had till they came to Canaan. 2. And that her old Ornaments will not wax old, that is, not rot: As she is glorious within, so her Raiment is of wrought Gold. 3. He that disrobes her of part of these Ancient Ornaments, endangers them all.
7. His Reason why the Church must have a new Coat, is, because our Wives will scorn to be denied such a privilege by us. What is this? must the Church change her Ornaments as oft as Men's Wives change theirs? This is prodigiously absurd; Why did not his Pen irk to write it?
8. That which aggravates all his Vanities, is this, That he entitles them to the Lord God, as if he had writ by immediate Inspiration, in these words, Ah, how weak are your Hearts, saith the Lord God. Surely he hath spoken falsely in the Name of the Lord, who is so far from blaming, that he commends such Churches as keep the Ordinances as they were delivered to them. And we have the same ground to believe, that the Primitive Ordinances were delivered for the use of the present Churches, that we have to believe that the Primitive Faith was delivered for our use; and indeed they that forsake the one, do commonly forsake the other; as is most signally seen in the Quakers, and to be sure they are farthest off from the Ordinances.
John Whitehead saith, pag. 49. That I ought not to accuse the Quakers, as opposing themselves against things required by the positive Laws, because they cannot own my Water Baptism, and breaking of Bread, in imitation of the Apostles, and Primitive Christians: No more than the Jews ought to have accused the Apostle Paul, and his fellow Laborers in the Gospel, who by the Authority and Power of Christ in them, cried down their Circumcision, Temple-Worship, and that Hand-writing of Ordinances, which was contrary to them.
When the Quakers can show us, that there was another Prophet to succeed Jesus Christ, as Christ succeeded Moses; then it will become us to allow this comparison between Paul, &c. and John Whitehead, &c. but till then, we say, there is no comparison in the Cases at all.
Who would ever have thought, that such an impudent spirit should have appeared in John Whitehead, or any Man of Wisdom, thus to make void the Precepts of Christ! And what are we worse for Baptizing with Water, and breaking of Bread, in imitation of the Apostles, and Primitive Christians, provided our Hearts be also conscientiously satisfied, that these things are the Mind of God, concerning our obedience to him among other things, as commanded to all Christians, in the holy Scriptures, which we own as a Rule for all Saints in Religion?
Sure I am, if I may take J. W. his liberty to use the various Translations, as rendered from the Original, then we are expressly commanded to be imitators of the Apostle. But if this will not do, let him hear Montanus, (one of the honestest Interpreters extant) who reads thus, 1 Cor. 11. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Imitatores mei estote, sicut & ego Christi: Be ye imitators of me, as also I am of Christ. So then, Paul was an imitator of Christ, and so ought we to be, and not to despise to follow, or imitate the Apostles in Baptizing, or breaking of Bread, having good assurance that therein they follow Christ, who was Baptized himself in Water, and also gave being to the breaking of Bread. But must the Quakers needs cry down what we do, merely because we follow Christ and his Apostles? When their Conscience knows that we do not these merely in imitation, or because they did them, but because God's Word requires these things at our hands; yea, and that Light which God hath given us, directs us to the same. And though we grant, Christ hath Power to call his People to whatsoever is the Will of God, yet J. W. can never prove, it is God's Will that Christians should forsake the Ordinances once delivered to the Christian Churches, particularly Baptism, and the breaking of Bread.
Robert Ruckhill tells the World, I have Convicted myself of gross Idolatry; and why? Because, I say, The way of Life is above to the Wise; and this I speak, it is true in favor of Baptism in Water, against those Quakers that despise and traduce it.
I could not easily think, that so innocent a passage should have been so grossly abused, as it is by these two Men, R. R. and J. W. Sure I am, there is not the least cause for this Charge, May nothing be called the Way of Life but Christ? Let us read Prov. 6. 23. For the Commandment is a Lamp; and the Law is Light; and Reproofs of Instruction are the Way of Life. Acts 2. 28. we read of the Paths of Life, in the plural Number; but there is but one Christ: So that we see the Paths of Righteousness, and Holiness, and Obedience, may, without any offense to the Spirit speaking in the Scripture, be called the Paths, or Ways, or Way of Life: Let these two Satyrs whip whilst they faint, I shall rejoice to see their folly made manifest to all Men.
Mean while let the sober Reader know I look upon Holy Baptism no otherwise, than other Holy Commands of God are so. Nor in any other sense the Way of Life, than as it sets forth Christ and him crucified; our dying with him to the Rudiments of the World, and living a new Life. What if I had called Baptism the Way of Righteousness, it had nothing varied from my Intention, nor from Truth; yet perhaps these Men would have been offended, they have so great an hatred against the Ordinance: Yet Christ saith, John came to the People in the way of Righteousness, and himself thought it a fulfilling of Righteousness, to be baptized, as well as in other Services.
R. R. says, that in the abovesaid speech, I am convicted of a ridiculous Soloecism, in terming Submersion, or plunging under Water, a way on high. Yet says, if the intelligent Reader will indulge me, the Quakers will pass it by.
Although I will not compare with R. R. for skill in Grammar, yet I will not be beholden to him, nor his Reader, for their Indulgence in this case. For though the Baptism of John was a submersion in Water upon Repentance for the Remission of Sins; yet Christ himself convicted the Opposers of it, that it was from Heaven. Christ also calls it the Counsel of God. And I think the Counsel of God, and that which is from Heaven, may be said to be above without any Soloecism, otherwise Christ himself, when upon Earth, was not the way above, for he came down from Heaven. But this pragmatic Quaker having got a Toy by the end, and hoping this might disgrace me, and what I profess, knows not when to have done with it; but up it goes again in his ridiculous Queries, as if, without more ado, I must be damned for this passage, among gross Idolaters. I rejoice, truly, that I am thought worthy to be thus reproached for the way of the Lord. But why should sinful Men be so enraged against this Holy Ordinance? Is it because of the thing itself? or the Authority by which we do it, as we obey the Command of God in the Scripture herein? Acts 2. 38. It is certainly this latter which offends them; Witness Robert Ruckil himself, for these following are his words.
We do not, nor for all that I know never did, deny Baptism, or other Institutions, no, not in the outward Administrations, when the Spirit of the Lord leadeth into them.
The plain English of this Speech of R. R. is this, That when the Light in every Man commands Men to be baptized, and to come to the Lord's Table, &c. then R. R. will allow it. But let the Spirit speaking in the Scripture command Men to do these things, then he will not allow it, he will oppose it, nay, count them not worthy the Name of Christians if they do thus. If the Scripture commands these things, they shall be esteemed but as rotten Rags, and old Clouts; but if the Quaker's Light command it, it is well enough. Sure these Men are more than ordinarily deluded.
But this slender kindess of R. R. is by him almost recalled, for thus he saith; It hitherto hath appeared, that the Spirit leads forward not backward, upward not downward. And then he presumes, that otherwise the Spirit may as well lead into Judaism, as into the Ministrations aforesaid.
Thus still the Quakers make no difference between Jewish Ceremonies and the Institutions of Christ, than which what can be said more unlike a Christian. But I deny that, for an unrepentant Person to be led to Repentance, and therewith to the Baptism of Repentance, is a backward leading, or a leading downward, but is the surest way for such to go forward and upward. Yea, suppose some be now found as plenarily endowed with the Holy Ghost, as to be enabled thereby to speak with Tongues, and to magnify God, yet the Apostle demands, Who can forbid Water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10. This Interrogative concludes in the Negative, and is in truth to say, No Man can (or hath any authority to) forbid the use of Baptism in Water to those that have received the greatest measure of the Spirit, being such as were not before baptized with Water. But had R. R. or J. W. been by when Peter speak these words, the one would have cried down this Ordinance, and the other told him it was to lead backward. Thus do the Quakers confront the very Apostle himself, whose words have the same force now that they had in the first delivery: and as he by the Authority of Christ commanded them then, so all such as they now ought to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.
So then it is directly false, that R. R. saith, the Spirit hath hitherto led from Baptism in Water, (for that is his meaning by leading backward) whereas the Text in hand shows plainly, That such as were first baptized with the Spirit, were led by the same Spirit afterward to be baptized in Water. Nay, let me further add, That it is certain no Sinner ever was rightly baptized with Water, till first he had some work of Grace on his heart by the Spirit of God. We do therefore justly reject the Spirit of R. R. and J. W. and the Quakers in general, when it thus leads Men in opposition to the Spirit as it speaks by the Apostles, and now speaketh in the Scriptures, and are sure that therein they have not the Spirit of God. John 1. He that knoweth God, heareth us, (saith the Apostle). He that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Error.
CHAP. V. The Conclusion; showing the true usefulness of the Light in every Man; and yet that the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, reveals things more excellent. With an Exhortation to all Christians to beware of the dangerous Errors of the Quakers.
FOr a Conclusion of this defense against the Quakers, I hold it expedient to speak something briefly concerning the Light which is in every Man. And I have given some hints above, how Robert Ruckhil hath altered the Phrase, by his frequent use of this, The Holy Spirit, instead of their old term, The Light in every Man. But these two must be distinguished: for a Man may have, or be a partaker of that Light which is in every Man, which reproveth much Evil, and directs to much Good: And yet the same Man may be sensual at the same time, having not the Spirit: For the Gift of the Holy Spirit, as it is promised in the Gospel, is not received but through Faith, Gal. 3. — That the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that they might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith. Nor do I mean the multifarious Spirits by which Men are actuated, when I speak of the Light in every Man, as R. R. rudely would interpret me; but I speak of that one common Principle of Wisdom, Justice and Purity, which God hath endowed Mankind with, which in regard of its curious measures I call the Spirits of Men, every Man having his proper portion thereof; for the which he must be accountable, as he hath improved or abused it, to the honor or dishonor of Almighty God. But yet, I say, this Light in every Man ought to be subservient to the Light of the Holy Spirit revealed by or in the Holy Scriptures. And to make this better appear, I will here insert what I have published before in this behalf.
1. It is certain (and not denied by the Baptized Churches) that God Almighty hath endowed Mankind with a Principle of Light, Understanding, or Judgment, to lead Men to the consideration and observation of things good and honest among themselves; and to contemplate the Divine Goodness itself, from the consideration of his wonderful Works, and to render to him the honor of his Mercies, &c.
For as there is a certain Relation between the Creator, and a rational Creature; even thence arises a necessity of Obedience on the Creature's part. Whereupon it behooveth that he know him, and in general, what is his Will whom he is to serve; and this is the great Work of the Law written in the heart of Man, Rom. 2.
2. But it is certainly in the liberty of the Creator, (who hath the fullness of Wisdom in himself) to give further, what particular discoveries of himself, and of his Will he pleaseth, or thinks most meet to communicate, beyond the extent of that common Principle of Light which he hath imparted to Mankind. And indeed thus he did from the beginning, when by a positive Law he forbad Adam to eat of one Tree in the Garden, which otherwise could have brought no inconvenience, since it was good for Food. And therefore the forbidden Fruit was not Sin, as some of the Quakers have vainly told me; and some have writ as erroneously.
3. That there is in the Godhead the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit; and that Man's Salvation must depend upon the Death of the Son of God; that he to that end should be born of a Woman, even the blessed Virgin, Mary by Name; that he should arise from the Dead, and ascend the Heavens; or, that he shall come again to raise the Dead, and Judge the World, are things wholly beyond the reach of the Universal Principle of Light in Man, and only known to Man by particular Revelation from the Omnipotent God; who revealed these things to the Prophets, confirmed them by his Son, and hath witnessed the same by the Apostles.
4. That the Oeconomie, Order, or Government of the Church should vary, viz. Be of one Form in the Old World, of another from Abraham till Christ; of a third, from Christ to the end of the World; are things of which the common Principle of Light in Man fails to give any account: only the Wisdom and good Pleasure of the Creator, is the ground and cause of this Alteration, to which the Light of Man's Understanding must be subordinate.
5. That Abraham must cut off the Fore-skin, and his Posterity observe the same for a Law, under pain of being cut off from the People of God, is no way perceivable by the Principle of Light in Man, but may rather seem repugnant to it, only God must not be disputed in any of his Commands, but Man with all the Light in him, must yield to his most wise Commandments.
6. That the Savior of the World should come to be baptized of John in Jordan, and that it should become all his Disciples to follow him in the same Act of Obedience; that Israel must commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt by the Paschal Observation; and Christians their Deliverance from Sin and Satan, by the Bread and Cup in the Lord's Table, &c. are such things as no Principle of Light, common to all Men, does dictate: But he only, who without control, might and did command Abraham to offer his own Son for a Sacrifice, required these things, and ought to be obeyed, when and in what he requireth.
7. The sum of all is this, The Universal Principle of Understanding, Light, or Judgment in Man, is capable of Improvements; and it is only improved, by how much it is subordinate to the Will of God, as well in the lesser as the greater things of his Appointment. And therefore the Quakers undeniably opposing themselves against many things required to be observed by Christians, as positive Laws of God, made known by Jesus Christ, concerning Man's Redemption, and the Order of the Church of Christ, are not obedient to, nor sincere favorers of the Light within; but are under the Spirit of Darkness and Error in such their opposition; and do vainly boast, to speak and act as moved thereunto by the Authority of Christ, and his Holy Spirit in them, when yet the Authority of Christ is full against them.
The Exhortation.
FRom the Premises, I hold myself obliged to admonish and exhort all Christians to look well to their goings; For let us know assuredly, that the days are perilous, because the time is come wherein that Doctrine which according to Godliness, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, yea, that form of sound words which was delivered to the first Christian Churches by the Apostles, which also was obeyed from the Heart, Rom. 6. that Faith once delivered to the Saints, is now in every place greatly opposed and disgusted, or lightly regarded; whilst Men are turned in to Fables and Visions of their own hearts, as was also foredeclared in the Word of Truth.
And knowing these things before, let us beware lest at any time we be led away with the Errors of these days, and so fall from that stedfastness in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, to which through the Grace of God we have attained.
And above all, let us diligently beware of those, who either directly or indirectly deny the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, whilst they believe not his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, together with his second coming according to the Scriptures. But instead thereof, labor to refer by obscure ways, and a fair show of words, all these things to the Work of Mortification, and what they vainly pretend to themselves, as if they could now evince that Mortality is swallowed up of Life; which vain boasts my ears have heard from some of the Quakers; and yet it is certain they shall die like other Men, and in that very day they will find these vain thoughts to perish.
Labor therefore to have a sound and distinct understanding of the great Work of Man's Redemption by Christ's Death and Blood-shed, and the Work of his Holy Word and Spirit in sanctifying the Children of God. Hold fast the first by Faith, and labor to live in the latter by blessed experience, waiting for the Adoption, as it respects the redemption of your Bodies in the glorious Resurrection of the Just, according to that working whereby our Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father is able to subdue all things unto himself.
And be not deceived by any means, with the empty boasts of those who pretend they are perfect, so as to have passed through the Resurrection; for it is one thing to rise with Christ to newness of Life, (which I hope you have attained, but I beseech you abound more and more); and another thing to be raised from Mortality to a state of Glory. And for a help in this, consider, that even Paul himself, in his greatest Attainments, wherein he heard things too hard to be uttered to the Churches, yet he tells us, He had not attained to the Resurrection of the Dead, but labored if by any means he might attain it, Phil. 3.
Beware also of those who by consequence deny Jesus Christ to be come in the Flesh: and they are of two sorts; either those who labor to introduce Legal Ceremonies, which Christ came to abrogate, of whom there were many in the Apostles times, and I fear there are some in these days; or, who deny Christ's Institutions, for Christ denies that any can rightly call him Lord, Lord, when they do not the things which he says. And indeed, as that Holy Man, William Jeffery (Messenger to the Baptized Churches in Kent ) hath well observed,
Now by those things which declare Christ to be come in the Flesh, I do not mean any part of the Gospel, or the Gifts thereof, exclusively from the rest, but I mean the whole form of Godliness, with the Power thereof, delivered and established by Christ, the Mediator of the New Testament; and in particular these things following.
1. Such Preaching as holds forth Christ Crucified, according to the Scriptures.
2. Such Prayer as is Spiritual, made to God in the Name of Jesus Christ.
3. Such Baptism in Water as sets forth the Death of Christ, his Burial, and Resurrection; and our Death to Sin, and rising to a new Life.
4. Such Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, as shows forth the Saints Interest in that Promise of the Holy Ghost, which Christ obtained for the comfort of the Gospel Church.
5. Such a Table of the Lord, as shows the Death of Christ upon the Cross.
6. And such a Discipline as gives evidence of Christ's Authority, to purge his Church from Corruption, and to preserve Her in the purity of Doctrine and Conversation.
And thus the Holy Gospel being duly and religiously received and walked in, according to all the parts of it respectively, being attended with a constant waiting for the Son of God from Heaven, even Jesus who was raised from the Dead; ye shall be found unto Praise, and Honor, and that you have faithfully kept Christ's Ordinances, and added to your Faith, Virtue; even so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For if any Man serve Christ, him will the Father honor, John 12. 26.
Christianismus Primitivus.
The Third TREATISE. THE PEDO-BAPTISTS APOLOGY FOR THE Baptized Churches.
THere is no Point of the Christian Faith, of greater importance, in order to the composure of Divisions among such as conscientiously profess the Name of Christ, than the Doctrine of Holy Baptism, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins: For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. And where this Foundation-Truth hath been neglected, or essentially corrupted, there hath ensued great disorder in Religion, because the Being of the Church (as Visible) is so concerned therein, that there can be no orderly proceeding in any Church Act, nor participation in any Church-Priviledg, where Sacred Baptism is not Antecedent.
And though Reformation (or rather the Restauration) of this Truth be hard to accomplish, yet must we not be discouraged, but still pursue all lawful and probable ways to effect it in this, as well as in other cases. And the way which I have chosen to help on this needful Work at this time, is to show, that (notwithstanding the discord in Point of Practice, yet) there is a very great concord in Doctrine, touching the main Questions which concern this Heavenly Institution, between the Pedo-Baptists and the Baptized Churches. The Questions are these;
1. What are the Qualifications required of all such as are to be baptized?
2. What is the due Act or right Form to be observed and done in this solemn Rite of Baptism?
Touching the first, The Doctrine of the Baptized Churches is well known, namely, That Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, are pre-requisites to the Baptism of every Sinner. And to this agrees the Holy Scripture, with full consent, saying, Repent and be baptized everyone of you. They were all baptized, confessing their Sins. When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, &c. they were baptized both Men and Women. Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized. And hence this Holy Ordinance is well called the Laver of Regeneration; the Baptism of Repentance, for the Remission of Sins. Now let us hear the Doctrine of the Pedo-Baptists touching this Question.
1. The Church of England, both in her Articles and Vulgar Catechism, delivers her mind clearly to this purpose; That such Repentance whereby Sin is forsaken, and such Faith as by which the Promises of God are steadfastly believed, is required of Persons (meaning all Persons) which are to be baptized; and that in Baptism Faith is confirmed, &c.
2. Mr. Perkins (a Learned Son of the same Church) upon these words; Teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. saith,
3. Diodate on the same Text, teacheth,
Thus these three Witnesses do concur with the Truth, and therein do hold a concord with the Baptized Churches. And one would think there should now be no place for such a Conceit, as that Infants are fit Subjects for the Sacred Ordinance of Baptism, because wholly uncapable of these Qualifications. Now whereas divers things are pretended as grounds for Infant Baptism, we shall briefly recount the particulars which are chiefly insisted on, and then show how the same are refelled, or made void, by some of the most learned Asserters of Pedo-baptism. The Grounds pretended are these.
1. The Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17. who were to be Circumcised (to wit, the Males only) in their Infancy. This is thought to be a Type of Baptism, and hence it 'tis conceived, that Infants ought to be baptized.
2. Christ permitting Infants to be brought to him, as Persons to whom the Kingdom belongs.
3. They being tainted with Original Sin, must be cleansed from it; which is supposed to be done by Baptism.
4. Because it is said, Except a Man be born of Water, &c. he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.
5. Because Infants do not ponere obicem, and so are more fit for Baptism than adult Persons, as 'tis thought.
6. Because without Baptism, Parents cannot hope the salvation of dying Infants ( as some think. )
7. The Promise of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2. 39. is thought to belong to Infants, and so they ought to be baptized, because they are said to be holy.
8. Unless Infants be baptized, 'tis thought God is worse to Infants in the Gospel, than in the Law.
9. Infants are a part of all Nations, and the Command for baptizing is of extent to all Nations.
10. 'It is thought the Apostles baptized Infants, because they baptized whole Housholds; and 'tis said, it hath descended to this very Age, as a Tradition Apostolical.
To all which, Doctor Jer. Taylor (and others) in behalf of the Baptized Churches; do give answer as followeth.
As for the Catholics, they hold it an absurd thing to argue as the Protestants do, from the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7. Thus they speak: That Promise concerns literally peculiar Protection, and worldly Felicity, not the Remission of Sins, and everlasting Life; neither can we be Sons of Abraham by Carnal Generation, or by our Carnal Parents (we are not Jews but Gentiles) but only by Spiritual Generation, (to wit, Baptism) by which we are born to God, and made the Brothers of Christ, the Sons of Abraham. Those (saith St. Paul) are the Sons of Abraham, not who are the Sons of the Flesh, but of Faith, Rom. 4. 12, 13.
Again, They deny the Argument drawn from Infants being Circumcised in order to their being Baptized, calling it a cunning Argument, by which it will follow, that Females are not to be Baptized, &c.
And for the Allegation of St. Paul, that Infants are Holy if their Parents be Faithful; it signifies nothing but that they are Holy by designation: — Or, according to Erasmus, [ They (to wit, Infants born of such Parents, as the one being a Christian, the other not) are Holy legitimately; for the conversion of either Wife or Husband, doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were in unbelief. And however it is true, that Austin was a great stickler for Pedo-Baptism, yet he denies that any such thing can be deduced from the Text in hand; his words are these, Lib. 3. de peccator. Remis. It is to be held without doubting, whatsoever that Sanctification was, it was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins. He might well say so, considering that the Holiness of the Child is derived from the Sanctity of the Unbeliever, as the word else being rightly refer'd doth evince, 1 Cor. 7. 14.]
And because this Testimony is of great import, I will set down the very words of Augustine and Ludovicus Vives, as I find them in the English Edition of the said Book of the City of God, cap. 26. where Augustine puts forth this Question; What is the reason then that we do spend so much time in our Exhortations, endeavoring to animate those whom we have baptized, either unto Virginity, or chaste Widow hood, or honest and honorable Marriage. Now upon these words, [ Those whom we have baptized. ] Vives comments thus; Lest any Man should mistake this place, understand that in times of old, no Man was brought unto Baptism, but he was of sufficient years to know what that Mystical Water means, and to require his Baptism, and that sundry times. — I hear that in some Cities of Italy, they do for the most part observe the Ancient Custom as yet. And it is to be observed, that in the Margent are two Notes; The first is, That this is the old manner of baptizing. The second, That all this is left out in the Paris Edition. Whence we may note how the Writings of the Ancients are abused, and how ingenuously it is confessed, Pedo-Baptism is nor the old manner of baptizing.
And here we will insert some other Testimonies from the learned Pedo-Baptists, touching the novelty of Infant-Baptism. The first is out of Robertus Fabianus his Chron. 4 th part, Fol. 107. where he brings in Augustine the Monk speaking thus to the British Bishops; Since ye will not assent to my Hests generally, assent ye to me specially in three things; the first is, That ye keep Easter -day in due form and time as it is ordained. The second, THAT YE GIVE CHRISTENDOM TO CHILDREN, &c. But THEY WOULD NOT THEREOF. This was about the fifth Age after Christ; whence it's remarkable that Infant-Baptism was then opposed by the joint consent of the British Bishops, which were sent to the Assembly to consult the Affairs of Religion at that time. Our next Testimony is from the learned Casuist Hugo Grotius, who tells us, To defer Baptism till ripe years, was in old time left at liberty, now the observation is otherwise. Plainly giving the case, that Pedo-Baptism is not the old way, but a new Observation. But here we will again give place to Dr. Taylor, who saith;
[ And for further evidence, we may well allege in this place, that of Theodosius the Emperor born in Spain, his Parents being both Christians, and he from his youth educated in the Christian Faith, who falling sick at Thessalonica, was baptized, and recovered of his Sickness. ]
3.
To whom to add anymore Witnesses (though more might be brought) would be superfluous. I therefore proceed to the next Question, viz.
What is the due Act, or outward Form to be used in this solemn Rite of Holy Baptism?
It may well be the admiration of every wise and good Man, how it should come into the mind of such as pretend to be followers of Christ, That Holy Baptism should be performed by Aspersion, or casting a few Drops of Water upon the Subject, by the Fingers of the Administator. The Scriptures every-where teaching us, That the Original Form was by immersion in Rivers, or Places of much Water, Mark 1. John 3. Christ himself, who surely would do nothing superfluous or in vain, was baptized in the River, by John the first Baptist, who had his direction from Heaven, and his approbation from on high in that very action, Mat. 3. and those who were under the immediate Direction of the Holy Spirit, the leader into all. Truth, found it necessary for the Administrator and Subject to go both into the Water for the due performance of this Holy Ordinance. Add thereunto, that the proper signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when used to express the Action done in this Service, is to Dip or Immerge the Party in the Element, as is confessed by the learned Pedo-Baptists themselves, as we shall see in the sequel.
And here we will still prefer the Church of England, who teacheth us, That the outward Sign or Form in Baptism, is Water, wherein the Party baptized is dipped, &c. And though she add, [or sprinkled with it] yet that her Conscience tells her, that is not the right way, appeareth, in that she only assigns that by indulgence to such Infants as are in danger of death, &c.
The Church of Rome also confesseth, by a learned Pen, that she changed dipping the Party baptized over the Head and Ears, to a little sprinkling upon the Face.
Erasmus paraphrasing on the words, baptizing them, Mat. 28. saith thus, If they believe that which you teach them, and begin to be repentant of their former Life, &c. then dip them in Water, &c. Walfridus Strabo, de rebus Eccles. 26. tells us, That we must know at the first, Believers were baptized simply in Floods and Fountains.
The learned Grotius tells us, in his Judgment on Infant Baptism, That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies, to dip over the Head and Ears.
To whom we will join Tilenus, whose Testimony is in these words;
Bishop Jewel in his Defense, Apol. c. 5. p. 308. brings the Council of Worms determining the manner of Baptism, thus: In aquas demersio in Infernum est, & rursus ab Aquis emersio Resurrectio est; The dipping into the Water is the going down into Hell, [ i. e. the Grave] the coming out from off the Water is the Resurrection.
From all which Testimonies (and many more that might be brought) it is evident, beyond all doubt, (our Opposers being Judges) that whether we respect the signification of the Word Baptize, or the signification of the Ordinance itself, or the consent of the Primitive Churches in their practice of Holy Baptism, dipping the Subject (or Party baptized) in the Element of Water, is the due form of Baptism: and therefore sprinkling or crossing the Face, is an human innovation. Or,
Upon the whole matter these ten particulars are very apparent.
1. That Infant-Baptism was innovated, after the Holy Scriptures were written, which appeareth both from the deep silence of the Scripture in that case, and the confession of learned Pedo-Baptists themselves.
2. That it came in stealing, (as it were) being for a considerable time left at liberty, (a sign it was not from Heaven) and was disliked by the Ancients, who therefore dissuaded from it.
3. That which gave it its great advantage for a more general reception, was this false Opinion, That without Baptism none could be saved. This saith Mr. Perkins doth St. Augustine every-where affirm.
4. That the Lord's Supper was as eagerly pressed, to be necessary for Infants as Baptism, and they continued in use together about the space of six hundred years. This conceit was confirmed (saith Mr. Perkins ) by the Council of Toledo, Can. 11. And Augustine was so earnest for this also, that he boldly says, In vain do we promise Infants Salvation without it, Aug. Ep. 23. & Ep. 107. & cont. Ep. Pelag. l. 1. c. 22. & contra Jul. l. 7. c. 2. l. 3. c. 12.
5. That divers in the Greek Church have all along to this day refused Infant-Baptism. Grotius his words are these, (as Mr. Tombs quotes them) In every Age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the custom of deferring Baptism to little Ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their Faith. And the Armenians are confessed by Heylin, in his Macrocos. p. 575. To defer Baptism to their Children, till they be grown to years of knowledge.
6. Those foolish and sinful Adjuncts, which the Authors and Promoters of Infant-Baptism, were constrained to invent to make it look like Baptism, (for Example, their device of God-Fathers, &c. ) do sufficiently declare it to be of an infirm and human Original.
7. The grounds upon which Pedo-Baptism was at first urged, are now in a manner wholly declined, and new grounds daily invented whereon to build it; which are no sooner laid, but razed again by some of its own Favorites.
8. That the stoutest Assertors of Infant-Baptism, have ever met with as stout Opposers: Thus Augustine met with the Donatists and Pelagius, whose Arguments he could not avoid, but by running a into greater absurdity; and though they are blamed (and perhaps justly) for holding some Errors, so also is Augustine, and that not undeservedly.
9. That many of the Learned have much abused this Age, in telling them the Anabaptists ( i. e. the Baptized Churches) are of a late Edition, a new Sect, &c. When from their own Writings, the clean contrary is so evident.
Tenthly and lastly; Observe how the Baptism of Repentance for remission of Sins, which is that one and only Baptism commanded in holy Scripture, hath been neglected, traduced, and its Assertors frequently abused; and that chiefly by this device of Pedo-Baptism, which now hath so lost its first Form, that it cannot with any show of Truth, or good Sense, be called Baptism, and ought therefore to cease with its fellow Errors, viz. The giving the Lord's Supper to Infants, &c. That God may be justified in the submission of all Sinners to the Baptism of Repentance for remission of Sins, Luke 7. 39.
Brief Animadversions upon Dr. Stillingfleet 's Digressions about the Baptizing of Infants.
SOlomon the Wise, hath told us, There are many devices in Man's heart.
The truth whereof is verified in the multitude of Devices old and new, which Men have found out to darken the Counsel of God, teaching the sacred Institution of the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sins. Nevertheless, the Counsel of God that shall stand, and therefore neither shall the devices of Dr. Stillingfleet prevail, nor be found so much as a rational account of the grounds of Infant-Baptism, albeit divers Persons, are persuaded that he hath out-done others, that have undertaken to defend that Innovation.
First, Therefore we shall consider the two Texts, John 3. 5. Acts 2. 38, 39. which he says, according to the interpretation of the Fathers, and the Ancient Church, and the Papists themselves, do evidently assert Infant-Baptism. It were answer sufficient to tell him, That what ever was the interpretation of the Fathers, &c. yet, according to the interpretation of the Protestants, the grounds of whose Religion he pretends to give an account of, these Texts do not hold forth such a necessity of Infant-Baptism, as by some of the Ancients was imagined, seeing the Protestants do not say, as the Papists and some before them, No Baptism, no Salvation; but they more truly teach, that this place is to be understood (even as some of the Fathers also expound it) of such as refuse, or contemn Baptism, and yet saying withal to your confutation, that it is not necessary by Water, John 3. 5. To understand the external Rite of Baptism. See Fulk. Answ. to the Rhemists Annot. John 3. So Dr. Willit Synops. Papis.
However, It is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes, that in John 3. 5. Christ is showing the Way of Life, and the duties of Regeneration to such as came to him for Instruction, and speaks nothing there of the case of Infants, who (as one well observes) cannot overcome the World, by reason of their natural Incapacity to know either good or evil, and therefore are not obliged to the duties of the new Birth; to wit, Repentance, Faith, and Baptism: For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the World, and this is the Victory that overcometh the World, even our Faith. And hence it is evident, that John 3. 5. cannot be understood of Infants, who are wholly uncapable of the Duties of Regeneration.
And as evident it is, that Acts 2. 38, 39. intends not Infants, seeing the Persons there to be Baptized, even everyone of them, are required first to repent, a Duty of which Infants are wholly uncapable; and the Promise there mentioned, is clearly meant of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of Promise in a special manner, according to the Prophecy of Joel; the extent of which Promise is only to the Called of the Lord, ver. 9. And this interpretation also is avouched by learned Protestants: See Diodate on the Text, and Erasmus on the same. Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his Book of Confirmation, doth fully expound this place of the Promise of the Spirit both to the Parents, and to the Children, as they are the Called of the Lord, and not to Infants in that capacity, Lib. Prophecy. So then, the pretended evidence of Infant-Baptism from this place, is taken away, because this truth is hence very evident, that Calling by the Word of the Gospel-Regeneration by Faith and Repentance, are the true Antecedents to the Baptism of every Sinner.
Secondly, Dr. Stillingfleet states the Question between the Baptists and the Pedo-Baptists, after this manner.
Whether our Blessed Savior hath by a positive Precept, so determined the subject of Baptism, viz. Adult Persons professing the Faith, that the alteration of the subject in baptizing Infants be not a deviation from, and a perversion of the Institution of Christ in a substantial part of it? Or in short, Whether our Savior hath so determined the subject of Baptism, as to exclude Infants? This done, he tells us,
But I answer, For both these causes Infants are not to be Baptized. And since their incapacity depends upon the nature of the Institution, these two Reasons are resolved into one. Now the Institution of Baptism, whether we consider it as delivered by God to his Servant John, and by him to us; or as it is established by Precept from Christ, for a perpetual Ministry in his Church, to the end of the World, we shall find it delivered by both in such sort, as is exclusive of Infants. For, in the first place it is delivered as the baptism of Repentance, for the remission of Sins, Mark 1. 4. and every Sinner who is said to be baptized by him, is said to be baptized confessing their Sins, ver. 5. which we know is not to be expected of Infants.
The Precept of our Savior for the perpetuity of Baptism, so expressly requires the making every Subject a Disciple in order thereunto, and that by actual Teaching, or Preaching the Gospel to them, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. according to Christ's own Example, who so made Disciples before they were baptized, that no Infant with any show of Scripture or Reason, can possibly be brought within the reach of Baptism according to its Institution. In a word, Dr. Stillingfleet seems, in so many words, to grant in his first state of the Question, that to bring Infants to Baptism, is an alteration of the Subject, and therefore not agreeable to the Institution of Christ, in which to admit of alterations, is very dangerous.
But saith Dr. S. The rule and measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions, must be fetched from the end of them, for this was the ground of the Circumcision of Proselytes under the Law.
Answer. That the ground of the Circumcision of Proselytes was fetched from the end of the Institution, is not true. And indeed, had it been left to that, Men's various Conceits about the ends of such Institutions, might have made as ill work, as we see yours do now; wherefore the Wisdom of God to prevent those Dangers, gave express Order in that Case, as appears Gen. 17. 13. compared with Exod. 12. 44, 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover, let all his Males be Circumcised. And ver. 49. One Law shall be to him that is Home-born, and unto the Stranger that sojourneth among you.
Thus we see the Law is as express for the Circumcising Proselytes and their Males, as for Israel themselves. Diodate also expounds the first place by the second ( The Servant that is born ) meaning (saith he) The Proselyte, who of his own free will, shall add himself to the Church by the profession of God's true Worship.
But now, if we admit Dr. S. his rule, That the measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions, must be fetched from the ends thereof, yet will he be so far from gaining, that he will quite lose his Cause. For, if by the ends of Baptism, he means the things signified in Baptism (as that he does, for he said, They who are capable of the thing signified, ought not to be denied the Sign ) then we shall certainly gain one thing out of two, and either of them will serve our turn to show his mistake, viz. Either Infants are not capable of Baptism, because not capable of all things signified thereby: Or else, that the Protestants do violate their own Rule, in denying Infants some other holy Signs, as general as Baptism, when yet they are capable of some of the things signified thereby; and this shall evidently appear by running the Parallel between us, as to the grounds upon which you deny Infants the privilege of the Lord's Table, and we deny them Baptism. And first,
1. The things signified by the Lord's Table (as the ends of that Institution) is Christ Crucified for us, and to come again to receive us to himself: Of these Mercies Infants are capable, because they shall be saved by the Death and Coming of the Lord Jesus. Thus they have the thing signified, yet you deny them the Sign, because they understand not the thing represented by the Sign. Answerable to this, we say, By Baptism is signified the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and our Salvation thereby; of this Mercy signified in Baptism Infants are capable, but yet the Sign is not given to them, because they understand not the thing signified thereby.
2. The ends, or things signified by the Lord's Table on our part, are, the profession of our Faith, the manifestation of our Union with the Church, &c. Of these ends Infants are not capable, therefore you do not admit them to the Lord's Table.
Answerable to this, we say, The things signified in Baptism on our part, are the profession of our Faith, and manifestation of our Union with the Saints, &c. Of these ends Infants are not capable, therefore we admit them not to Baptism.
3. Our coming to the Lord's Table, holds forth Abstinence from the Leavened Bread of Malice and Wickedness, and our Feeding upon the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth. Of these ends (as they are Duties) Infants are not capable, therefore you admit them not to the Lord's Table.
Answerable to this, we say, Baptism holds forth our death to Sin, and the newness of Life from our Baptism to the end. Of these ends of Baptism Infants are not capable, and therefore we admit them not to Baptism: For the rule and measure as to the capacity of Divine Institutions, is to be fetched from the ends of them.
The same might be said concerning the Imposition of Hands, with prayer for the Spirit of Promise, seeing it was practiced by the Apostles upon the newly Baptized indifferently; yet you admit no Infants to this Divine Institution, though you suppose them to be Baptized, although according to Protestant Doctrine, they are capable of the Promise, Acts 2. 38, 39. And the Benediction signified, and obtained thereby, by which your inconsistency with your own Rule is further manifested; and hence I infer (according to your own words) by a parity of reason built on equal grounds, you ought not to baptize Infants, because the rule and measure as to Divine Institutions, or the capacity of the Subjects thereof are to be fetched from the ends thereof.
Not from some ends only (and those too only which we please) as Dr. S. doth unadvisedly teach: For so there would be no Man, or but very few, but might be brought to Baptism, or other Ordinances, seeing they are capable of several things signified therein, as the Death of Christ for the Sins of the World, and his Resurrection by which all shall rise again; and whether they believe it or no, yet he is the Lord that bought them, and a Mediator between God and them, that his Long-suffering might lead them to Repentance.
Wherefore your instance of our Savior's being baptized without Repentance avails you nothing, unless you were able to prove a special case to be a general rule for the practice of Ordinances, which yet you cannot but know is pernicious many ways: nor can you rationally believe that because Christ who was no Sinner, was baptized without Repentance, that therefore you must baptize Sinners without Repentance also; if otherwise, then why may not Persons be admitted to the Lord's Table without Self-examination, seeing Christ did partake of it without Selfexamination, having no need to do so? Certainly, though Christ did this, it shall never be demonstrated that the Members of His Church may do it without Self-examination; and yet thus went the Matter in Old Time, for hundreds of Years together. So true is the Maxim, Admit of one Absurdity, and more will follow.
But to make an end of this, it's evident: Christ in being baptized did his Duty to God, and had He not been baptized, He had not fulfilled all Righteousness. Let it now be shown, that it is the duty of Infants to be baptized, or that they, or anybody else, commit Sin in refusing Infant-Baptism, and then we shall stand upon no further capacity on their part, nor oppose this Instance as to the end for which it is brought; but till this be done, we justly reject such Argumentation.
Neither is it true, that what we say of the incapacity of Infants, &c. reflects upon the Wisdom of God in appointing Circumcision for Infants: for God's Command made them fit Subjects for it, together with the nature of the Covenant which He made with Abraham and his, according to the Flesh, which Covenant he also ordained to be in their Flesh by Circumcision, Gen. 17. 13. Now therefore, when it shall appear that the Covenant of the Gospel, (I mean it, as established by Christ in his Church) is made with any Man and his Seed according to the Flesh, and that God hath required the Gospel-Covenant should be in their Flesh by Baptism: And so every Infant born of them, or Servant bought with Money to be baptized, we should then grant, that to insist on the incapacity of Infants, would reflect upon the Wisdom of God; but since this neither is, nor can be done, all these pretended reflections fall really upon Dr. S. for denying Infants the Lord's Supper, because of their incapacity, who yet were admitted to the Passover, of which they were as uncapable as of the Lord's Table.
What the Doctor says further of the ends of Baptism to represent and exhibit the nature of the Grace of the Gospel, and to confirm the truth of the Covenant on God's part: We have considered before, and to what you here add, saying, It instates the partakers of it in the privileges of the Church of God. I answer,
That though the Doctor speaks right according to the right Administration of Baptism, yet according to his way of Infant-baptism it is not so. Seeing we all know, Infants (while such) though Sprinkled, have no more privilege in your Church, than those who are not Sprinkled. For the Privileges next following Baptism, is to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, and to continue in Fellowship with the Church in breaking of Bread and Prayer, Acts 2. 42. Mat. 28. 20. Now to tell us that Infants are Instated in these things, and yet whilst Infants have nothing at all to do with them, is too gross a vanity. For,
If you say, They are instated in these Privileges upon future Contingences, viz. Repentance, Faith, and Newness of Life, according to the Gospel. I answer, When this comes to pass they are no Infants, nor as Infants partake of these Privileges, but as those that are now the Sons of God by Faith; and thus truly all Infants are instated in Church Privileges as soon as born, seeing by the Death of Christ they have a right upon the conditions of the Gospel, when capable to perform them; thus you mislead the World with a specious pretence of instating their Infants in Church-Privileges, when 'tis only an empty sound of words.
But the Jews Infants, as they were instated in the Privileges of their Church by Circumcision, so they entered upon the enjoyment of their Privileges in Infancy, appearing by God's Commandment three times a Year in the Temple, with the Offerings accustomed, and to partake of the Passover, with the Congregation, or Family where it was eaten.
The Doctor saith, Nothing can seem wanting of the ends of Baptism (in respect of Infants) but that which seems most Ceremonial, which is the personal Restipulation, which yet may reasonably be supplied by Sponsors, &c.
That there is much wanting beside this Restipulation in your Infant-baptism, is shown before; and it is unadvisedly said, that the Restipulation of the Person baptized, is the most Ceremonial thing in Baptism, seeing it is the Moral and substantial part, being indeed our Covenanting with God, and in truth the External Washing is far more Ceremonial, as appears 1 Pet. 3. 21. And for your saying, That the Personal Restipulation in Baptism, may be reasonably supplied by God-fathers, is very much below the reason of any Christian to affirm. But is it so, That Sponsors may supply the Personal Restipulation, which is the greater? then let them also supply the lesser, to wit, Sprinkling with Water, which they can better perform, than the Covenant they made for the Infant, and then the whole business will appear to have the same reasonableness in every part, viz. Wholly unreasonable.
Thus much touching the capacity of Infants, &c. Next the Doctor tells us, That in the Institution of Baptism, there is neither direct not consequential prohibition of Infants, to be Baptized; and that there is nothing of that nature pretended before the last Commission, Mat. 28. 19. But here is a mistake, and it's strange he never observed that it hath often been demonstrated, that as when Circumcision first appeared in the World, it clearly took in the Infants of those to whom it was first given; so, accordingly it was propagated. But when Baptism first appeared in the World, it as clearly left out the Infants of those to whom it was first ministered, and accordingly was propagated by the holy Apostles: Insomuch, that of the many Thousands, and famous Churches that were Baptized, all the World is not able to show so much as one Infant to have been baptized in any one of them, nor one word of Precept for so doing; and if this be not so much as a consequential prohibition of Infant-Baptism, I shall never believe that the Doctor, or any else, can show me so much as a consequential Prohibition of Infants receiving the Lord's Supper, the Imposition of Hands, &c.
And though the Doctor consider never so much what apprehensions the Apostles had, concerning the Church-state of such as were in External Covenant with God, yet he cannot rationally imagine that they should measure the state of the Gospel-Churches by the reason of the Covenant which God made with the Jews and their Seed, according to the Flesh. Seeing it is expressly said, from henceforth, to wit, from the vanishing of the Old Covenant, know we no Man after the flesh. — But now, If any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature. And now Men are not to be accounted of the Church, because they are Abraham 's Seed, but they are accounted Abraham 's Seed by being in the Church of Christ. Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are you Abraham 's Seed, and Heirs according to promise.
Neither is it true, That Christ commanded his Apostles to gather whole Nations into Churches, as the Doctor affirms: Neither did the Apostles gather any one whole Nation, or City, into a Church-state, that we read of. Therefore Churches consisting of whole Nations, Men, Women, and Infants, are not Apostolic. But this the Apostles did, They taught many Nations, i. e. Their sound went through many Nations. Not that they taught all manner of Persons in the Nations, for they taught no Infants: and the Persons by them gathered into the Church, were only such as received their Doctrine; as appears by those Families where their Gospel was received. The Husband sometimes opposite to the Wife, and otherwhiles the Wife to the Husband, Servants and Masters likewise differing in the same Family about Christianity, 1 Cor. 7. If then the Apostles did not gather whole Families into a Church-state, unless they did wholly believe, Acts 16. how should any Man imagine, they gathered whole Nations? The greatest part whereof, by all experience, are wicked Persons; yea, in those very Nations, which Men pretend to have made into Churches of Christ, of which, would God England were not so full an evidence as it is this Day.
The Doctor grants, that the order of words, Mat. 28. 19. ( Teach all Nations, Baptizing them ) was necessary for those who were then to be proselyted to Christianity. And we say, They are as necessary for the Generations following, who have as much need of true Faith and Repentance, or the first Principles of Christianity, in order to their being Christians, as them that went before; and it is a pernicious alteration of the order of Christ's Commission, to out-run its Direction so, as to make Persons to be Christians, before they do, or can know, the least tittle of Christianity.
The case which the Doctor puts, about going to disciple the Indians, baptizing them, is not at all rational. But upon the presupposition, that the Person so doing, to have seen or known them, that gives him his authority to baptize Infants, and then indeed it's rational to suppose such a Person would not understand that the words, Disciple the Indians, Baptizing them, would exclude Infants. But yet I must also say, That his ground to believe so, could not arise from the words themselves, but from the Practice presupposed. Wherefore the Apostles having direction to teach all Nations, baptizing them, without the least knowledge of any Infants baptized, by any Baptists which were before them, or from whom they received their Authority; here is no place for the Doctor's suppositions at all.
As little cause hath he to think, that had any one said to Abraham, He that believeth and is circumcised, shall be saved; it ought so to have been interpreted, As that Infants ought to be circumcised. For if this had been all the rule given for Circumcision, it must of necessity have been limited to such as believe only; and unless the Doctor know how from good ground to satisfy his Conscience, that Infants are believers of that which is taught or preached, according to Mark 16. (which place he alludes unto) he must so limit the diversion for baptizing. But if indeed he takes Infants to be such Believers, then he is answered by Dr. Hammond, in his Let. of Resol. p. 296. who saith,
The Conclusion therefore is, since in the Case you put the word (Believe) cannot concern Infants, and that they must be deemed capable of Salvation, though they believe not, it is every way safe to think them unconcerned in the other Duty, that passage Mark 16. 16. or any other like unto it notwithstanding.
Finally, The Doctor proposes five Considerations about the suitableness of Infant-Baptism, to the Administration of things under the Gospel. And first he saith,
1. That if it had been Christ's intention to exclude Infants, there had been far greater reason for an express Prohibition, than for an express Command, if his intention were to admit them, because this was suitable to the general grounds of God's dispensation among them before.
Answer, Here is little said, but what hath been answered before, and may be answered by saying, Had it been Christ's intention that Infants should not be admitted to the Lord's Table, there had been more need of an express Prohibition, &c. than of an express Command, &c. because suitable to God's Dispensations among them before. Thus Argumentum ad hominem.
But I answer further, It is dangerous arguing to our present right to Sacraments, from God's Dispensation among the Jews; seeing the state of the Church, and the Dispensation is so much altered, as that the former was but carnal, in respect of the Spirituality of the other.
2. The Doctor saith, It is very hard to conceive, that the Apostles thought Infants excluded by Christ, when after Christ's Ascension, they looked upon themselves bound to observe the Jewish Customs, even when they had baptized many thousands.
Answer, It is ill said that the Apostles were bound to observe any such Jewish Customs, because of any suitableness between them and things under the Gospel (which is the Mark you ought to hit, or you say nothing) but the reason why they did observe such Customs for a time, was the weakness of the Jews; and we find the Apostles did as speedily put a period to such Customs as they could, Acts 15. 24, to 32. Acts 16. 4, 5. which clearly show Jewish Customs were not suitable to things under the Gospel. And here Circumcision, one of the chief of the Jewish Rites, is clearly abolished among the rest, so that a Man would think Infant-Baptism should never have been built upon it.
3. The Doctor saith, If admission of Infants to Baptism were a mere relique of Judaism, it seems strange that none of the Judaizing Christians should be charged with it; who yet are charged with the observation of other Judaical Rites.
Answer, I find no Man saying that Infant-Baptism was a relique of Judaism, save Dr. Hammond, and some from him. And he indeed, would make Believers Baptism also a Jewish Relique, whilst he teaches, that the Jews baptizing Proselytes and their Children was the Original, and the Baptism of the Christian Church but the Copy. By which device he hath opened a gap to our late Notionists, to deprive the Church of sacred Baptism altogether; and hath done more to weaken the cause of Infant-Baptism than any other of its Favorites, in laying its foundation in Jewish Ceremonies, for which they had no clear command from God. But great is this truth of Believers Baptism, and will stand notwithstanding the injury done by Dr. Hammond. For it was no Jewish Rite, the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sins, was from Heaven, Mat. 21. 25. And the Pharisees, who were zealous enough for Jewish Rites, rejected holy Baptism, which Christ affirms to be the Counsel of God, Luke 7. 30. and testifies out of the Consciences of his Enemies, that he that teaches otherwise, denies John to be a Prophet. This then is the thing that truly seems strange, that no mention is made of Infant-Baptism, if indeed it was at all received in the Christian Church, either as a Jewish Rite, or otherwise; but not strange at all that none is charged with it, seeing none can be named that held it.
4. Since the Jewish Christians were so much offended (saith the Doctor) at the neglect of Circumcision, Acts 21. Can we in reason think they should quietly bear their Children being wholly thrown out of the Church, as they would have been, if neither admitted by Circumcision or Baptism.
Answer, Since the false Apostles were so earnest to have the Christians circumcise their Children, it's strange that none of the true Apostles could, or would quiet them, by saying, instead of Infant-Circumcision, you have Infant-Baptism, if indeed there had been any such thing practiced. For, This way went the Apostle Paul to still them, when they would have brought the Believers themselves under Circumcision, Col. 2. 11, 12. Telling the Christians, They were circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, wherein ye also are risen with him through the Faith, &c. And why might not the Jews as quietly take the non-admission of Infants to Baptism, as they so took the non-admission of them to the Lord's Supper, seeing they were formerly admitted to the Passover: Nor is it necessary to say, That though they were not admitted to either of these, that therefore they are wholly thrown out of the Church. For,
If by Church be meant the whole number of the Saved, then are Infants of the Church: For Christ hath told us, the Kingdom of God belongs to Infants. And thus were Infants of the Church before Circumcision was, for some thousands of Years. But if by Church be meant, those only who are concerned in the actual profession of the Gospel, in this respect I grant, Infants are not of the Church; God having nowhere required this of Infants in his Gospel. Infants are now as well as before the Flood, within the Covenant of the Gospel, in respect of the Grace of Eternal Life, but are not under the Duties of the Covenant; to wit, Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Perseverance, &c.
Nor can my calling the whole number of the Saved, the Church, and thus making Infants a part thereof, offend a Protestant who is acquainted with Protestant Doctrines, seeing Mr. Rogers Cath. Doctrine, pag. 73. upon Art. 19. of the Church of England, doth affirm, There is an invisible Church, and takes all within the compass of this Church who are Elect, Triumphing, or that shall Triumph in Heaven. Dr. Field takes into his definition of the Church, all the Elect, of Men, or Angels, called, or not called, l. 1. c. 8. So that according to these definitions of the Church, Infants are not thrown out of the Church, though not of the number of the Called, and consequently not that cause for the Jews to complain, nor any other which the Doctor doth imagine; unless they be not acquainted with the extent of the Covenant of God's Grace in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Fifthly, The Doctor lastly tells us, That had it been contrary to Christ's Institution (to baptize Infants) we should not have had such evidence of its early Practice in the Church; and here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical Tradition, to manifest this to us.
Answer, This is altogether unlike a Protestant: What are the Sacraments so darkly laid down in the Scripture, that we know not when, and to whom they belong without Tradition? But when shall we see this Tradition Apostolical? I think Dr. Taylor expressly denies, there is any Tradition Apostolical, Lib. Proph. pag. 117, 120.
But the Doctor cannot but know, that there be Errors which crept into the Church, even in the Apostles Days, which also continued in some of them, notwithstanding all endeavors to purge them; such were Circumcision, and keeping the Law. Or if we list to reckon with Records of Antiquity, 'tis easy to show some things held by Papists, and opposed by the Doctor, are better proved by Tradition than Infant-Baptism: For example, The Lent-Fast, and Prayer for the Dead, this is not denied by Mr. Perkins 's Demonst. Prob. What then shall be gained to the Protestant Religion by such Traditional Arguments?
It is a notable saying of Irenaeus, (according to Dr. Fulk ) When the Heretics are reproved out of the Scriptures, they fall to accusing the Scriptures, as if all were not well in them, — and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not the Tradition. And saith Tertul. (according to Dr. Fulk ) Take away those things from the Heretics, which they hold with Ethnics, that they may stay their Questions upon Scripture only.
Christianismus Primitivus.
The Fourth TREATISE. THE QUERIST EXAMINED: OR, Fifty Anti-queries seriously propounded to the People called PRESBYTERIANS, &c.
Query 1. WHether under the Covenant of Works, if Adam had not sinned, Infants should not have been holy to God, and so Members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God?
Anti-query 1. Whether this be not a groundless and unlearned Query? For seeing the word Church, as used in the Holy Scriptures, signifieth, A People called out, namely, from another People; out of what People should they have been called, had the whole World been in the state of Innocency? And seeing no Man can tell whether any Man should have had Authority committed to him in Matters of Religion, or whether God should immediately have exercised his own Government? Neither yet in what capacity Children should have come into the World, whether endowed with Knowledge or otherwise: Whether therefore it concern or become any Man, to let his Fancy rove about in such an unknown or unknowable case? And thereupon, 1. Suggest how Infants should be concerned, or not concerned in Matters of Religion? And how can anything be concluded from such an Imagination, as imitable for us about Infant Church-Membership? And whether we are not like to have a fine Superstructure, when the Foundation is a mere Fancy?
Query 2. Whether God was anymore obliged to order it so, that the Children of Righteous Parents should have been born with all the Perfections of their Parents, and enjoyed the same Privileges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace, to grant that Infants should be of the same Society with their Parents, and have the Immunities of that Society.
Anti-query 2. More obliged: Whether it be not vain to suppose, that God was obliged at all in either of those cases, seeing he is absolutely free to do whatsoever he pleaseth with his own? And what ground have you to believe, that some Infants were more concerned than others in Matters of Religion, by virtue of any Covenant made with Adam? And what society were Infants capable of with Adam, by virtue of any Covenant made with him after his fall? certainly the Scripture is silent as to these Matters.
Query 3. Whether we have any reason, when the Design of Redemption is the magnifying of Love and Grace, to think that Love and Grace are so much less under the Gospel to the Members of Christ, than under the Law to the Members or Seed of Adam, as that then all the Seed should have partaken of the same Blessings with their Righteous Parents, and now they shall all be turned out of the Society, whereof the Parents are Members?
Anti-query 3. Whether you yourselves do not lessen the magnifying Love of God in Man's Redemption, whilst in respect of Infants you would restrain it to the Seed of such Parents as are in Covenant with God, yea, to such Infants as partake with them in Practicals of Religion, which you seem to intend by the Blessings you speak of? But who denies any Blessing to Infants under the Gospel, which was their Portion under the Law made with Adam? And how were Infants Members of the Society of the Seed of Adam, more than of the Society of the Baptists? Shew the difference if you can; and then, Eris mihi magnus Apollo.
Query 4. Whether though our Innocency be lost, Parents be not Parents still, and have not as much interest in Children, and whether God hath reversed this natural Order? And if God change not his Order therein, whether Parents be not as capable of consenting to Grace for their Children, as they were of being innocent for them?
Anti-query 4. Whether there be any that question whether Parents be Parents still, or what need of such Enquiries? Or what do you mean by God's Natural Order? If you mean Natural Religion, then show us what Infants are bound to in Matters of Religion by Nature; or what this Natural Order ties Parents to do to their Infants, upon the account of Practicals in Religion, which we omit? And whether Parents could be innocent for their Infants, if their Infants were not innocent as well as they? And if not, how should their consenting to Grace be the Child's consent? And whether it will not as well hold retro, that the Parents consenting to wickedness is the Child's consent? And whether this do not give the Parents the Power to Save or Damn their Infants? And can such Conceits stand with the Wisdom, Justice, or Mercy of God?
Query 5. Whether Infants be not included in the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace made with Adam? (Gen. 3. 15.) Whether unless it can be proved that Infants are none of the Woman's Seed, we must not take that Fundamental Promise to extend to Infants? And was she not thereby obliged to list herself, and all her Infant-Progeny in the Redeemer's Army, against the Proclaimed Enemy, and to teach her Posterity to do the like? And did they not continue visible Members of Christ's Army and Kingdom, till such time as they violated that Fundamental Obligation, and as the Seed of the Serpent fought against Christ and his Kingdom, for Satan and his Kingdom?
Anti-query 5. Whether the Baptists do not as clearly assert Infants Right to the Grace of God in the first Edition of the Covenant made with Adam, as any whatsoever? And if by the Seed of the Woman you understand all that are saved, who then questions Infants belonging to that Seed? But where is the Woman bound to List her Infants in the Redeemer's Army? Or where shall we find them visible Members of Christ's Army in the first Edition of the Covenant? Are not these mere words without Authority of Scripture? Or where did ever Infants fight for or against the Serpent? and if not, Why do you make them the Seed of the Serpent, and Fighters against the Kingdom of Christ? And if you say, you speak not these things of Infants qua tales; Then whether you have not transferred the Question, and so it is impertinent?
Query 6. Whether in that first Proclamation of Grace to fallen Man, or in the first Promise of Redemption to Sinners, Gen. 3. 15. an Infant of the Woman be not Promised to be General, and Head of the Church? And whether the Promise of an Infant-Head, doth not declare God's Mind, that he will have Infant-Members, because the Head is the principal Member, &c.
Anti-query 6. Whether Christ in his Infancy was not as truly God as Man? And whether there be any Parity between the Infants you speak of, and Christ, seeing he was able even then to vanquish the greatest Adversary?
And if by the Redeemed Church, you mean the whole number of the saved; who doubts but Infants were of the Redeemed Church? But how doth it follow, that all that are to be saved, ought to be admitted to practical Ordinances in the Visible Church? Seeing then all Infants, (for ought you know) have the same right, which yet you deny; but why so? are you sure they are not within the verge of Christ's Redemption, and so of the Redeemed Church?
And though Christ was once an Infant, yet where do you find that he was then a Member of the Gospel-Church? Was he not born under the Law? Gal. 4. 4. and born King of the Jews, Mat. 2. 2. and according to the estate of the Jewish Church, an Infant might be both a Member and a Prince; And was not the Kingly Office in Israel a Type of Christ? But what is this to the order and state of the Church under the Gospel? And further, though Christ an Infant was born Head of the Church as aforesaid, yet in his Infant-State, he did not intermeddle with the exercise of the least part of his Authority. And then whether it be not more rational to say, That seeing Christ the Head of the Church did not actually possess, or at least not use any of that Power, as an Infant, or while he was an Infant, that Infants (supposing they were as truly born Members of his Church, as he was born King of the Jews) should be unconcerned in the actual possession of Ordinances in Infancy?
And what if we grant that Infants may be Disciples by designation, as Christ was King, Priest, and Prophet by designation, (though the Case is not a like easy to prove); yet seeing Christ was not a Prophet (as you confess) in actu exercito, how came you to be so bold to bring Infants to the exercise of Baptism? And why can you not rather content yourselves with the designation or dedication of your Infants to God by Prayer, and make them Disciples in actu exercito, when they are able? And whether you may not as well repute them thus among Disciples, and as safely conclude them to be in the Covenant of Grace, and of the Redeemed Church without Baptism, as without the Lord's Supper? Since it's said, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of God, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you; as well as it's said, Except a Man be born again of Water, &c. he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And whether Doctor Taylor, a Learned Pedo-Baptist, do not ingenuously confess, That the Wit of Man is not able to show a difference in these cases?
Query 7. Why are those two Titles put on those two distinct Generations, (scil. the Posterity of Cain, and the Posterity of Seth) calling one the Sons of God, and the other the Daughters of Men, Gen. 6. 2. But that the one was a Generation separated from the Church from their Birth, (their Progenitors being cast out before them) when the other was the Seed of Saints not cast out? &c.
Anti-query 7. Whether this Text, Gen. 6. 2. be not ambiguous, insomuch that your own Doctors are not agreed about the Exposition thereof? But supposing it to respect the Posterities of Cain and Seth, yet whether it can be meant of Infants, seeing they committed none of these sins, in taking Wives? &c. And whether your Exposition do not damn all Infants proceeding from Cain 's Posterity; and consequently all the Infants of all Nations which profess not the true Religion? And whether such a Censure be rational?
And supposing that the Infants of godly Parents are in some sense more immediately related to the Church, than the Infants of Pagans, by reason of the Prayers and Designation of their Parents, and the opportunities of Education? Yet what makes this for any Infants actual participation of Ordinances in the Church, and what one Ordinance did the Infants of these Sons of God partake of? And since the Scripture is wholly silent of any such thing, whether this doth not more strongly conclude against Infant-Baptism than for it? And whether it be needful to say anything to the latter part of this Query, seeing we grant all, and something more than this Text will prove, though we deny them actually right to Ordinances? And whether the common or equal overthrow of these Generations, in respect of the Infants of both, do not evidently show, That as to the business of their Salvation, they were in the same condition? And then whether it be safe for us to conclude, That the wickedness of any Progenitors have any further effect upon the Infant-Children, than to expose them to external Calamities, seeing Christ died to redeem them from the condemnation brought upon them by Adam? Rom. 5. 18.
Query 8. Whether it was not the same Church before, and after Abraham 's time, that was called the Tents of Shem? Gen. 9. 27. Was not the Jewish Church denominated the Tents of Shem? And does it not hence appear, that the Church Privileges of that People, did not begin with or from Abraham, but that they were before? And how was it the same Church that was of Sem, and of Abraham, if it had not the same sort of Members or Materials? &c.
Antiq. 8. Though it be true, that the Church is the same in some sense from the beginning of the World to the end; yet whether it may not truly be said also, not to be the same in divers respects? And whether the Covenant as made with Noah, Gen. 9. do not differ from the Covenant as made with Adam, though both were made with all Mankind, and are affirmed to be the Covenant of Grace by Mr. Baxter. And whether there was not yet a further difference between these and the Covenant as made with Abraham? Gen. 17. the former being made with all Mankind, and never yet abrogated, (as saith Mr. Baxter ). The other was made with Abraham and his Seed, distinct from the rest of Mankind, but as they should be proselyted thereto. And though the Church may be denominated the Tents of Shem, both before and after Abraham, yet whether this conclude there was to be no alteration of the state of the Church under these times respectively? And whether in any of the Tents of Shem, before Abraham 's time, so much as any one Infant can be found admitted to the practical Part of any Ordinance in the Church, which was peculiar to her as such, (for as touching Prayer, it is a moral Duty, and to be made for all Men). And whether thus boldly to suppose a thing without the least show of proof, be not a plain begging the main thing in question.
And though it be never so true, that the Universal redeemed Church consists of the same Materials in all Ages; yet whether it be not evident that God made a difference, as to the time of dispensing Ordinances to them? As first, no practical Ordinance or Rite dispensed to any Infant that we read of till Abraham 's time; and though then Circumcision was ordained for Males, yet not for all the Male Children, for all under eight days of Age were prohibited, (and yet you grant they were in that Covenant) nor any Rite at all for the Females, who yet were of the same Church? And whether under Moses they were not admitted to other Rites also, as the Passover, Sacrifices, and other Holy Peasts of the Jews? We therefore ask you why the Infants of Converted Gentiles are not in as good a condition, without any Rite or Ceremony, as the Infants of all the faithful from Adam to Abraham? And whether those Infants before Abraham were not as happy as the Infants of Abraham? And then doth it not follow, that the Infants of Faithful Gentiles, are as happy without Circumcision, or any other Rite or Ceremony whatsoever, as Abraham 's was under a Ceremony, seeing God hath not obliged them to any in the Days of the Gospel, or since the Abrogation of the Law and Circumcision?
Query 9. Whether if we could show no written Law or Promise at first constituting the Duty, or granting the Priviledg of Church-Membership, it were the least disparagement to our Cause, as long as we can show those following Laws which presuppose this? If Moses at the end of that 2000 years the Church of God had been without any written Law, found all the Infants of Church-Members in possession of this benefit, what need was there of a new Law about it? Or why should God promise it as a new thing?
Antiq. 9. Whether if there be any such Law, you would not have shown us where it is long ere this day? and whether you do not now grant in effect there is no such written Law? And what need you thus to query, seeing we deny no lawful thing to Infants, to be done for them by their Godly Parents, but only oppose your doing that for which you have no Law? And whether Austin himself be not clear for us, that there was no Ordinance or outward Sign belonging unto Infants before the Flood? His words are these; But whether there were of Regeneration before the Deluge, or until Circumcision was commended to Abraham, the Scripture doth not manifest? Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 15. c. 16. And whether the Rule, Non Credimus, quia non Legimus, will not here hold good against you?
Query 10. Whether there being certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church Membership, but none, except that before alleged from Gen. 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all speaking of it as no new thing; we have not great reason to assign its beginning, which from Gen. 3. is before spoken of?
Antiq. 10. Why do you say that Gen. 3. 15. makes mention of Infants Church-Membership, (otherwise than what we allow)? Is here the least hint of your mode of making Infants Church-Members? that is, Doth this place bid you admit them to any Ordinance? As for the gracious Covenant here made with Adam, do we not grant that it extends to Infants? Yea, we say with Mr. Baxter, It was never abrogated.
Query 11. Is it not unquestionable, that the Covenant of Grace made to Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, comprehended Infants for Church-Members? And was it not the same with that Gen. 3. 15. But in some things clearlier opened? Were not both these the Covenant of Grace, and free Justification by Faith in the Redeemer? And did not the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed, comprehend Infants? And should not the same Promise, expressed more concisely, be expounded by the same expressed more fully?
Antiq. 11. Though it be unquestionable that the Covenant of Grace did extend to Infants, Gen. 3. 15. as well as in Abraham 's time, yet there was a vast difference in respect of Ceremonies. And whether the difference between the Baptists and Pedo-Baptists be not chiefly (if not only) about imposing Ceremonies upon Infants? And whether it be not evident, That what Ceremonies the Word of God did ever assign to Infants, we allow them, respecting the time of their duration, and only oppose your imposing Ceremonies upon Infants, for which you can assign no Authority in the Holy Scriptures; as is confessed by many Pedo-Baptists. See Mr. Baxter 's Cure, p. 7. And how are Infants justified by Faith in the Redeemer, seeing Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, which was never ordained to be preached to Infants?
Query 12. Whether (though the Hebrews had their Peculiarities) it be at all credible, that the Infants of that one small Country only should be so differently dealt with by God, from all the World else, even Enoch's, Noah's, Shem's, and all from Adam to the end of the World, that these Infants only should be Church-Members, and no others?
Antiq. 12. Whether this Query (as indeed almost all the rest) do not miss the true state of the case, seeing the Baptists may and do in a good sense acknowledge Infants to be related to the Church, viz. by Redemption, pious Dedication to God, &c. And seeing you grant the Hebrews had their Peculiarities, in what thing could it be but in external Rites and Ceremonies, especially concerning Infants; and show us, if you can, any one Nation under Heaven, from the beginning of the World to this day, to whom God gave any Law, to bring their Infants to any Rites, either Legal or Evangelical. And since Circumcision was forcibly put upon Infants, we ask whether you be able to prove, that any Persons whatsoever are to be forced to Baptism, which Augustine tells us, Infants do strive against with great crying; from whence he infers they have no Faith; Lib. de Peccat. Remis. c. 28.
Query 13. What can be more absurd, than to maintain a Transient Fast, (as Mr. T. hath done) making Infants Church-Members, without any Law, Promise, or Covenant Grant of God giving them Right? Whether a Gift that was never given, be not a contradiction? (V. p. 32, 35, 39, 44, 45, 151.) And if there was any such Promise, or Covenant-Grant of Infants Church-Membership, When, or where was it revoked?
Antiq. 13. Whether these things be truly suggested against Mr. T. and whether you ought not to have set down his Opinion in his own words? And whether he doth not mainly oppose himself against Mr. Baxter 's pretended Law for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism, whilst yet he denies not Infants a saving Promise, or the Promise of saving Propriety in God? Anti-pedobap. 3. Part. p. 33. And whether that Book was ever answered by Mr. Baxter, or ever will by any other?
Query 14. Were it only the Infants of the Hebrews, or of those that were at their absolute dispose, that were Church-Members? Were not the Infants of free Proselytes Church-Members too?
Antiq. 14. What need of this Query? Who doubts but that as many as became Jews by being proselyted to the Law, were circumcised according to the Law? But where do you find, that any, either Jews or Gentiles, when they were baptized, had any obligation to baptize their Children and Servants also? And then whether the Law and Gospel do not manifestly differ in this case? and whether this be not the great case depending between the Baptist and the Pedo-baptist?
Query 15. Was it not then the duty of all the Nations round about, that could have information of the Jewish Religion, to engage themselves and their Children to God by Circumcision?
And did not many of the People in Hester 's time become Jews, Hest. 8. 17. who yet were not under their Government? And is it not well known, that this was to be circumcised, they and their little Ones, (as the Proselytes were) and so to keep Law of Moses?
And whether the circumcised Servants of Israel, sold away to another Nation, and so separated from the Civil state of Israel, did eo nomine, cease to be Church-Members, though they forsook not God? And so of the Infants, if they were sold in Infancy? And so whether Infants might not be Church-Members, that were not of the Jews Common-Wealth?
Antiq. 15. Although other Nations had a liberty to become Jews, yet whether they were under such an Obligation, as that they must become Jews, or else not be saved, is worthy consideration? and whether the contrary will not be found true, when the case of Cornelius, Act. 10. and of the Gentiles, Rom. 2. are duly considered, whereas the one is accepted as fearing God and working Righteousness, as much as the Jew upon the account of his Jewish Worship? And the other Gentiles generally, who did by nature the things contained in the Law, were counted the Circumcision, so as to Judge the Jew, who only had the Circumcision in the Flesh: and not only so, but so as to be accepted of God, as far (at least) as the Righteousness of the Law would avail the Jew? And whether the Infants of these devout Gentiles were not free from any obligation to Circumcision, or any other external Ceremony? And whether there be not an evident difference between the Law and the Gospel in this, the one being fitted to the Jewish Nation only, so as to be capable of an orderly observation there only? And the Gospel fitted for the observation of all Nations equally; and consequently all Nations equally obliged to the full and orderly profession thereof? Also whether the Jews being sold to other Nations, did not only make them Captives, and that they still remained of the Jewish Nation? and then whether this part of the Query be not grounded on a gross mistake; For how are Jews of our Common-Wealth that now live in London?
Query 16. Were not the Israelites Children Members of the Universal Visible Church, as well as of the Congregation of Israel?
As he that is a Member of the City, is a Member of the Kingdom; and a part of a part, is a part of the whole; so was not every Member of the Jewish Church, also a Member of God's Universal Church?
Antiq. 16. Whether it be well said to call the Universal Church Visible, without some term to distinguish what Church you mean, as distinct from the Congregation of Israel? And whether the Universal Church did not contain many thousands such, as Job, Cornelius, &c. who were neither Jews by Nature nor Religion? And whether any Infants might be said to be Members of the Universal Church, who were not Members of the Jewish Church? And if not, how shall they be saved, seeing Christ is only the Savior of his Body finally?
Query 17. Was there ever any true Church, or Ecclesiastical Worshipping-Society appointed by God in all the World since the Fall, but the Church of Christ? Were not Infants therefore either Members of Christ's Church, or of no Church of God's Institution? Was not Moses Christ's Usher, and Moses 's Church and Christ's Church one according to God's Institution?
Antiq. 17. Whether this Query be not either captious, or else impertinent? For though it should be granted, that the Church of Christ was the same in some sense from the beginning, yet who knows not that the time and way for admission of the Members thereof to external Ceremonies, was not always the same? And who doubts but the Church was always of God's Institution? But doth it therefore follow, that the Ordinances Instituted therein, belong to Infants? Might they not have the Passover, as well as Circumcision in the Mosaical Church, and yet have neither the Lord's Supper nor Baptism in the Christian Church? you deny them the one, why may not we as well deny the other?
Query 18. Whether was Abraham made a Member of the Church by Circumcision, or circumcised because a Member of the Church? The like of Infants born in his House.
And how can the ceasing of Circumcision prove Infants Church-membership ceased, anymore than it can prove their Church-membership began with Circumcision; or that Women were not Church-Members, because not circumcised; or that all Israel was unchurched in the Wilderness, when they were uncircumcised for forty years?
Antiq. 18. Although Abraham was in the Church of God essentially by Faith, yet whether formally in that Church-state, which God was then about to settle, till circumcised, will not I suppose be hastily affirmed. And how can Infants be said to be in the Church, as Abraham then was, seeing they have no Faith as he had? And whether the Jewish Church-state did not cease de jure, when Circumcision so ceased? And then whether that state of Infant Church-membership did not also cease? And like as the ceasing of the Passover de jure, was the ceasing of Infants right to any such Ordinance: even so we ask why the ceasing of Circumcision de jure, is not as truly the cessation of Infants right to any such Ordinance? Certainly, if God's Word assign any Ordinances in lieu of the former, the place where 'tis written would have been known to this day.
Query 19. Whether the Blessing of Abraham consists not chiefly in this, That God promised to be a God in Covenant with him, and his Seed? And how are the believing Gentiles blessed with faithful Abraham, and Heirs of the same Promise, if their Infants are not also comprehended in the same Covenant?
Antiq. 19. Whether the Blessing of Abraham (if you understand it of Eternal Life) was not the blessing of the Fathers that went before him? And whether that Blessing did not belong to their Infants? And whether their Infants were Partakers with them in any Rites or Ceremonies of Instituted Worship? And if not, then, why may not the Infants of the Gentiles partake of the Blessing of Abraham, though not concerned in Rites or Ceremonies; or whether you think the Blessing of Abraham is consined to Ceremonies in respect of Infants? If so, show us what Ceremonies these were before Abraham? when, or at what Age they were dispensed? and what they are now? and at what Age Infants are to be brought to these Ceremonies? and what these Ceremonies are by name?
Query 20. Whether in that great Promise, Gen. 12. 3. Tribes, Kindreds, Families, do not most certainly comprehend Infants? As it was to such Families that the Promise was made before Christ, as to the Jewish Church? What warrant have we to understand Families or Tribes otherwise, when the same Promise is made to the Gentiles?
Antiq. 20. Whether you ought not to distinguish in this great Promise, the things which are Eternal, from the things that were but for a time? And then whether you can imagine, that all the temporal Blessings, Rites and Ceremonies, concerned any Nation, as it concerned the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh? But if by this Promise you understand it as the Apostle Paul doth, Gal. 3. 16. then we doubt not but all the Kindreds of the Earth are concerned in it; and then whether we do not sufficiently comprize the Gentiles therein? But how can Abraham 's Rites and Ceremonies be part of this Blessing to the Gentiles, which are abrogated long ago? And which now would render Christ unprofitable to us, if we should submit to them? Gal. 5. 2.
Query 21. Whether the second Commandment, Exod. 20. 5, 6. doth not contain a standing Promise, and discovery of God's Resolution concerning the Children of all that love him, whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom this Commandment belongs? Whether God meaneth not that his Retribution to Parents that love or hate him, shall extend to their Children as such, unless they interrupt it at Age by their own Acts? and if to their Children qua tales, then whether not to Infants?
Antiq. 21. Whoever doubted but that Infants are advantaged many ways, in the Blessings which God bestows on them that fear him? And accordingly greatly disadvantaged by the wickedness of their Parents, even so as to bear their Fathers Iniquities many times, as is evident in the overthrow of the World, the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c. yet whether the Blessing or Mercy of Eternal Life to Infants, depend upon the Parents love to God? And whether the damnation of Infants depends on the Wickedness of their Parents? And whether the Blessings of the second Commandment belong only to the Church as such? or whether all Men that follow the Rules of Morality, are not within the reach of these Blessings also? And then how should Infant Church-Membership and Baptism be the Blessings of the second Commandment, seeing this Law concerns all Men as Men, being part of the Moral Law, and is not proper to the Church only? or whether this Query will not make the whole World Church-Members, as well as a part, if they obey but the second Commandment?
Query 22. Whether any without the Church are secured of God's Mercy by Promise? And whether Mercy be not promised to Children of the Faithful as such? (See Psal. 102. 28. and 103. 17. Prov. 20. 7. Isa. 61. 8, 9. and 65. 23, &c. )
Antiq. 22. Whether God hath not said that his Ways are all equal? And whether this do not secure Infants of God's Mercy, though not baptized into the Visible Church? (for otherwise we say Infants are of the Redeemed-Church); when God saith, That the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father, and everyone shall bear his own Iniquity; whether this be not a Promise of Mercy to Infant-Children, and that in respect of Eternal Life? And whether this Query be not near a kin to that position of the Papists, when they say, Out of the Church there is no Salvation, Restraining that word Church, to Visible or Actual Professors only? And why must these five Quotations be applied to Infants only, since the things spoken of these Children, Seed, or Off-spring, are mostly such as are exclusive of Infants? nor are Blessings which include Infants, expressed to be their right to Practical Ordinances in the Church of Christ.
Query 23. Whether these Promises in the making of them were limited to a certain time when they were to cease? Or whether they have been since revoked?
Antiq. 23. Suppose these Promises yet remain, as we doubt not but they do, since they are not entailed upon the Jewish Nation, (at least the three first Quotations); How will this avail to the point in hand? Are all the Blessings of God to the Infant Off-spring of those that fear him, &c. bound up in your supposed Church-Membership and Baptism? And whether the Promises, Isa. 61. 8, 9. & 65. 23. were yet fulfilled to the Jews themselves? and if not, then how to their Infants, or to the Infants of the Gentiles?
Query 24. If it was on the Jews rejection of Christ, that they were broken off from being God's People; were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off? If not, then whether were not the Children of all believing Jews Church-Members in Infancy? Or otherwise, was it not somewhat else than Unbelief that brake them off?
Antiq. 24. Whether were those that cried, His Blood be upon us and our Children, thereby rejecting the great Messenger of the Covenant, justly broken off? And whether the renting of the Vail of the Temple, did not show the Abrogation of the Covenant, and the Legal Ministry? Whether was Saul broken off when he persecuted the Church, causing many to blaspheme? And how could the Jews lawfully be married to Christ, if Moses was not now removed, without being called an Adulteress? And then whether those thousands of Jews which believed were not first broken off from the Jewish Church (at least de jure ) before they could be incorporate with the Gospel-Church; and now to plead no longer upon this Issue, We are Abraham 's Children, we are free-born? &c. And now also to look upon Circumcision, and whatsoever was gain to them on a legal account, to be loss for Christ? Or is there any other way to be grafted into the Church of Christ but by Faith? Now therefore seeing the Jews were in no better case than the Gentiles, Circumcision being now nothing, even as Uncircumcision was nothing, but a new Creature? then, whether all the Infants of the Jews now ceased to be Members of any Visible Church, seeing their Parents had de jure lost their Membership?
Query 25. Were not the Infants of the Christian Jews, the day before their Conversion, Members of the Jewish Church, and of God's Universal Church, of which the Jews were but a part? and doth it not sound strangely, that such Infants as were the day before Members of the Jewish Church, and of God's Universal Church, should be put out of the Jewish and the whole Visible Church, by the Faith of their Parents, or without unbelief? Either it was a Mercy to be a Member of the Church, or not; if it was no Mercy, then will it not follow, that the unbelieving Jews lost nothing by being broken off? If it was a Mercy, how did the Christians Children forfeit it?
Antiq. 25. Whether we have not sufficiently shown, that the Infants of the Jews were now no Members of the Jewish Church, that being now abrogated, and the Gospel Church-state confirmed by the death of Christ, and the pouring out of the Holy Ghost? neither could two distinct Church-states stand together de jure. And then whether it be not a great mistake for the Querist to suppose the Jews were a part of God's Universal Church, when in truth they were no Church at all? and therefore whether the Wonder which he makes about the Jews Infants which believed, be not groundless? And yet whether the Infants of the believing Jews were not in a far better estate, than when their Parents were unbelievers, since the Curse they then had imprecated, was now removed? Also whether it was not a Mercy, that both Parents and Infants were set free from Circumcision? which whatever it was before, now ceased to be a Mercy to any Man, because it was an Obligation to the Yoke of Bondage, and rendered Christ unprofitable to such as should now receive it; and consequently a Release from that Church-membership according to the Law, was a great Mercy to Infants, who still retain Membership in the Invisible Church, as they did before Circumcision was in being?
Query 26. Whether it be credible, that he who came not to cast out Jews, but to bring in Gentiles, breaking down the Partition-wall, and making of two one Church, would have a Church of so different form and constitution, that the Church at Jerusalem should have Infant-Members, and the Church at Rome should have none? That the Jews Infants should be Members, and not Gentiles?
If the Jews were broken off by unbelief, should they not be graffed in again upon their Repentance of Faith? And so should not every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-Members? Or otherwise how would their grafting in, answer to their breaking off, should they be but in part graffed in?
Antiq. 26. Whether it be not a great mistake to say, That Christ came to make the Jew and Gentile one Church, otherwise than by taking away the Jewish Church, and making all things new, 2 Cor. 5. 17, &c. And whether this might not be done without settling any of the Practical Ordinances upon Infants as under the Law? If otherwise, why have you not shown us where Christ hath required Parents to get their Infants baptized? and where he forbad them to be brought to Imposition of Hands, the Table of the Lord? &c. If the denial of the first make our Infants no Members of the Church, doth not our denial of the other two, which do as generally pertain to Members of the Church, make yours none also? And if the Church at Jerusalem, Rome, &c. had any Infant Members therein, in the sense wherein you would have them Members, why do you not name someone Infant so made a Member, since you know it would suffice?
Whether if the Jews grafting in, must in all Points answer to their breaking off, their Infants must not come to other Ordinances as well as Baptism? Or will you say Infants cannot partake with their Parents of Salvation without Baptism? or whether were the Infants of the Jews exposed to damnation by their Parents unbelief? And if so, what is become of all their Infants ever since? were they broken off as the damned, when their Parents only sinned? God forbid.
Query 27. Was not Christ's Church Spiritual before his Incarnation (when it took in Infants) and gathered in a spiritual way? Was not the Visible Frame of the Jewish Church set up and erected by the Father of Spirits? and were not Spiritual Duties commanded then, upon Promises of Spiritual Blessings, even Life Eternal?
How will any prove that it was a blemish to the old Frame, that Infants were Members? What was the Church the worse for Infants Rights? If it be no blemish, why must it be done away?
Antiq. 27. Though it be true, that Christ's Church was always Spiritual in some measure, and his Services such also; yet whether it be not also true, that the Church under the Law of Moses was Carnal, in respect of the Spirituality of the Church under the Gospel? Does not the Apostle say, 2 Cor. 3. These two Ministrations differ as much as the Letter and Spirit differ; and that the Glory of the one had no Glory in respect of the Glory which excelleth? And is it not then rational, that the Churches concerned under these Ministrations respectively, should differ accordingly? And though it was no blemish to the Jewish Church, to have Infants Partakers of their Ordinances, which are called Carnal; yet whether it be not a more perfect state, when the Church do all know God, from the least to the greatest of them? And whether this be not the state of the Church under the Gospel, according to God's appointment? Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12, 13. And whether that which is less perfect ought not to vanish away, when that which is more perfect is come? In that he saith a new Covenant, he hath made the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away, Heb. 8. 13.
Query 28. In what regard was the new Frame better, supposing the casting out of Infants which were in the old? How doth Infants Relation detract from its Spirituality? Do not the Adult come in by the same kind of consent for themselves, as they make for their Infants? And do not the Adult blemish the Church with more carnal Sins than Infants? Would any Kingdom be more excellent, if all Infants were disfranchised? Does not Nature teach all Kingdoms on earth, to take them for Members, though but Infant-Members?
Antiq. 28. Whether it be necessary to say, Infants are cast out of that whereof they were never possessed, to wit, the use of Ordinances in the new Frame of the Church? Or how can Infants be said to be a Spiritual Seed? How are they living Stones, built up a Spiritual House, to offer Spiritual Sacrifices in a Gospel sense? Or how are your Infants a more Spiritual Seed than our Infants? And whether any other are by Christ's Order to partake in Gospel-Ordinances, than such as therein worship God Spiritually? Whether hence it be not clear, that the way of making Infants Church-Members, doth not detract from the spirituality of the new Frame of the Church? Also where hath God required the Adult to consent for their Infant Church-membership in this new Frame? And whether the comparison between an Earthly Kingdom and the Church of Christ be any way fitting, seeing Infants have as much need of the privilege of Human Laws, for the preservation of their Lives and Rights, as grown Persons? But how stand they in need of the Laws of the Church (and particularly Baptism) for the preservation of their Souls? And whether this Similitude may not be improved against you, seeing Infants, though Members of Kingdoms, yet are excused from all Duties personal whatsoever; and then why may they not be reputed of the Kingdom of God, and yet exempt from the Duties of his Kingdom? Or how come they to be concerned so much in that one Duty of Baptism, and no other whatsoever?
Query 29. Whether any Jew at Age was a Member of the old Church without professing Faith, (in the Articles then necessary to Salvation) Repentance, and Obedience? And wherein the supposed new Call and Frame doth in this differ from the old, save only that a more full and express Revelation of Christ requireth a more full express Faith? Is it not evident, that they were to profess consent to God's Covenant; which who so denied Asa, would be put to Death? And was not Circumcision a Covenanting Act? And did they not thereby profess to take God for their God? Or would God else have taken them for his People? And would not renouncing God have cut them off?
Antiq. 29. What is become now of your Infant Church-membership; if when grown up they cease to be Members upon that account? Were the Jews Infants twice made Members of their Church? Or is every renewing the Covenant, (as in the case of Asa ) making Men Members of the Church? But where did the Church ever admit one Member to her Communion by Baptism without Profession? Or where did she ever decree, that those who would not submit to her new Frame should be put to death? And whether in this the new Frame of the Church do not greatly differ from the old? And whether the Gospel-Church be not really newframed, 2 Cor. 5. 17. And why then do you call it a supposed new Frame only?
Query 30. Whether God's Law obligeth not Persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God, by consenting to God's Covenant for themselves and them? Whether it was not the Duty of the Israelites, to engage and devote their Children to God in Covenant? Whether this be not evident from the Penalty (even to be cut off from his People) annexed for the non-performance? (And whether this be not as much our Duty still?) Does not the Law of Nature bind us to give to everyone his own due? and are not Infants God's own due? Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God, by acknowledging his Right, with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own?
Antiq. 30. Where are Christian-Parents required to devote their Children by consenting to any Covenant for them (or in their stead) as the Jews were in Matters of Religion? What Penalty hath God imposed on them that devote not their Infants by sprinkling them as you do? And whether we do indeed omit the duty of devoting our Children to God in anything wherein the Law of God or Nature obligeth us, ( abating us only what all Men must be abated? ) And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-Relation, Obligation, or Right; or who opposes their being devoted to God in their capacity? And whether this be not a mere noise of words, as if all that do not as you do, do lay aside their Care and Duty towards Infants? And where is the Institution of your public Way? Have we not a more certain instituted way to devote them to God by Prayer, and to educate them in his Fear, as they are capable, than you have to cross or sprinkle them?
Query 31. Whether Anabaptists themselves, all of them that are truly pious, do not virtually (though not actually) devote their Children to God, and consent to their Covenant Relation, while they vehemently plead against it?
Antiq. 31. Whether you do not greatly wrong yourself, and those you call Anabaptists, in saying, They vehemently plead against devoting their Children to God? yea sure, they do it actually as far as God's Word requires. And can you believe, that there is no way to devote Children to God but in your way? How then did Adam, Enoch, Seth, Noah, &c. devote their Children to God? And it would do well also if you could show us how they consented to any Covenant for their Infants, more than we do? or prove, if you can, that you yourselves do consent to the Covenant of Grace for your Infants, more than we whom you call Anabaptists?
Does not Eusebius Pamphilius count Christianity as old as Adam? l. 1. c. 1. And doth not Tertullian say, Enoch justissimum non circumcisum nec Sabbatizantem, &c. Enoch an upright Man was translated by God, though he were not circumcised, neither yet did observe the Sabbath. — Ut Aeternitas candidatis, &c. To the end, that he who did aspire to Eternity might show us, that we might please God without the burden of Moses 's Law. And what Law (save the Law of Circumcision) did ever require Infants to be brought to Practical Ordinances in the Church of God?
Query 32. Is it not a desperate undertaking, and dare any adventure on it, to justify all the World before Christ's Incarnation, except the Jews, from the guilt of not dedicating their Children to God? And do not they that say there is no Law in this case, say there is no Transgression? And dare any in like manner undertake to justify, at the Bar of God, all the World since Christ's Incarnation from the guilt of Sin, in not dedicating their Children to Christ, and entering them into his Covenant as Members of his Church? Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect?
Antiq. 32. Whether this be not a very unwise Query; As if none of the Fathers did dedicate their Infants to God, unless they brought them to some Practical Ordinance in the Church, which is the only thing you do so complain of? And how, I pray you, did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dedicate their Female Infants to God, since we find no practical Ordinance for them in Infancy? or who goes about to justify the World, if they do not as the Law of God and Nature wills them to do for their Infants? And may we not well justify all Men, for not doing that which the Law of God never required, and also blame you for doing that which God never required at your hands?
Query 33. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledg to be a Visible Church-Member of Christ as Head of the Church, and of his Church as Visible? Is it not a benefit in itself (besides the Consequents) to be visibly united and related to Christ and his Body? Is not such a Relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to the Church, an honor? And how great is the misery of a contrary state?
And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit, then how were they that had it (when they came to Age, or their Parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulness for it? Will any say, That neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulness upon this account?
Antiq. 33. What benefit is it to bring Infants to that which God requires not of them? or whether it be any loss to them till God requires it? And seeing you make your Pedo-Rantism all in all, show us what benefit or privilege you had when sprinkled, more than the Infants of a pious Baptist? And what is that benefit, that all who are sprinkled by the Papists do receive, which you ratify for good Baptism? Or how are their Infants Church-members more than ours? And whether our Children, when grown up, have not a fairer way to the Purity of Christianity, in that they are not entangled with such Traditions? How dare you think that you can unite Infants to Christ and his Body, by doing that in his Name, which he never required? And how is that you count all Infants in a miserable state that are not sprinkled as yours are? for in nothing else can you pretend such advantage, which God knows proves your loss.
Query 34. Is it not certain that Infants are capable of this Benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the Aged? And is it not certain, that they are actually Members of all the Common Wealths in the World? (non perfect, sed imperfecte Membra) And does not Nature seem actually to have taught most People on Earth, to repute their Infants in the same Religious Society with themselves, as well as in the same Civil Society?
Antiq. 34. That Infants are capable of what God will give them is very true; And we therefore ask, whether Infants be not as capable of the Lord's Supper as Baptism, if the Lord will give it them? And as far as God's Will is, that Infants should be related to his Church, we doubt not of their capacity for it. And why is the order of Common-wealths so much insisted on in this case? Are we to fetch our Rules for dispensing Ordinances in the Church, from the Civil Policy of Nations? We desire you still to show us what the Law of Nature obligeth us to do for our Infants, which we do not? Is both the Law of God and Nature broken by all that bring not their Infants to be crossed or sprinkled as you do? Sure you can never make this good. And whether they abuse not the Law of Nature, who say, That it teacheth any Body to repute Infants to be of this or that Religion, seeing it's certain they are ignorant of all Religion. And if bare reputing Infants make them of the same Religion with their Parents, then Infants of Idolaters are Idolaters, which is absurd to imagine.
Query 35. Whether according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, God will not vouchsafe to be their God, and take them for his People, (that are in a natural, or Law-sense) willing to be his People, and take him for their God? And whether the Infants of Believing Parents are not thus willing? When Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in a natural sense, must not the Reason and Will of another be theirs in Law-sense; that is, if the Parents have the full dispose of them, and are warranted by the Law of Nature to choose for them, (for their good) till they come to the use of Reason themselves?
Whether in God's acceptance the Child doth not thus truly consent by the believing Parents, and doth not covenant with God, as a Child covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among Men, who by his Parents is made a Party in Contract, as in a Lease for his Life, or the Like?
And so granting the Relation of Church-membership, to be founded in a mutual Contract, Covenant or Consent betwixt God and us, yet must not this consent on our part differ according to the different age and capacity of Infants, and the Adult? Were not the Israelites Infants Church-Members, who consented not actually in their own Persons, but virtually, and reputatively?
Antiq. 35. We still require you to show where this Law is, that obligeth Christians to will the baptizing of their Infants, and that will warrant the baptizing of one Person by virtue of another's Will? And why may not a reputative Baptism serve as well as a reputative Covenant, since the Covenant is greater than Baptism? And whether this be an advised Speech, that the Parent hath the whole disposal of his Child in Matters of Religion? And who must judge what is good for his Infant in religious Matters? Must not God's Word do this? And show us what Command we have omitted, in not bringing our Infants to the Font as you do? Or do you think that your instance of a Lease, is sufficient to rectify Men's Consciences in Matters of this nature? And what if some of the Jews had failed to consent for their Children, were they therefore not in Covenant? Sure it was the Law, not the Parents consent, that regulated these Matters. Neither do we find that the Israelites were bound to repent and believe in the Person of the Child, and accordingly to make profession in his Name, when circumcised, as you do at the Font when you pretend to baptize your Infants, when yet you baptize them not, seeing Sprinkling cannot be truly called Baptism? And seeing that in a Lawsense the Parent may bring his Child with himself into slavery, will it not follow, from your way of reasoning, that a Parent may by an evil Covenant in Religion, bring his Infant into Hell? which is an absurdity that cannot be avoided, but by avoiding your Scriptureless reasonings.
Query 36. Whether it be not the Duty of Parents, by the Law of Nature, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their Children? the Infant being not sui Juris, but at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good, have not the Parents power to oblige their Children to any future duty or suffering, that is certainly for their own good? And so may they not enter them into Covenants accordingly? And is it not unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own Child? And doth it not deserve to be called the unthankful Error, that opposeth Children's Rights and Blessings?
Antiq. 36. Whether this Query be not the same in effect, which we have had again and again? And we would know what offered benefits the Infants of the Pedo-baptists meet with among the Papists, or yourselves either, which we receive not, merely for this cause of not doing to our Infants, as they and you are pleased to do? And whether it were not as reasonable for Parents to be baptized in the Child's stead, as to profess Faith and Repentance for him? And whether it be reasonable for a Parent to oblige his Infant to be of his Opinion and Practice, and to suffer for the same? And what Law of God requires this, and whether this may not be called the unreasonable Error?
Query 37. Whether it may be thought, or any dare maintain, that the Covenant of Grace giveth no conditional Right to any Infant in the World? Are they all excluded? And why? Are they worse than their Parents? If it give any Right to Infants conditionally, as it doth to Parents, must it not be on a condition to be performed by the Parents, or such as are so far entrusted?
Or can this be called a Covenant, for God only to say [ I will save all such Infants as I elect ] and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the World on any condition, nor give a title to any Person that can be known by themselves or others? Would it not be to confound the Decree of God with his Covenant? And what Right or Hope doth this give to Christians for their Children, more than to Pagans?
Antiq. 37. Whether it may be thought that God should require the conditions of the Covenant of Grace on them, which he knows can observe none at all? or whether it be his Will that the Grace of that Covenant should depend upon others observation of the Conditions for them? And whether this be not to put the Salvation of Infants out of his own hand, and into the hand of such as commonly neglect their own? And is not this to expose poor Infants to ruin, whose Parents generally are so far from keeping, that they are strangers to the Conditions of this Covenant?
And where are we taught to doubt the Salvation of the Infants of Pagans? or to conclude ours only are in a state of Salvation?
And is it not much more secure to hope the Salvation of Infants on the ground of Christ's dying for them, and rising again for their Justification, than upon any practical in Religion? And where did God ever since the beginning of the World, give any Ordinance to be necessary to the Salvation of any Infant in the World? Can you believe that the cutting off of the uncircumcised Man-child, was a cutting off from Salvation? how then were all the Infants saved which were born to the Israelites for forty years together, such of them, I mean, as died during that time? And why may not Infants as well be made righteous without anything done on their part, as they are made sinners without anything done on their part? Will not the second Adam 's Obedience salve the first Adam 's Disobedience? And may not poor Infants better plead in the Day of Judgment what Christ did for them, than what your God-fathers or Pro-parents did for them?
Query 38. Though all that are saved, are saved by the meritorious Righteousness of Christ by way of free Gift; yet whether the condition be not a suitable acceptance? And why may not a Parent accept a Donation for his Child, who hath no will to accept it for himself? Shall he be certainly shut out unto Damnation? Or shall he have that Gift absolutely, which is conditional to all others? Or is he not concerned in the Donation at all▪ And have not Infants guilt and misery from their Parents? And though Life and Pardon be by Christ only, yet is it not congruous, that the mere condition of Acceptance may be performed by the Parents, while they cannot accept for themselves?
Antiq. 38. Whether the meritoriousness of Christ is not as available to save Infants, without any Man's acceptance thereof for them? Or whether hath God tied the Salvation of any Person to the acceptance of another? And whether these be not unreasonable and unscriptural Conceits? And whether it be not for want of better grounds for Infant-Baptism, that you thus continually tautologize, varying little from that which you have said once and again?
Query 39. Whether it be no advantage for Children to be under an early engagement to God, and Jesus Christ? Whether to dedicate them betimes to God, doth not tend to secure God's right and Children's good, and to prevent their sin and misery; they being thus under a double Obligation, which they may be minded of betimes, and which may hold them more strongly to their Duty, and disadvantage the Tempter that would draw them off from God, &c?
Antiq. 39. Who is against as early an engagement of Children to God as can lawfully be made? And do not the Baptists engage their Children to God as soon as they can, by Prayer and Supplication whilst Infants; and then by the best education they are able when docible? But whether anything be done to purpose in your Judgment, (when yet all is done that can be done) unless it be rantized in your way? And whether it be not better to leave the Event of their accepting Baptism, to the wise dispose of God, than to do it per force in Infancy, without Precept from God? Also whether Infant-Baptism be such a means to propagate Religion as you suppose, may be seen, when you consider how in the darkness of Popery, Pedo-Baptism was more common than now, but Christianity much less? And name one if you can that was bettered in Christian Virtue by Pedo-Baptism? We think we can name one, and that yourself, which is worse for it; for had you not that to rest on, you would probably desire to put on Christ in Baptism? Whether it be not the fittest time to be buried with Christ in Baptism, when we are dead with him from the Rudiments of the World, or whether it be reasonable to bury Sinners therein till they be dead to sin? and whether it can profit any Person to be baptized, unless he have the answer of a good Conscience, by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, 1 Pet. 3. therein?
Query 40. Whether it can be proved, that ever there was one Age or Church (particular) on Earth since Adam, till about 200 years ago, that the Anabaptists rose, wherein Infants de facto were not Members of the Church?
Antiq. 40. Whether in your sense of making Infants Members of the Church de facto, it can be proved there was any one so made a Member from the beginning of the World till Abraham 's time? and whether John the Baptist, Christ, or any by his order, did receive Infants into the Church de facto?
And whether the Baptists do not better prove the Antiquity of their Faith and Practice in Baptism, than any Pedo-Baptist in the World? and doth not your Conscience tell you, that the Baptism of Men and Women, upon professing of Faith and Repentance, is beyond the reach of contradiction? whilst Mr. Baxter himself confesseth Infant-Baptism to be so difficult, that many of its Assertors, both Protestants and Papists, are forced to confess it cannot be proved by the Scriptures? See his Cure, p. 7. And seeing you and we are generally agreed, that our way both for Subject and manner is out of dispute, clear in the Scriptures; and you confess by the Pen of Mr. Baxter, that yours is very difficult; Is it not reason the difficult Way should give place to the clear and evident Way?
Query 41. Whether it can be proved, that ever there was any one Infant of true Church-Members, that was not rightfully a Church-Member himself from the Creation till Christ's days? Or from the Creation till this day; except the Anabaptists, who reject the benefit, whose case we will not presume to determine?
Antiq. 41. Whether this Query be not the same we had before? And whether what is said to it, may not also suffice to this?
Query 42. Seeing that Infants have been de facto Church-Members from the Creation to this day, (as far as any Records can lead us); Is it likely that the Lord, and Head, and all-sufficient Governor of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now, to be actually made up of such Subjects, as in regard of Age be disallowed, and suffered his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reasonable, modest, and lawful Undertaking, to go about now in the end of the World to make God a new-framed Church, as to the Age of the Subjects? And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame, as all the Saints of Heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabaptists did attempt an Alteration?
Antiq. 42. Whether it be not utterly untrue, that Infants were Members of the Church de facto, i. e. to be brought to partake of Ordinances Practical in the Church, save only from Abraham to the end of the Law? And whether all the Pedo-Baptists in the World have not hitherto been unable to show any one instance before. Abraham, or since the Law was abrogated, so much as one Infant admitted to any such Ordinance in the Church of God, according to what the Scriptures afford in this case? And whether it be not as modest in us to labor to restore Baptism to its pure use in the Church, both in respect of the Subject and Manner of administration thereof, as it was for the Protestants to do the like in respect of the Lord's Supper? Also whether your pretending the Authority of the Universal Church, be not the same figment with which the Papists deceived themselves and others? And how can you pretend the Universal Church, when the Primitive Church is on our side?
Query 43. Whether considering Christ's own Infant-membership, and his kind reception of Infants, and his chiding those that would have kept them off, and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation, (Mat. 23. 37.) and that they were broken off by unbelief, and consequently the Seed of Believers broken off from the Church Universal, and that whole Housholds are oft said to be baptized; and that Paul pronounceth Believers Children Holy, and that Christ (Mat. 28.) commandeth his Ministers, as much as in them lieth, to disciple all Nations, baptizing them? &c.
Antiq. 43. Whether Christ's Infant-Church-membership did not pertain to the Jewish Church only? Gal. 4. 4. born under the Law only, &c. And whether he was not about thirty years when he entered into our Profession? Heb. 3. 3. The Apostle and High Priest of our Profession Jesus Christ; See Luke 3. And then whether his Example be not flat against you?
Also whether Christ's only praying for Infants, and not baptizing them though brought to him, neither ordering any other to do it that we read of, do not show us that Infants may be under the Blessings of Christ without Baptism? And whether you may not tremble to presume to do more than he did, or appointed to be done? Are you wiser than he?
Also whether it lies within the power of any Minister to disciple an Infant; or show us one Infant with you, or any Pedo-Baptist ever made a Disciple? Or be pleased to come and make my Infants Disciples if you can, and I promise you I will assist you what I can in the baptizing them? and not only so, but do my best to employ you elsewhere, I speak it seriously. And whether this would not do more to decide the Controversy, than all the Books that are written by any of you? And if you cannot do this, how will Mat. 28. 19. warrant you to baptize Infants, since it's plain that discipling goes before baptizing? And how Disciples are to be made, we think it best to learn of Jesus, John 4. 3. How think you? Do you indeed believe, that any Persons being of a Nation, entitles them to Baptism? Why then who is not a fit Subject, seeing all Infants and Men too are of one Nation or another? And if there be other Qualifications necessary, whether to be taught be not one of the chief of them? and why do you say we take Infants away from Christ's Church, because we baptize them not; are they in it before baptized? If so, how do we take them away?
Query 44. In sum; Whether, 1. God would not have Parents devote their Children to him, and enter them according to their capacity in his Covenant? 2. Whether also he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him, and be not peculiarly their God, that such Children are Holy? 3. Whether they are not as certainly Members (according to an Infant capacity) of the Visible Church, as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven? 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their Salvation, than of those without? 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their Salvation certain, if they so die? 6. Whether the Investiture and Solemnization of their Covenant with Christ should not be made in Infancy? &c.
Antiq. 44. In sum, 1. Whether we do not as much to our Infants, (in our capacity) as Christ did to the Infants which were brought to him? and will not that satisfy, unless we go from him to follow you? And as to the business of the Covenant, let us hear what Mr. Baxter saith, More Reas. p. 86. All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace, which is not vain nor repealed by God, but as their abuse of the Grace of the Covenant may cast them out; for as a Covenant of entire Nature was made with all Mankind in Innocent Adam, so a Covenant of Grace was made with all Mankind in lapsed Adam, Gen. 3. 15. in the promised Seed; and renewed again with all Mankind in Noah, &c. And now we ask, Whether our Infants, according to this account of the Covenant of Grace, be not in it without Baptism, since they have not abused the Grace of the Covenant? And whether Baptism be not far more proper, when after they have corrupted themselves by sin, they come to Humiliation, and so to enter into this Covenant upon the terms of the Gospel?
Whether your Exposition of the Universal Church, upon Mat. 28. 19. do take in the Practice of the Apostles in pursuance of that Commission in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Exposition of the Baptists? And if not, then you either deny us to be of the Universal Church, or else you have not the Exposition of the Church Universal?
Query 45. How inconsiderable a part of the Universal Church do the Anabaptists hold communion with? And do they not unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth? (may we not think, that they rob Christ of more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom, or Church Universal? V. p. 305.)
Antiq. 25. Whether upon Luther 's revolt from the Pope, you were not upbraided with holding communion with an inconsiderable part of the Universal Church? Why do you take up the Papists Weapons? Did not that pious Man that succoured Athanasius in the time of the Arian Persecution, answer the Objection well, when he said, The cause of Truth is not therefore impaired, because I am alone; — Glory not therefore in Multitudes, for it is not the Multitude but the Cause that justifieth or condemneth? Also whether we may not conclude, That many are of the Universal Church, that do not communicate with us or yourselves? and yet whether your separation from many Pedo-Baptists will not justify our separation from you more clearly?
Query 46. Whether they can possibly hope, that ever the Church on Earth will unite upon their terms, of rejecting all their Infants from the Visible Church, and renouncing all our Infant-Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of Grace?
Antiq. 46. Whether this be not in effect to say, What will these feeble Jews do? And why may we not hope that this great Mistake of yours may vanish, as well as that great Mistake of Austin, and the generality of Men professing Christianity, who brought Infants also to the Lord's Table, and that for many hundreds of years together, and defended it by as plausible Reasons as any you have for baptizing them? Could God reform so great and general an Error, forced on by Learning and Authority of eminent Men; And shall we think this thing only too hard for God? Our small number shall not make us doubt, for we know God doth great things by small means. And what Baptismal Grace do we desire you to renounce, when we only desire you to mend an Error? Did the twelve Disciples, Acts 19. renounce any Baptismal Grace, when (according to the Interpretation of the Ancients) they were baptized again? Surely Reformation is no Error?
Query 47. And whether if they continue 〈◊〉 the Worlds end to separate from almost all the Churches, and unchurch them, their Employment will not be still to serve the great Enemy of Love and Concord, against the Lord of Love and Peace, and against the Prosperity of Faith and Godliness, and against the welfare of the Church and Souls, and to the scandal and hardening of the ungodly?
Antiq. 47. Whether the separation is not justly chargeable upon those which cause Divisions and Offences, by asserting and maintaining such Errors, as being admitted, the Way of God must be corrupted, or laid aside? And whether these are not the Men, that (at least unawares) serve the design of the great Enemy, and whether you are not guilty of the Fault wherewith you would charge us?
Query 48. Whether too many well-meaning, but weak Christians, are not disaffected to lawful and warrantable things in the Worship of God, merely because they see such as are ungodly use and own them? And whether if God should but let us have a King and other Rulers, that were against Infant-Baptism, and singing of Psalms, &c. and would make Laws for their own way, and impose it on others, so that the ungodly Multitude should fall in with them, it would not presently cure many that are now for such Opinions?
Antiq. 48. Whether many, but weak Christians, would hold to the Errot of Infant-sprinkling, but merely because J. B. and Mr. Baxter, &c. do so? And whether this be not as much weakness of the one hand, as the case put by you on the other? and whether both ought not to be amended? And whether the latter part of this Query doth not show, that to follow the greatest number, is not always the best way? And why then would you discourage us by our paucity, or small number? And whether such Considerations might not have discouraged the Apostles, seeing they were to alter the state of Religion in the Jewish Church, yea, throughout the whole World?
Query 49. Whether Mr. Baxter in the second and third part of that his second Defense of our Infants Rights, have not sufficiently detected the great and notorious untruths in Fact and History, wherewith Mr. H. D. Treatise of Baptism, and reply to Mr. Wills, is fully stuffed?
Antiq. 49. Whether Mr. D. and Mr. Tombs have not sufficiently detected Mr. Baxter 's Mistakes in many of his Works about Infant-Baptism, and particularly in Mr. Tombs his Felo de se? Also whether Mr. Wills 's Exceptions against Mr. D. are not well answered by Mr. D. in his Two-fold Defense of his Treatise of Baptism? And whether Mr. Baxter did ever yet, or ever will accept of Mr. Tombs his serious Challenge lately made in these words:
I challenge him to set down distinctly his Theses, concerning the Grace he means, the Covenant of Grace, what and whose it is, how it is Baptismal, what are the Rights and Benefits conferred to Infants by it, using words in their proper Sense and genuine Notions; and then without Questions, Exclamations, Flirts, Suppositions improved, set down his Scriptures, and form his Arguments substantially — and then I doubt not but learned and accurate Disputants will see his folly, &c. Postscript to Mr. D. second Reply, p. 267.
Query 50. Whether the Anabaptists Schism, or Separation from Communion with our Churches, be not worse yet than their simple Opinion? And whether it be not desirable, and possible, that some may be sound out, and Terms laid down, in which good and sober Men on both sides would agree and hold Communion?
Antiq. 50. Whether the Papists may not on fairer grounds Query thus with the Protestant, than you can do with us, especially when the Cause you manage against us is so doubtful in the Judgment of its best Friends, as we shown in our Preface; And here we shall further add what Mr. T. notes in his first Reply, p. 126. Mr. Chillingworth (saith he) in his Answer to Knot 's Charity Maintain'd, Part. 1. c. 3. Sect. 44. p. 152. saith, The Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is of that sort, of which the Scripture is silent. And the Oxford Divines, in their Reasons of the present Judgment of the University, &c. June 1. 1674. do (Sect. 4. p. 9.) say, That without the Consent, Judgment and Practice of the Universal Church, (which they distinguish from the Scriptures) they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof of the Baptizing Infants. Now this considered with what Dr. Taylor saith, Dissuasive from Popery, p. 118. That it is certain, there is no universal or prime Tradition for baptizing Infants. Then whether you may not more securely forbear baptizing your Infants, till endowed with Knowledge and Faith, than to do it without? And in the mean time retain your Opinion about their being in the Covenant of Grace, and let Christ's Ministers or yourselves pray for them after the Example of Christ. And whether this might not be a more likely way for a lasting Peace between the Baptists and the Pedo-baptists, and more consonant to the Scriptures, than the way propounded by you?
And seeing it hath come into your hearts to make some Overtures for Peace, we desire you would prosecute that needful Work. And whether it may not better be done by personal Conference in a friendly and Christian manner, than by writing Books one to another? And whether the Baptists have not offered this, and been rejected by you in such their tenders of friendship?
May these Queries and Anti-queries have an effectual tendency to the increase of Love and Christian-friendship; and if not, whether it had not been better they had been unwritten?
Christianismus Primitivus.
The Fifth TREATISE. THE FOURTH PRINCIPLE OF Christ's Doctrine VINDICATED.
HOw hard a thing it is to bring those sacred Truths of the Gospel, to their due use and estimation in the Church, which have been abused by the corruption of the Ages past, those cannot be ignorant, whose Lot it hath been to labor in that glorious undertaking, which yet is more particularly made manifest at this time, by a late Book entitled,