PHILADELPHIA: OR, XL. QUERIES Peaceably and inoffensively propounded For the Discovery of Truth in this Question, or Case of Conscience; Whether Persons Baptized (as themselves call Baptism) after a profession of Faith, may, or may not, lawfully, and with a good Conscience, hold Communion with such Churches, who judg themselves truly Baptized, though in Infancy, and before such a Profession?
Together with some few brief Touches about Infant, and after-Baptism.
By J. G. a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.—And I baptized also the boushold of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. 1 Cor. 1. 14, 16, 17.
London, Printed by J. M. for Henry Cripps, and Lodowick Lloyd, and are to be sold at their Shop in Popes-head Alley. 1653.
QUERIES ABOUT Lawfulness of Communion, with Churches deemed unbaptized; As also about Infant and after-Baptism.
I.
WHether is there any Precept, or Example in the Gosp [...]l, of any person, how duly soever baptized, who disclaimed Christian Communion, either in Church fellowship, or in any the Ordinances of the Gospel, with those, whom he judged true Beleevers, upon an account only of their not having been baptized, especially after such a manner, as he judged necessary for them to have been? Or in case there be neither precept, nor example found in the Scriptures to warrant such a practise, upon what ground are the Consciences of such men, who practise it, satisfied or emboldened, in their way? Or if it be replyed, that there were no Beleevers in the Apostles days, who were not baptized, and that truly, and consequently, that there was no occasion of scrupuling communion with any Beleever in these days; 1. How can this ever be proved, (viz. that there were no Beleevers unbaptized in the Apostles days,) the contrary being apparant (as may be touched hereafter?) 2. Be it granted, that there were no Beleevers unbaptized, or unduly baptized, in the Apostles days, upon what ground notwithstanding can the practise now queried, be justified, or maintained, unless the Practisers certainly know, and can satisfie themselves, that in case there had been such Beleevers in these times (I mean, who had been un-baptized, or unduly baptized) those duly Baptized would have declined such communion with them, as that specified; especially [Page 4] considering that positive actions (such is a declining, or withdrawing from, communion with the Saints in Church-fellowship) cannot be justified upon negative grounds, at least not further then in point of meer lawfulness, or indifferency, no nor thus far, in case of scandal; which is the case of those, who withdraw from Church-communion to the offence, both of that Church from which they withdraw, and of many others?
II.
Whether can it be proved from the Scriptures, or by any Argument, like, or meet, to satisfie the Conscience of any tender and considering Christian, that the Apostles or other Christians in their days, would have declined Church-communion with, or denyed Church-communion unto, such persons, whom they judged true Beleevers in Christ, and Partakers of like precious Faith with themselves, only because they had not been Baptized or dipped in water, after a profession of their beleeving; especially in case they had been baptized, and solemnly consecrated by washing with water, unto the service of Jesus Christ before, considering that the Apostle Paul expresly saith, that in Jesus Christ [i. e. under the Gospel, or profession of Christ in the world] neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Ʋncircumcision, BUT FAITH which worketh by love Gal▪ 5. 6.: And again; That Circumcision is nothing, nor Ʋncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Commandments of God 1 Cor. 7. 19.? meaning, that under the Gospel, and profession thereof, neither did the observation of any external Rite or Ceremony [Circumcision, by a synecdoche speciei, being put for all kind of external Rites, or Ceremonies] avail or contribute any thing towards the commending of any person unto God; nor yet the want of any such observation, discommend any man unto God, or prejudice his acceptation with him: but that which was all in all unto men, and which availed any thing, in, and under the Gospel, that which being sound in men, rendered them accepted and approved of God, and the want of it, disapproved, was such a kind of Faith [not such, or such, a kind of Ceremony, or such or such a kind of Baptism] which by the mediation or interveening of that heavenly affection of love, uttereth and expresseth it self in keeping the Commandments of God, [viz. so far as they are made known unto them, and as humane infirmity will well bear and admit.] Or [Page 5] is it to be beleeved, that either the Apostles, or other Christians taught by them, would have rejected those from their communion, who were weak in the Faith, and were not convinced of every thing that was in any degree necessary for them to know, and to do, only for want of such an external observance, of the lawfulness whereof they were unconvinced, and which, had they submitted unto it, would have availed them little or nothing?
III.
Whether can it be proved by any text, or passage of Scripture, either directly, or by any tolerable consequence, that Christian Churches were (in the Apostles days) constituted by Baptism, or that none were reputed members of Churches, or admitted into Christian Communion with those who were Baptized, but only such who were Baptized likewise; considering that that text Acts 2. 41. [commonly, and only, as far as I know, pretended for proof of such a thing] doth not so much as colour, much less cotton, with such a supposal, or conclusion; the tenor of the place being only this, Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized: and the same day there were added unto [them] about three thousand Souls? For, 1. It is not here said, that all they that gladly received the Word, were baptized; but indefinitely only, They that gladly received, &c. Now indefinite expressions in Scripture are not always equipollent to universals, but sometimes to partitives, or particulars. When the Apostle, speaking of Beleevers under the Old Testament, saith, that THEY stopped the mouths of Lions, quenched the violence of fire, &c. [Hebr. 11. 33, 34.] he doth not mean, that they all did either of these; nor indeed that many of them did either. See Mat. 27. 34. compared with vers. 48. (to omit an hundred instances more of like import.) Yea many times universal expressions themselves are to be understood with limitation and restraine. These things are sufficiently known to persons any thing conversant in the Scriptures. 2. Neither is it here said, nor is it a thing in it self much probable, that ONLY they who were baptized, were added unto them, [i. e. to the pre-ex [...]stent number of Disciples,] but only and simply that there were the number of three thousand added the same day. Within which number it is the probable opinion of some, that the children, and families, of those, who are said to have gladly received the Word, [Page 6] are comprehended; it being no ways likely, scarce possible, that 3000 men should distinctly hear the voyce of a man speaking: especially unless we shall suppose, that these 3000 stood nearest unto him that spake, and with the best advantage to hear, there being many thousands more present; which can hardly be the supposition of any considering man in the case in hand. Nor, 3. Is it said, or so much as intimated or hinted in the least, that any of the whole number of the three thousand who were added unto them, were added by means, or upon the account, of their being baptized, although this addition be not mentioned till after their baptizing. It is ten degrees more probable, that their beleeving, or discipleship, which according to the principles of those Brethren themselves with whom we now argue, were precedent to their baptizing, and not their being baptized, were the reason and ground of Luke's saying, they were added unto the Church, or former number of Disciples; considering, 1. That the original, main and principal foundation of the holy brotherhood amongst the Saints, and that which makes them fellow-members, or members one of another, is, not the Ceremony of their external Baptism, but their fellowship and communion in the divine Nature, and inward relation unto the same Christ by one and the same precious Faith. 2. That it cannot be demonstratively proved from the Scriptures, that those hundred and twenty Disciples [Act. 1. 15.] unto which it is here said that three thousand were added, were, or had been, all of them baptized, in as much as (as will presently appear) there were divers members of Churches in the Apostles days, who were unbaptized; no, nor can it any whit more be proved from Scripture, that the Apostles themselves mentioned Act. 1. 13. had been baptized, then that John the Baptist was baptized. 3. (And lastly,) That had the Church, or persons, unto whom these three thousand are said to have been added, been estimated by their having been baptized, (which must be supposed, if those who are added to them, are said to have been added upon the account of their being baptized,) their number must needs have far exceeded an hundred and twenty, considering the great numbers and vast multitudes of persons, that had been baptized by John, Mat. 3. 5, 6. compared with Mark 1. 5. Luk. 3. 7, 21. as also by Christ himself and his Disciples, Joh. 3. 22 26. Yea had the Church been estimated, or constituted, by Baptism, [Page 7] the Evangelist Luke, intending (questionless, Act. 4. 4.) to report the increase of the Church and progress of the Gospel, with as much advantage as truth would afford, had prevaricated with the cause, which he intended to promote, in reporting their number to have been about five thousand only; when as, upon the said supposition, and the tenor of the late premisses, he might with as much Truth have reported them about forty thousand, yea and many more. Howbeit many of them which heard the Word, BELEEVED: and the number of the men were about five thousand. In which passage, the increase of the Church, or addition unto the former Saints, is with much more pregnancy of intimation ascribed unto their beleeving, then in the other place it is unto their being baptized. Therefore both men and women, who are indeed tender of Conscience in things appertaining unto God, had need have a better foundation to bear them out in their practise of rending and tearing Churches [or, if this name will not pass, of rending and tearing holy Societies and fellowships of Saints] then any thing that can be so much as tolerably inferred from the Text now argued, Act. 2. 41.
IV.
Whether did not the Church of Christ at Rome in the Apostles days, and so also the Churches in Galatia, hold Church-communion with some, who were not baptized, considering, 1. That the Apostle to the former writeth thus: Know ye not, that SO MANY OF US as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Rom. 6. 3. and to the latter (after the same manner) thus: For AS MANY OF YOU as have been baptized into Christ. Gal. 3. 27. 2. That this particle, [...], as many as (used in both places) is, in such constructions as these, always partitive, distinguishing or dividing the entire number of persons spoken of, some from others, by the character or property specified, or at least supposeth a possibility of such a distinction. [...], as many as touched [the hem of his garment] were made whole, (Mat. 14. 36.) This clearly supposeth, either that there were some, or at least that there might be some, who did not thus touch. So again: They brought in all AS MANY AS they found, &c. Mat. 22. 10. So, AS MANY [i. e. as many men and women] as are of the works of the Law, are under the curse. Gal. 3. 10. See also Mark 3. 10. & [Page 8] 6. 11, 56. Luk. 4 40. Ioh. 1. 12. Act. 3. 24 (with others more of like tenor and import, almost without number.) Therefore is it not without controversie and dispute, that the Apostle saying to the Church at Rome, and to those in Galatia, As MANY OF You as have been baptized, &c. supposeth, either that there actually were, or at least that (for ought he knew to the contrary) there might be, sundry of their members, who had not been baptized? And if he had either known, or so much as by conjecture supposed, that all the members of these Churches had without exception been baptized, is it credible that he would have expressed himself thus unto them (respectively,) As MANY OF You As have been baptized, and not rather, You having all been baptized, or the like?
V.
Whether did not the Church at Corinth (in the Apostles days) entertain members, and hold communion with those, who had not been baptized; considering that he demandeth thus of this Church: Else what shall [or, what will] they do, which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead 1 Cor. 5. 29. V [...]. Cameron. Myroth. p. 229. & Ambross [...]m in locum. I know the place is much vexed with Interpreters and interpretations, but certain I am that the sence here supposed and argued upon, is the m [...]st grammatical, and best comporting with the propriety of he words and phrase [...].? Or doth not this imply, that there was a corrupt and superstitious practise on foot in this Church, to baptize one or other of the surviving kindred, or Friends, in the name of such persons (respectively) who dyed unbaptized, and that this Church thought and supposed, that such Baptism was available for good unto the deceased in such a case; which practise and opinion of theirs the Apostle here insisteth on as inconsistent with that most dangerous and pernicious Error of denying the Resurrection of the dead, which had now gotten head amongst them? And if there were such a practise as this in this Church, I mean to baptize some of the living members, in the name and stead of some that were dead, is it not a plain case that there were some of these members, who lived and dyed unbaptized?
VI.
Whether, when Paul, soon after his conversion, assayed to joyn himself to the Church and Disciples at Jerusalem (Act. 9. 26.) did this Church make any enquiry after his Baptism, as whether he had been baptized, or no, in order to his reception amongst them; or did they know that he had been baptized? Or did Barnabas, in [Page 9] giving satisfaction to the Apostles and Church concerning his meetness to be admitted into communion with them, so much as mention his being Baptized, but only declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the Name of Jesus? Acts 9. 27.
VII.
Whether, upon a supposal, that it cannot be proved from the Scriptures, that any unbaptized, or unduly baptized person, was ever admitted into Church-communion by Christians in the Apostles days, or that any duly baptized person held communion with a Church, the greatest part of whose members he deemed either unbaptized, or unduly Baptized, is such a defect of proof sufficient to justifie a withdrawing of communion by a person, who conceiveth himself duly baptized, from such a Church, the generality of whose members he supposeth are either not baptized, or unduly Baptized; considering that very many things may be matter of duty, and necessary to be done, which are not warranted for so much as lawful, by any example in the Scriptures of like action in all circumstances? It is the duty of Churches, and of every member respectively, to admit their women-members to the Lords Table; yet cannot this practice be warranted by any example recorded in the Scriptures. Yea in case at the time of this Sacramental Administration in a Church, all the men-members should occasionally be absent, except only the Administrator, and (it may be) a Deacon or two, and only the women-members present, there is little question to be made, but that the Administration ought to proceed notwithstanding, and the elements be administred unto this female Congregation, though there be no example of such an Administration as this in the Scriptures. There is no example in Scripture of any person worshiping the Holy Ghost: yet it is a great duty lying upon Christians to worship him. When David, and the men with him, entred into the House of God, and did eat the shew-bread 1 Sam. 21. 6, he had no Scripture-example to justifie his action; no more had the Disciples to justifie theirs, when they plucked the ears of Corn as they passed through the Fields on a Sabbath day: yet were both these actions lawful, and (to a degree) necessary. The reading of the Scriptures translated out of the [Page 10] Original Languages into English, Welch, Dutch, French, &c. is not only lawful, but necessary, in the Christian Churches in these Nations; yet is there no example extant in Scripture of any such practice in the primitive Times, no nor so much as of any Translation of the Scriptures at all. It were easie to add more instances of like consideration.
VIII.
Whether is an action or practice, suppose in matters relating to the service or worship of God, upon this account evicted to be unlawful, because it hath neither precept [I mean, no particular or express precept, and wherein the action or practice it self, with all the circumstances under which it becomes lawful, is named,] nor example, to warrant the lawfulness of it? Or hath the practice of admitting women to the Lords Table, any such, either precept, or example, to justifie it? Or in case a Minister shall preach to a Congregation consisting of young men only, and from Rev. 22. 3, or 4▪ &c. would such an act as this be unlawful? or is there any such precept, as that mentioned, or example in Scripture, for the warrant of it? Or when David, and those that were with him, went into the House of God, and, contrary to the letter of an Institution, eat the shew-bread, had they either such a precept, as that mentioned, or any example, to bear them out in such a practise? Or doth not our Saviour in the Gospel justifie that action of theirs notwithstanding? Or if the case, or law of necessity, or of peril, either of health, or life, be pleadable for the justification thereof; is not the same Law altogether as, yea & much more, pleadable, on the behalf of such persons, who being of tender, weak, and sickly constitutions, dare not tempt God, or expose themselves to the imminent hazard of health or life, by being doused in their apparel over head and ears in the water; especially considering that God hath testified from Heaven his dis-approbation of the practice, by suffering some to be grievously afflicted in their bodies, and some also to miscarry in life it self, by means (in all likelyhood) of the temptation? Or hath not God sufficiently and plainly enough declared his mind and pleasure in all such cases as this, in saying, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice Matt. 12. 7? Or if it be pleaded, that all danger of miscarrying in either kind, may be prevented, by chusing a warm room, and warm water, for the transacting of the Baptismal [Page 11] Dipping, is it not queryable hereupon, whether this be not to alter and change, to new-mold, shape, and transform the Ordinance of God, as men please, and this under a pretext of observing it? Or is there not as much difference between hot water, and cold, as is between a child, and a man?
IX.
Whether, when God hath by Faith purified the hearts of a people walking in a Christian Brotherhood and Fellowship together, hath he not sanctified them? And in case any person shall now despise, or decline their fellowship, as unholy, doth he not sin against that heavenly Admonition delivered by special Revelation unto Peter; What God hath cleansed [ [...], i. e. sanctified, or purified] call not thou [or, make not thou] common Acts 10. 15? Or can a man (lightly) call, or make, that common, which God hath sanctified, in a more opprobrious and contumelious way, then by fleeing from it, as polluted or unholy?
X.
Whether doth, or needs, a man contract any guilt of sin before God, by walking in such a society of men, who being otherwise confessedly Christian and holy, have only some practice amongst them in the judgment and conscience of this man not approvable, in case, 1. he shall at any time openly declare his dislike of this practice; and, 2. Be no ways constrained, or solicited to communicate in this practice? Or, when men may separate that which is precious from that which is vile, and enjoy it thus separated, and apart, without suffering any inconvenience by that which is vile, is it a point of wisdom in them to deprive themselves of the enjoyment of what is precious, because there is somewhat, which they suppose to be vile, near to it?
XI.
Whether may persons, who are weak in the Faith, be rejected by a Church from communion with them, in case they desire it, only because they question, or dissent from, the sence of the generality of this Church, in some one point of doubtful disputation? Or is not the practice of a man, who pretends to be strong in the Faith, in renouncing communion with a Church (or, which is the same, in rejecting a Church from his communion) which he judgeth weak in the Faith, only because they more generally dissent [Page 12] from him in a matter of doubtful disputation, a practice much more unchristian and unwarrantable, then the former? Or is not the practice, especially the necessity, of dipping, after Infant-ablution, or Infant-Baptism, a matter of doubtful disputation; unless (haply) by matters of doubtful disputation, we mean, not whatsoever is questioned, opposed, or denyed by any man, or any sort of men, being asserted and held by others; but only such things, which are controverted and disputed with good probability on either side, by men of gravity, worth, soberness of judgment, throughly versed and expert in the Scriptures? &c. And whether, in this sence or notion of matters of doubtful disputation, is the necessity of the said practice of after-Baptism so much as matter of doubtful disputation, the generality of Christians so qualified, as hath been expressed, unanimously agreeing in the non-necessity, yea and (which is somewhat more) in the irregularity of it?
XII.
Whether did the Lord Christ, pointing to any river, or water, say, Ʋpon this water will I build my Church? Or did he not, speaking either of himself, or of that great Truth, viz. that He was the Son of the living God, which Peter had confessed, say, Ʋpon this Rock will I build my Church Matt. 16. 18? Or is there the softest whisper, or gentlest breathing in the Scripture, of any such notion, or opinion, as this, that a true Church of Christ cannot be constituted, or made, no not of the truest and soundest Believers in the world, unless they have been baptized after their believing, how, or after what manner soever, they have been baptized before?
XIII.
Whether is an error, or mistake, about the adequate or appropriate subject of Baptism, of any worse consequence, or greater danger, then an error or mistake about Melchisedec's Father, as viz. in case a man should suppose him to have been Noah (which he must be, in case Melchisedec were the same Person with Sem) when as he was some other man? If so, how, or wherein doth the excess of the danger, or evil of the consequence appear? If not, whether is it Christian, or any ways becoming the Spirit of the Gospel, to abandon communion with such Churches, which (being interpreted) is to proclaim them polluted, hated and abhorred [Page 13] by Christ, only because a man supposeth them to lie under the guilt of such an error, or mistake?
XIV.
Whether may not the importune contest, or question, about the appropriate subject of Baptism, as it is stated by the Brethren of New Baptism, in opposition to the judgment and practice (almost) of the whole Christian World, justly be numbered amongst those questions, which the Apostle calls foolish, and unlearned, and adviseth both Timothy and Titus to avoyd, as being questions which ingender strife 2 Tim. 2. 23, and are unprofitable and vain Tit. 3. 9.; considering, 1. That the experience of many years in the Reformed Churches abroad, and of some years amongst our selves at home, hath abundantly taught and informed us, that the said question hath yielded little other fruit unto those that have set their hearts to it, yea and unto others also, but contention, strife, emulations, evil surmizings, distractions, confusions, alienations of mind and affections amongst Christian Brethren, evil speakings, vilifyings, revilings, needless and wastful expence of time, loss of many precious opportunities for matters of greatest consequence, unprofitable disturbings and turmoylings of weak Consciences, shatterings, scatterings, rendings, and teerings of such Churches, and Christian Societies, who, till this root of bitterness sprang up amongst them, walked in love, and with the light of Gods countenance shining on them, holding the unity of the Spirit in the band of peace, edifying one another in their most holy Faith, &c. 2. That the said Question, in the nature and direct tendency of it, leadeth unto very little that is considerable, or of much consequence for Christians to know; and that what is brought to light (of moment and consequence) by occasion of the ventilation of it, is nothing but what might arrive at the knowledg of Christians, in a more peaceable, and less troublesom way: And, 3. (and lastly) That those who are most confident that they have found the treasure of Truth, which the Question we speak of, seeketh after, are no ways, as far as any ways appeareth, or can be discerned, spiritually enriched by it, but rather impoverished (at least the generality of them) losing by degrees, that Christian sweetness, meekness, humility, love, patience, soberness of mind, fruitfulness of conversation, &c. which were observable in them before; as if their new Baptism [Page 14] had been into a new, or another Jesus, altogether unlike unto him, whom Paul preached?
XV.
Whether is any Member of a Christian Church, or Society, at any more liberty, or under any greater necessity, to excommunicate, cut off, or separate this Church, or all the members of it, from his communion, only upon his private conceit or perswasion, suppose according to truth, that they walk not in all things according to Gospel-rule, then this Church is to excommunicate him, upon a true and certain perswasion, that he walketh not in every thing according to the rule of the Gospel? Or if Churches either be at liberty, or under an obligation by way of duty, to excommunicate every of their members (respectively) because they judg them not to walk in all things according to the Gospel, are they not at liberty, or bound in duty and conscience, thus to cast out all their members one after another; considering, that not in some things only, but even in many things (as the Apostle James speaketh) we offend all? Or hath any single member of a Church any more liberty, or authority, to adjudg and determine without the Scriptures, upon what grounds or occasions, his departure from a Church is justifiable, then a Church hath to make Laws and Constitutions of her own for the ejecting of her members? Or is it any where a case adjudged in the Scriptures, that if a Church in any part of the world, suppose under the frozen Zone, shall not practice dipping after sprinkling, or other washing, in the Name of Jesus Christ, every member thereof stands bound in conscience, yea or is so much as at liberty, to reverse, or disoblige himself from, his solemn and sacred engagements to it?
XVI.
Whether did not Paul and Barnabas hold Christian Communion with those Christian Converts which they made at Antioch, Acts 13. 43, 48, 52. and with those also, which they made soon after in great numbers at Iconium, Acts 14. 1, 4? Or doth it any ways appear from the Scripture, that these Converts, during the continuance of Paul and Barnabas with them, yea or at any time after, were baptized? If not, is it any ways necessary that we should believe, or ought it to be any Article of our Faith to believe, that they were baptized? If it be not necessary, then we are at [Page 15] liberty to believe, that Paul and Barnabas did hold Christian Communion with unbaptized Christians; especially considering, that the tenor of the History diligently consulted, especially concerning those, who were converted to the Faith at Antioch, and the short abode of Paul and Barnabas with them after their Conversion, together with the troublesom oppositions which the Jews of the place made all the while against them, makes it probable in the highest, that they were not baptized, at least whilest these men continued with them?
XVII.
Whether, in case any member, one or more, of any Christian Church, or Society, which he judgeth faithful in the main, and willing and ready to walk up to their light, shall verily think and be perswaded, that he hath discovered some defect, or error in this Church, may such an one lawfully and with a good conscience give himself a discharge from all care & service otherwise due from him unto it, by renouncing the communion thereof upon such a pretence, or occasion; especially before, or until, he hath with all longsuffering and meekness, and with the best of his understanding, endevored the information of this Church in the Truth, and the rectifying the judgments of the members thereof; considering, that as in the natural body, so in the spiritual or Church-body, the members ought to have the same care one for another, and if one member suffereth, all the members to suffer with it 1 Cor. 12. 25, (as the Apostle speaketh,) and consequently no one member, being healthful and sound, ought to desert its fellow-members being sickly and weak, especially whilest there is yet any hope of their cure and healing?
XVIII.
Whether ought a company of true Believers, concerning whose lawful Church constitution there can no other thing with reason and truth be objected, to be vilified, or separated from, as a false Church, or no Church of Christ at all, only because, either, 1. They do not practice contrary to their judgment and conscience, such things, one, or more, which some men conceive it meet they should practice; Or, 2. because, either God hath not enlightened them to see every thing, which some other men see; or else because Satan hath not blinded them, so as to make them ignorant of such [Page 16] Truths, one, or more, whereof some others are ignorant, judging them to be Errors?
XIX.
Whether is it reasonable or Christian, that a company of true Believers, who have met together in the simplicity of their hearts in the fear of God, in the Name of Jesus Christ, mutually engaging themselves, as in the presence of God, to walk together in all the Ordinances of the Gospel, as far as they shall from time to time be revealed unto them, and walking accordingly, should be infamously stigmatized as no Church, no true Church of Christ, and consequently be esteemed but as a rabble rout of the world only pretending Churchship, and this by some one, or a few persons, only because they cannot see with their eyes, or practice that as necessary, the necessity whereof, after much and earnest prayer unto God, after much enquiry and search, and this with all diligence and impartialness, in order to their conviction and satisfaction, doth no ways to them appear?
XX.
Whether is it Christian, or meet, for any one person, man, or woman, to bid defiance unto an whole Church or fellowship of Saints being many, and who are otherwise sober, grave, and conscientiously faithful in all their walking, onely because they cannot with a good Conscience say Amen to every notion and conceit, which these persons themselves judg worthy of reverence and honour, and particularly, because they cannot, against the sence, Judgment and practise, as well of all Christian Antiquity, as of all the Reformed Churches (very few, if any, excepted) in the Christian world, thus spiritually court their private apprehensions about the time and manner of an external Administration; especially considering, that they neither have, nor can, either shew precept, example, or any competent ground otherwise, from the Scriptures, to commend these their apprehensions unto the conscience of any man? Or is there any precept, which injoyns baptizing, or dipping, in the name of Christ, after a baptizing in infancy into this name? Or is there any example in Scripture of any baptized after profession of Faith, who had been baptized, or who judged themselves, and were generally so judged by others, to have been baptized, before? If neither, is it not a clear case, that [Page 17] here is neither precept, nor example in Scripture, which reacheth home to the case, or which warranteth the practice, of the Children of after-Baptism amongst us? And as for any competent ground otherwise to justifie the practice, hath such a thing ever seen the light of the Sun hitherto?
XXI
Whether do not they, who magnifie the ceremony or external rite of Baptism to such an height, as to estimate Christianity by it, or to judg them no true or sound Christians, who are without it, stumble at the same stone of danger and peril of Soul, at which the Jews stumbled, when they practiced and urged Circumcision as necessary for Justification; to whom, upon this account, Paul testified; Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, [meaning, with an opinion of a necessity of your being circumcised for your Justification before God,] Christ shall profit you nothing Gal. 5. 2.? considering, 1. That Circumcision was an Ordinance of God, yea as great and solemn an Ordinance, as Baptism; and 2. That when Paul threatened those who so magnified it (as was said) with lofing their part and portion in Christ, it was as Lawful, though (haply) not so necessary (and yet in some cases it was necessary too) as Baptism it self; yea and the Apostle himself administred it, as well as he did Baptism, yea and pronounced it profitable, (rightly understood and practiced?) Rom. 3. 1. 2. Or might not the same threatening (I mean, of losing the great blessing of Justification and Salvation by Christ) have been with altogether as much truth and necessity, administred upon a like occasion and account, unto persons so opinionated of circumcision, as the Galathians were, even when, and whilst, the use and practice of it was every whit as necessary (or rather more necessary) as the use of Baptism now is?
XXII.
Whether is there any precept, or example in the Scriptures, of any person Baptized after many years profession of the Gospel, or after any considerable measure of assurance of the pardon of sin obtained, or at any other time, save at, or about, their first entrance upon a profession of Christ? Or is there any competent ground, either in Reason, or Religion, why either such a thing should have been practised by Christians in the Apostles days, or why it ought [Page 18] to be practised by any in these days; considering, 1. That it is uncomely, and contrary to the Law, which God hath established, both in Nature, and in Grace, to return or fall back from perfection to imperfection, from that which is more spiritual, to that which is more carnal; And, 2. That types and figures, which are not rememorative (as the Passover was, and the Lords Table now is) but either only significative, or obsignative (as Baptism is) should be used, after the substance of the things typified and figured by them, have been of a long time exhibited unto, received, and enjoyed by those, who use them; 3. That a profession of the Name and Faith of Christ by an holy and blameless conversation for many years together in the world, by a long continued course of mortification, self-denyal, fruitfulness in well doing, &c. is the truth and substance, the heart, life, and soul of that profession, which is made by being externally Baptized; 4. (And lastly) That that which is a duty at one time, in respect of such and such circumstances, may cease to be, or may not be, a duty at another time, when circumstances are changed, many instances whereof might be readily given?
XXIII.
Whether ought not the Law of Edification [1 Cor. 14. 26.] to over-rule all Laws and Precepts concerning spiritual and Church-administrations, as the Law of Salus Populi ought to umpire and over-rule all politique Laws and Constitutions, in their respective Executions? If so, ought not the Administration of Baptism to be rather appropriated unto Infants, then unto others, considering, 1. That God himself adjudged the Administration of the Ordinance of Circumcision (an Ordinance the same with Baptism, though not in the shape and form of the letter, yet in strength and substance of the Spirit, as evidently appeareth from Rom. 4. 11. well understood, and diligently compared with Mark 1. 4. Luk. 3. 3, &c.) unto Infants, to be most edifying in the Church of the Jews; otherwise it must be said that he ordered the Administration of it to the spiritual detriment and loss of those, to whom he gave it; And, 2. That there can no reason, nor colour of reason be given, why, or how, the Administration of Baptism unto Infants in Christian Churches, should not as well be more edifying unto these, then an after-Administration of it would be, [Page 19] as the like Administration of Circumcision was unto the Jews; 3. (And lastly) That whatsoever the wisdom of men may pretend u [...]de multi post Baptismum proficientes, & maxime qui Infantes vel pueri baptizati sunt, &c. Aug. de Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 14. and plead colourably and plausibly to the contrary, ought to give place to the determination and resolution of God himself? Be silent, O all flesh, before the Lord, Zech. 2. 13. The Lord is in his holy Temple; let all the Earth keep silence before him, Habak. 2. 20. although it be demonstrable enough, even by clear grounds and principles in reason, that to Baptize in Infancy, must needs be more edifying to the Church, then to transfer the Administration to maturity of years.
XXIV.
Whether is not the Baptizing of Children, by the Apostles and other Baptists appointed by them in their days, sufficiently signified and implyed in those passages (especially in conjunction with the known Law and Custom of circumcising children amongst the Jews) where they are recorded to have baptized housholds, or families, without exception of any person in any one of them? as Act. 16. 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. Act. 16. 15. &c. Or can there any arguments or conjectures be levyed from the Scriptures to prove the contrary, which will balance or hold weight against these; considering, 1. That it is at no hand probable, that God, who had made a Law against him, that should open or dig a pit in his field, and not cover it Exod. 21. 33 34, would, not only have left the precept and perpetual example of circumcising Infants by the Jews, as a pit uncovered for Believers, both Jews and Gentiles under the Gospel, to fall into, by baptizing their Children, without giving the least notice of the alteration of his mind in this behalf, but also have digged this pit yet broader, deeper, and wider, by causing the baptizing of several families to be recorded in the New Testament, without the least mention or intimation of the passing by children in the Administration; 2. That that which is commonly replyed to disable these passages as to the proof of Infant-Baptism, is extreamly weak, and no ways satisfactory; viz. that it is elsewhere said of whole housholds and families that they believed, which (say the Replyers) doth not imply, that children are here included, or that they believed, this (I say) is unsatisfactory; in as much as, 1. Children may in a sence (and this very frequent in the Scriptures) be said to believe, i. e. to be in the state and condition of [Page 20] Believers, in respect of the love and favor of God, in title to the Similia similium occupait nomina. Hur. Grot. in Act. 13 33. Multa offi [...] mantur simpliciter & formaliter, quae per equivalentiam seu comparationem tantum sunt intelligenda: Vid. [...]ai, 66. 3. 1 Tim. 5. 8 Matt. 19. 12 Rom. 11, 15, &c. Kingdom of Heaven, &c. yea and are by Christ himself (in these respects) expresly said to believe, Mat. 18. 6. And, 2. Were it granted, that children are in no sence capable of believing, and in this respect cannot be included, when it is said of whole houses, that they believed; yet are they as capable of being Baptized, or (as our Brethren will needs have it) of being dipped (yea in some respect more capable hereof) as men; and consequently can upon no tolerable account be thought to be excluded, when it is said of whole houses or families that they were dipped; as (for instance) because, when Johns Disciples said, And all men come unto him, [Joh. 3. 26.] Children must needs be excluded, and not contained in the word, [...], all men, in as much as they were in no capacity of coming; it doth not follow from hence, that therefore when the Apostle saith, that Christ by the grace of God tasted Death for all men, [Heb. 2. 9.] and so again, that it is appointed for men (meaning, all men) once to dye, [Heb. 9. 27.] Children must be here excluded also, and not be comprehended in the general term, all men; in as much as they are as well capable as men, of such a grace, as Christs dying for them imports, and so of dying themselves, though they are not capable of coming unto any man to be baptized: 3. Considering, that men ought not to contend with God, or to reject any part of his Counsel or Will, because it is only somewhat sparingly, and with some scantness of evidence, discovered in his Word, but to rest satisfied with that measure or degree of revelation of things, which he judgeth meet to vouchsafe unto them, until further light shall shine: 4. That they who are dissatisfied with that discovery, which learned Paedobaptists make unto them from the Scriptures, of the will and mind of God for the Baptizing of Infants, do readily embrace and entertain many other notions and opinions upon far weaker, and less lightsom grounds of conviction, as viz. the common Doctrines or Tenents concerning Original Sin, admission of women to the Lords Table, the observation of the Sabbath on the first day of the week (yea some of them on the last day,) the reception of the Soul into Heaven, and happiness, immediately upon death, (with many other things, which we shall not now mention,) not that I mention these with dislike of the common opinion [Page 21] about them all, but only to shew, that as the generality of the Jews rejected the true Messiah notwithstanding all the true and real Miracles which he wrought amongst them, and yet entertained false Messiahs one after another, with their counterfeit and lying miracles; so do the generality of Anti-Paedobaptists reject Infant-Baptism, notwithstanding the many real and substantial proofs, by which it is commended and confirmed unto them, in the mean time bowing down their Judgments and Consciences to such Doctrines, which have little but hay and stubble to support them. 5. (And lastly) That God doth expect, that men should dig for the treasure of Truth, and of his Counsel, even where it lies much deeper under-ground, then Infant-Baptism doth in several of those Texts of Scripture, which have been argued by learned men of that Judgment, in proof thereof; yea and hath reproved men for their unmanlike oscitancy, and neglect in this behalf? Peruse and consider diligently these Texts and Passages at your leasure (because it would be too long to argue them,) Mat. 12 3, 4, 5, 7. Mat. 23. 16, 17, 18, 19, &c. Mat. 22. 29, 31, 32, &c. Luk 24. 25, 26. Acts 7. 25, 26. (to omit others.)
XXV.
Whether is the practise of demanding, or submitting unto, a Baptismal dipping, after a solemn dedication unto the service of Jesus Christ by a baptismal sprinkling, or ablution, any where countenanced in the Scriptures, or enjoyned, either by particularity, or expressness of precept or example? If not, is not the practise of it traditional, and the product of humane discourse, as well, and as much, as the Baptizing of Infants? And do not they who practise it, presume every whit as much, or rather far more, upon their own judgments and understandings, in making Infant-Baptism to be a meer nullity or nothing, the Scripture no where giving any such sentence, nor any syllable, letter, or tittle of any such sentence, against it, as they who make it an Ordinance of God, or rather (to speak more properly) a meet and necessary administration of an Ordinance of God? considering, 1. That Baptism it self, i. e. the external act of Baptism, rightly so called, (whether it be dipping, washing, or sprinkling, is not material to the case now in hand, Infants being alike capable of them all) is by expressness of Scripture, an Ordinance, or appointment of God; And 2. That Infants [Page 22] (at least, of Beleevers) not onely, are no where excluded by God from part and fellowship in the Administration, but are in several places and passages more then overtured as the most proper and meet Subjects of it?
XXVI.
Whether, was not a dying the death of the uncircumcised Ezek. 28. 10. 31, 18. 32. 19. 21. under the Law, and so a being punished with the uncircumcised Jer. 9. 25. Ezek. 32 19. [...]1 Sam. 17. 26, 36., matter of threatning, and an intimation of anger and displeasure in God; importing, that the lives of uncircumcised persons in the world, were nothing so precious in his sighte, nor so tenderly watched over, nor so carefully protected and preserved by him, as the lives of those who were circumcised? yea did not the threatning of the uncircumcised man-child, that his soul should be cut off from his people, because he had broken Gods Covenant, (Gen. 17. 4.) plainly signifie, that children uncircumcised, were much more obnoxious unto the stroke of death from the hand of God, then they would have been, or need to have been, if circumcised? If then it be supposed, that Baptism is altogether as necessary, or of as high esteem with God, under the Gospel, as Circumcision was under the Law, can it reasonably be judged, or thought, that he is as tender and providentially watchful, over the lives of children or others, unbaptized, as he is over the lives of those who are baptized? And if so, do not they who neglect or refuse, the baptizing of their children, reject the counsel of God against their lives and preservations, depriving them of that Interest in the speciall Providence of God for their peace and safety, which they might, and ought to, intitle them unto by Baptizing them? And when children unbaptized are taken away by any sudden or strange hand of death, have not the Parents just cause to question, whether they were not accessary to their death, by leaving them amongst the unbaptized ones of the world?
XXVII.
Whether were not the children of Israel, notwithstanding the express and strict Institution and command of God for the circumcising of the Males amongst them on the eight day, blameless under their non-Circumcision for forty yeers together, upon the account of that bodily inconvenience and danger, whereunto Circumcision, during their journying and travel through the wilderness, would in the eye of Reason have exposed them? Or had they [Page 23] not sinned, by tempting the Providence of God, if under a pretence, or plea, of the commandment of God for their circumciseing, they had caused either themselves, or their children, to be circumcised, during such their travel, how long soever it had continued? If so, do not they sin by tempting the Providence of God who are Authors, either to themselves or others, of being dipped over head and eares in water, where, and when, and whilst, such dipping cannot, both according to the principles of Reason, the natural course and operation of second causes, yea, and frequent experience it self, but endanger either their healths, or lives, or both; yea though this be upon a pretext, or plea, that such dipping is the Institution, or command of God?
XXVIII.
Whether doth the requiring of Faith, or a profession of Faith to be made by men and women in order to their being Baptized, by any better consequence prove, that Infants without such Faith, or Profession of Faith, ought not to be baptized, then Pauls injunction, which he commended to the Thessalonians, viz. That if any would not work, neither should he eat 2 Thes. 3. 10., proveth, that neither ought children to eat, unless they work too, as well as men or women, who are healthfull and strong, and so capable of working? Or then this prohibition of God of old concerning the eating of the Paschal Lamb, No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof Exod. 12. 48., proveth, that his intent was, that no person of woman kind, whether yong, or old, though daughters of Abraham, and otherwise sanctified, should eat thereof?
XXIX.
Whether, if dipping, or a disposing, or conveying of the whole body under water, be of the essence and necessity of Baptism, are not they rather Se-Baptists, or Self-Baptisers, then Baptised (according to the order of Christ) by others, who themselves convey or dip under water their whole bodies, leaving onely their heads above the water to be bowed down, forced, or thrust under water, by the Baptizer? Or is there either vola or vestigium, little or much of such a practise as this to be found in the Scriptures, where they speak of Baptism? Or can he in any tolerable sence or construction be said to be the Architect, or builder of a Turret, or Steeple, who onely setteth the Weather-cock on the top of it, [Page 24] and not rather he, who buildeth the rest of the body and Fabrick hereof?
XXX.
Whether, is there any particular or express Institution of Baptism to be found in the Scriptures; I mean, any such Institution, as there is of Circumcision, and the Passover in the Old Testament, or of the Lords Supper in the New; or which prescribeth and determineth all circumstances essentiall unto Baptism, as all the other do prescribe and determine all circumstances essentially requisite to their administrations respectively? If not, do not they [...], make themselves wise above that which is written, & (constructively) obtrude upon the consciences of men an Institution of their own, in the Name of the Ordinance and Institution of God, who undertake to prescribe and determine, either particularity of subject, or manner of Administration, in Baptism?
XXXI.
Whether did not they amongst us, (or at least the generality, and far greater part of them) who have accepted and entred into the way of new-Baptism, and at present walk in it, receive that precious Faith from God, together with all those Graces or fruits of the Spirit, whereby they are, whatsoever they are in Christ, and towards God; did they not (I say) receive all this blessedness from God, under the dispensation of their Infant-Baptism? Or is there one of a thousand of those ingaged in this new way, who have added so much as the breadth of the least hair of their heads unto their former growth and stature in Christ, I do not say, by vertue or means of this their new Ingagement, but since, or after it? Or is there not a visible and manifest change for the worse in very many of them, and this (in all probability) occasioned by an overweening conceit, that by means of their new baptizing, they are more excellent then their Neighbours, and too holy and near unto God to suffer themselves to be numbred amongst the members of other Churches? Or do such things as these any way favour or strengthen the claim, which their way of Baptizing makes of being a Divine Ordinance, yea the onely true Baptism of God?
XXXII.
Whether, amongst men and women, whose consciences have at any time been surprized with a Religious conceit of a necessity of new Baptism, and have accordingly submitted to it, have not the most Christianly-meek and humble on the one hand, and the most Judicious and Learned on the other hand, upon a little experience of this way, grown cool, and very indifferent in their thoughts about it? yea and many of them repented of their surprizal and Vide Scultet. Annal. Anno 1521, & 1525, &c. weakness in this kind, as Johannes O [...]colampadius, Johannes Denkius, Johannes Gaster, men of great learning, worth, and humility, (with several others) about Luthers dayes; yea and some of like Character, of late amongst our selves, who might be named, if it were necessary or meet?
XXXIII.
Whether, because Baptism is termed the Baptism of Repentance [...], i. e. for, or towards, the remission of sins, (Mar, 1. 4.) doth it a whit more follow that children ought not to be Baptized, either because they cannot repent, or because they have no sins to be remitted unto them, then it doth, that children ought not to have been circumcised; considering that Circumcision, the nature of it, and counsell of God in it, considered, may as truly be called, the Circumcision of Repentance, for the remission of sins, as Baptism, The Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins; yea, the Apostle Paul himself giveth a definition of Circumcision, for substance and import of matter, the same with that of Baptism, when he calleth it, the seal of the righteousness of Faith, (Rom. 4. 11.) and however, Children are altogether as uncapable of Faith, as they are of Repentance; and have no more need of the righteousness of Faith, then they have of remission of sins, these being but one and the same thing?
XXXIV.
Whether, when the Apostle Peter speaketh thus to his new Converts, Acts 2. 38, 39. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: For the promise is to you, and to your children, &c. Doth he so much enjoyn or exhort them to Repent in order to their being baptized, as encourage them both unto the one duty, and the other, upon the account of [Page 26] the Promise relating both to them, and their children, and the certainty of its being fulfilled and made good unto them both, upon their Repentance, and submission unto Baptism, respectively? And if their title unto, and interest in, the Promise, be a ground or motive unto them [the Parents] to be baptized; is not the like title and interest, in the children, a ground and motive also why they should be baptized?
XXXV.
Whether doth God smell the assemblies [or, in the assemblies] of those, who judg themselves the onely Baptized persons under Heaven, with any such pleasure or delight, as he smelleth many the assemblies of those, who are called Unbaptized, by the other? Or are the Church-meetings of the former filled with the glory and presence of God at any such rate, or to any such degree, as many the holy assemblies of the latter are? Or are there any such manifestations of the Spirit, either in gifts, or in graces, in the tabernacles of the Baptized, as there are amongst those, who bear the reproach of Ʋnbaptized? Or are the powers of the world to come any wayes so busie, active and stirring in the Churches, which call themselves Baptized, as they are in many the congregations, which are cast out to the Gentiles, as unclean and Un-baptized? Or is not that good word of God, (the Scriptures,) as a sealed book in many the assemblies of the former, whereas even the deep things of God contained in it, are by the Holy Ghost revealed in many Churches of the latter? Or are such differences as these, of no authority, interest, or import, to umpire or decide the controversie depending between the two Baptisms?
XXXVI.
Whether are not children oft-times in Scripture comprehended under, or with, their Parents, men and women, &c. where they are not expresly mentioned, or named; and particularly Jos. 25. 26. 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2 See also Mat: 4: 4: & 12: 12: (besides many others.) even as Subjects are under the names of their Kings, and Families and Descents, under the names of their Heads? &c. Yea, are not both women and children to be understood, where men only are named? (See Mark 6. 44. Joh. 6. 10. compared with Mat. 14. 21.) If so, doth not this argument or plea against Infant-Baptism, halt right-down; In the Scriptures we find no mention of the Baptizing of Children, either by Christ, or his Apostles, [Page 27] or any others: therefore no children were Baptized by them? Indeed if we could here find no mention of the Baptizing either men, or women, then the non-finding any mention neither of children baptized, were an argument of some authority and credit to prove, that there was none of this capacity, or age, baptized.
XXXVII.
Whether, in case it could be proved (which yet hath not been proved, nor, I am full of belief, ever will be, the proofs lying much more strong and pregnant for it, then against it) that there were no children baptized during the Apostles days, doth it by any whit better consequence follow from hence, that therefore children ought not now to be (or might not then, as to point of simple lawfulness, have been) baptized, then from the non-circumcising of the Jewish children for forty years together (Jos. 5. 5.) viz, during the whole time of their journeying through the wilderness, it follows, that neither ought they to have been circumcised afterwards, especially considering, 1. That there may be many more, and more weighty, reasons (though possibly unknown unto us) why neither Christ, nor his Apostles, should baptize children in their days, though the lawfulness, yea and necessity of their baptizing, at other times, and in some cases, be supposed, then there was why the Israelites should omit the circumcising of their children for those forty years together, which were specified; And, 2. That the Apostle Paul saith, that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; [meaning, that baptizing, whether personally, or by commissioning or delegating others hereunto, was not only not the principal, but not any considerable end of his sending, but the publishing and preaching of the Gospel,] for if he was not sent to baptize [meaning, neither one age, nor one sex, or other,] neither could he be sent to baptize children; and if he was not sent to baptize, either one, or other, [in the sence declared,] neither was the Lord Christ himself, nor the rest of the Apostles sent about this work (in such a sence,) What marvel then is it, that Persons sent about matters incomparably greater and more weighty, should not be so throughly intent upon things of a secondary and lighter consequence, as to prosecute them to the uttermost of what they lawfully might, yea and in case of a lighter [Page 28] burthen upon their shoulder in those more important affairs, had been bound to do? Or are there not many cases, wherein a man may break a Law, [i. e. a standing Law, or a Law provided for ordinary cases] and yet be blameless? yea and some cases, wherein he may do it with commendation? See Mat. 12. 3, 4, 5. 2 Cor. 11. 17, 18, 21. 1 Joh. 3. 16.
XXXVIII.
Whether is not that principle, or humor, in the children of new Baptism, of making such sacred treasure hereof as generally they do, estimating Christianity it self, and acceptance with God, by it, counting all persons unclean and unholy, and not meet for Church-communion, who submit not unto it &c. thus making Gods Nothing, their All things; is not this humor (I say) the express character of such persons in all ages, who have unduly, and without cause, broken the bands of unity, love, and peace, wherein they had been sometimes bound up in a sweet bundle of Christianity with other Churches, to walk in some crooked and byway of particular choyce by themselves, to the offence, grief, and reproach of those Churches, from which, upon such an account, they rent themselves? Or did not Eunomius the Heretique, who maintained this Doctrine (by way of dissent from the Churches of Christ) That the Son of God is altogether unlike the Father, and the Holy Ghost unlike the Son, notwithstanding the groundlessness and erroneousness of it, yet attribute this high and sacred priviledg unto it, that whosoever believed it could not possibly perish, how wickedly soever he lived Eunomius—defendit hanc haeresin, dissimilem per omnia Pa [...]r [...] asse [...]ens Filium, & Filio Spiritum sanctum. Fertur etiam usque adeo fuisse bonis moribus inimicus, ut asseveraret, quod nihil cuique obesset quorumlibet perpetratio ac perseverantia peccator rum, si hujus, quae ab il o docebatur, fidei particeps effet. Aug. de Haeres. c. 54? Or did not the Donatists ascribe all Christian worth and excellency to their Sect and Opinions, denying that there was any true Church of Christ in all the World, but only amongst them, and despising all other Christians, but themselves, and yet giving entertainment to most vile and wicked men in their Communion Nam illi [Donatistae] dicebant universum orbem Christianum Ecclesiam non habere—Deinde, qui prae le omnes alios Christianos condemnabant, severitatem censurae in suos relaxaverant, & in suis coetibus homines impurissimos, ut Optato [...], Gildoniano [...], Primianosque patiebantur. P. Mar [...]y [...], Loc. Class. 4. c. 5. sect. 15., as if the giving of the right hand of fellowship unto them in their way, rendered men religious and holy, in the midst of the [Page 29] practice of all wickedness? Or did not Theophanes attribute so much to the use of Images in Religious Worship, that he censured Constantine the Emperor (by-named, Copronymus) as an Apostate from God, for opposing Images, and Idol-worship Theophanes Miscel. l. 21. c. ult, & Joseph Mede, Apostacy of latter times. p. 131? Or did not some Jewish Teachers labor to possess men with such an high opinion of their Tradition and practice of washing hands before meat, as that they ought to look upon him, who should neglect or not observe it, as one that lieth with an Harlot Ainsworth in Levit. 15. 12? Or did not the Author and Abettors of that hideous Doctrine, That God seeth no sin in persons justified, pronounce all those Traytors to the Blood of Christ, that held the contrary P. Gunter, Sermon of Justification, printed anno 1615. Preface to the Reader, p. 3.? Or did not the Monks, who (generally) were the compilers of the Histories of this Nation in former times, place so much of the very essence (as it were) of Religion, in reverencing Bishops and Monks of these times, that (as Daniel, a late English Historian observeth) they personated all their Princes, either Religious, or irreligious, as they humored, or offended, the Bishops rochet, and the Monks belly Smectymnuus Vindicat. p 8.? Or did not Theodore the Abbot, give this advice to a Monk, who (as himself informed the said Abbot) was threatened by the Devil, that he would never cease vexing and molesting him by temptations unto fornication, until he left worshiping the Image of the blessed Virgin; did not (I say) this Abbot give this advice to the Monk in his case, that it were better that he frequented all the stews in the City, then not to worship Christ and his Mother in an Image Mede, Apostacy of latter times, p. 140? Or do not all these instances (with many more that might be added unto them, of like consideration) plainly shew and prove, that to conceit and speak glorious things, of any private opinion, or by-practice, is an argument of very great probability (at least) that this, both opinion, and practice, are mens own, or from themselves, and not from God, or agreeable unto his Word? Or are there not several grounds, and these near at hand, very material and weighty, to strengthen this conjecture? yea and when the Apostle Peter saith, that those that are unlearned and unstable, pervert, or wrest, the Scriptures, to their own destruction, doth not this great danger or misery arise from hence, that they who do wrest the Scriptures, are inordinately conceited of, and confidently rest and build upon, such notions, sences, and opinions, [Page 30] which are engendered and begotten in their minds or consciences, by this Scripture-wresting?
XXXIX.
Whether, is not the Testimony of that worthy, zealous, and learned Martyr Mr John Philpot (recorded in a letter written by him to a freind of his, a prisoner in Newgate at the same time) worthy credit and beliefe, wherein he affirms, that Auxentius, an Arrian heretique, (with his adherents) was one of the first that denyed the Baptism of children, and next after him, Pelagius the heretique? Or can Augustin be suspected, at least by those who have any Competent knowledg of his unparallel'd candor and ingenuity, to speake any thing but the truth, when he saith that the Baptizing of Infants was a custom of the Christian Church in his days, Salubriter firmata, wholsomely ratified and confirmed De peccatonum meritis &c. lib. 3. c. 13.: in another place, That the universal Church of Christ always held, or retained the custom of Baptizing children even from the Apostles, and that it was not instituted by any Council; and that no Christian would say that children were impertinently, or in vain baptized Quod traditum cenet universitas Ecclesi [...]. Cum parvuli infantes baptizantur, nullus Christianorum dixerit eos inaniter baptizari. Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat, quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur, tamen veraciter continere possumus quid valeat in parvulis baptismi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis, quam prior populus accepit, &c. Aug. de Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. c. 23. (with much more to like purpose.) Or is not the testimony of Ierome worthy to be received, who affirmeth, that he (with the Orthodox Christians in his days) held one Baptism, which they affirmed ought to be administred in the same Sacramental words unto Infants, and those of riper years. Baptisma unum tenemus, quod iisdem sacramenti verbis in insantibus, quibus etiam in majoribus, asserimus esse celebrandum. Hieron. t. 4. Symboli explan. ad Dama [...]um.
XL.
Whether can it proved from the Scriptures, or by any argument whatsoever, that either Faith, or a profession, of Faith, is either the only, or the best ground, either divisim or conjunctim, whereon to build a Baptismal administration? Or whether did not the Apostles and those who baptized by their direction and order in their days, insist upon believing, and profession of believing, with men and [Page 31] women, who were willing, or desirous, to be baptized, onely for want of better, and of better assured grounds, whereon to proceed to the baptizing of such persons? Or did they insist upon either of these qualifications, in reference to the said Administration, simply and meerly, as, or because, they were such, or in respect of their positive and absolute nature, and not rather, in respect of their relative natures, or properties, viz. as they were significative, or declarative unto them [the Baptizers] and unto others, of the happy estate of those in whome they were found, as being persons in Grace and favour with God? Otherwise, how could the Lord Christ himself, having no such Faith, as that which the Apostles and their Baptists required (together with the profession of it) in those, whom they Baptized, be a meet or duly qualified subject of this Administration? Or will any man presume to say, that he was Baptized, either contrary unto, or besides, the rule, or mind of God, touching persons meet to be Baptized, especially when as himself renders this account why he submitted himself unto, and desired, Biptism, viz. that it became him to fulfil all RIGHTEOƲSNES Mat. 3. 15? And besides, is it not altogether irrational to imagine or think, that Faith should be required in order unto Baptism, simply for Faiths sake? or profession of Faith, meerly for this Professions sake? Or that God, or Christ, should enjoyn a requirement of them upon such a slender account as this? Or that they would ever have been nominated by them for qualifications unto Baptism in men and women, unless they had been so significative or declarative, as hath been said, I mean, of the gracious acceptance of such persons, in whom they are, with God? Yea or unless they had been declarative in this kind, upon the best terms, whereof persons newly converted from ways of sin unto God, are capable, there being no other way, or means, more effectual or proper for such persons to make known their standing, or being, in the favor of God, unto others, then by a profession of their believing in Jesus Christ; how ever it be most true, that even such declarations as these, many times deceive those, who accept of them, and trust to them, though without sin in those, who are so deceived? Now then, if Faith, and profession of Faith, qualifie for Baptism, meerly in respect of their relation, and as they report [Page 32] (with such credit as appertains to them, and is meet to be given them by men) the persons in whom they are, and from whom they proceed, to be in an estate of Grace and Favor with God, is it not as evident as the Sun at noon day, that all persons of mankind, who are, or may be known by more assured testimonies and declarations, then any mans own profession of his own Faith amounts unto, to be in the same, or like grace and favor with God, to be every whit as regularly, and as compleatly qualified for Baptism, as the greatest and loudest Professors of their Faith under Heaven? If so, are not Infants and Children before the commission of actual That Children are in favor with God, and so declared, see briefly Redemp. Redeemed, p. 330, 516, 517. sin, to whom God himself hath given a loud and express testimony from Heaven, that they are in grace and favor with him, and that to them, and such as they are, belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. are they not (I say) upon this account fully declared to be, not only or simply, regular and meet subjects of Baptism, but subjects in this kind of the highest, and most unquestionable qualifications?