JERUB-BAAL. BEING, A Three-penny Answer TO A Twelve-Penny Book. Written by William Assheton, D. D. and Rector of Beckenham in Kent. Which he is pleased to style a Conference with an ANABAPTIST. In which Answer you have his Presumptiions proved to be no Proofs for INFANT-BAPTISM. By E. P. A Preacher of the Gospel. Judges 6. 32. Let Baal pled against him, because one hath thrown down his Altar. The Baptism of John, whence was it, from Heaven or of Men? Mat. 21. 25. I beseech you regard not what this or that Man saith, but inquire all things of the Scriptures, saith, Crys. Hom. on 2. Cor. LONDON: Printed for the AUTHOR, and Sold by B. Harris, at the upper-end of Gracechurch-street, next Corn-hill. 1697. To the Impartial READER. MY friends and Country-men what was of old Predicted by the great Apostle of the Gentiles, is manifested in these our days, 2 Tim. 4. 4. That, men shall turn away their ears from the truth, and will be turned unto Fables. Amongst which, there is not a greater shrouded under the notion of Relgious worship: then that which most men will call Infant-baptism; tho' it hath not so much as the likeness of Christ's baptism. 1. Not the Subjects; for they are no other then penitent believers; 2. Not the Sign; for that is total Immersion, Burying, or overwhelming in Water. 3. Not the thing Signified; which is a Death to Sin; being buried with Christ, Rising again to Newness of Life: None of all this is in Infants-baptism. Reader, thou art here Presented with a Brief Reply to a Book written by a Worthy Dr. a Gentleman of parts and learning its pity he dropped upon such an undertaking that hath been so very unfortunate to all the managers of it that it never Gained them Credit; I Expected that some of our more able& Learned Guides:( the strings of whose Books, with Respect to Parts, and Learning, I am not worthy to untie, would in a few lines have dispatched an answer: but it not appearing; and the Dr in his Preface so earnestly Inviting to the work; put me upon the Attempt; And I hope my zeal for every gospel truth was the chief motive, together with the good of Souls. Was God so Jealous of his own worship that he severely punished the Voiolators of it, what will become of them that obey not the Gospel of God? if the conquest of an enemy against the command of his general, cost a Roman Gentleman his life, Chrys. in Rom. 1. Hom. 2. And the killing of a lion contrary to the law of the Kings hunting, cost a poor Persian his head: O then do not presume on the violation of Gods laws: And now that God would direct and Establish you in in all Gospel truths is the Prayer of thy Some brief Reflections on the Doctor's Preface. IN Pag. 1. He expresseth the deep Sense he hath of the great Duty that lies upon him, to Convince some Baptists in his Parish, of the Error of their not baptizing their Infants: For which neglect of theirs, he demands their Reason, &c. Upon which his Neighbour B. A. sends the Dr. a few Lines including this one Reason; Because Christ, the great Lawgiver to the Gospel-Church, never Commanded us to baptize them, &c. which is worded at large in the Dr's Preface; p. 2, 3, 4, 5. To which Letter, the Dr. returns a very Friendly and smooth Answer; and subscribes himself, His affectionate Pastor, &c. p. 6, 7. And then he tells us; He procured the Writings of our most Eminent Authors, that he may inform himself of the Controversies.— And yet, after all, he solemny Declares, That he is more Confirmed, that the Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be Retained in the Church, as most agreeable to the Institution of Christ, &c. Reply. First, Sir, How should it become a controversy? I confess there are some Differences in Religion; that there are some show of Reason to be Controverted: What, a controversy, and yet such an Agreement! For,( 1st.) Do not we agree, That the holy Scriptures are the only Rule of Faith, in Religious Worship.( 2.) You, and we, and all, except Quakers, or Papists, say, That what is not to be found in Scripture, is no part of Divine Worship.( 3) Both we and you agree, that there is no Precept, nor Example for Infant-baptism in all the Scriptures.( 4.) And, Sir; Do not we all agree, That there is both Precept and Example in Scripture for Believer's Baptism. Now what great Reason is 〈…〉 fants-baptism should be laid aside? And what little Reason is there it should be a controversy any longer. And yet the Dr. saith, for all this, That Bap●ising of young Children must be retained in the Church; with a Pretence too, of being most agreeable to Christ's Institution: O dreadful! when the contrary is so evident: But it's too Desperate an attack, to talk of laying that aside, which was the Basis on which the Antichristian Monarchy was Founded; from the pinnacle of whose proud Superstructure, the Man of Sin did cast his Imperial Glance, and say with nabuchadnezzar; Vah, Babylon, Babylon, Proprio te robore Servo. Preface. p. 8. The Dr. saith, He hath not been afraid of Objections, but hath given them their full Weight. Reply. I know no Objection he hath answered, as the Reader will observe, And I do not see he feared them, for he hath leaped over them as so many Straws. Yet p. 9. He hopes he hath competently proved that Infants, as well as adult persons, ought to be baptized &c. Then Sir, it seems adult persons ought to be baptized; but how hath he proved that Infants are? And the Second Part, the Dr. saith, shall be another distinct Treatise; that he will Publish in due time; to convince us that it is not necessary to Administer baptizing by Dipping— Which is all one as if he had said, it is not necessary to Administer baptizing by baptizing; for he knows Dipping is baptizing: And it cannot be without Dipping Mergo Immergo, Obbruo, Item, Tingo, &c. to Dip, Plunge, &c. what wonders the Dr. will do I know not: He Talks great, and promises to resolve all our Scruples, and Doubts: Which we wait for. JERUB-BAAL. BEING, A Three-penny Answer TO Dr. ASHTON's Conference, &c. page. 2. THE Doctor desires to know the Reason why we refuse to baptize our Infants. Answer. Because Christ, the great Law-giver to the Gospel-Church, hath not Commanded it, and we dare not change, or alter the Sacraments and Subjects of the New-Testament.— Therefore we count it no Neglect to omit that which never was enjoined as the Duty of Christians to Perform. Dr. p. 3. This then is your Reason? Reply. This is one, and a good one too: For to practise that under the notion of a Gospel-Ordinance, without a Gospel-Command, is daring Presumption: for it cannot be Childrens right in Infancy, there being no Command, or Authority for it in the Gospel; which were the Dr. capable of assigning such Authority, I should not so much admire his great Confidence: But there is no reason that we should accept of such frivolous Stuff, or inconsequent Non-sequiters as are commonly brought; That Infants were Circumcised, therefore to be baptized. Infants were in Covenant, and Holy, and capable of Salvation, and therefore to be baptized. This is but a pitiful begging the Question, so to Argue. Dr. p. 5. But will you then submit, aclowledge your Error, and baptize your Children? Reply. Yes, we will when the Dr. hath proved it our Duty by divine Authority: I do hereby faithfully promise him in behalf of the rest, I will become their Surety or Sponser for it: for I hope we are constionably tender of all known Duties. Dr. I am afraid you will not; for some mens Prejudices are so strong, they will not submit to the plainest Conviction: And therefore it is but trifling to call for Gospel-commands, when your Prejudices, or Fancies will not suffer you to observe them;— as I could more particularly convince you, if the Digression were not too large; in the neglecting the use of the Lord's-Prayer, and Singing of Psalms, both which are commanded in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. Reply. How now, Sir? What, are all your smooth words spent already?— What, are we judged Prejudiced Persons, and neglecters of Gospel Commands, all in a Breath, without the least Provocation? What, will not our Prejudices or Fancies admit us to embrace Truth? I fear you judge us out of a principle of your own breast!— Sure, our Rector's Intellects are not so clear, nor his Brains so well clarify'd, as to inspect our Hearts, and know us better than we ourselves: Prejudices strong! Prejudices and Fancies!— Because we cannot subscribe to his bare Ipse-dixits; nor take his Say so's, for Proofs.— Can the Dr. suppose that such disingenious Insinuations will credit his Cause? Moreover, it's an unjust Charge, to accuse us with neglect of the Lord's-Prayer, and Singing Psalms; for we are in the practise of them both, as they are enjoined in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. Now, how unfit our Rector is to be a Corrector of his dissenting parishioners, let the Reader judge? The Dr. spends the six and seventh pages about the Command we expect of him: He asks, Whether it's totidem verbis we expect? An express Command, which is necessary in all positive Worship, such as the Sacrament of Baptism is, which depends upon the Will of the great Legislator. In p. 8. The Dr. is pleased to say, It is unreasonable( not to say impertinent) for us to require an express Command for Infants-baptism. This he hopes to convince us of. Reply. I ask the Dr. What Ordinance there is, that hath it's Sanction from divine Authority, that is not expressly commanded under either Law or Gospel? Circumcision, Gen. 17. 12. Every Man-child on the eighth Day shall be circumcised— Their passover-Sacrifices, and carnal-Ordinances, Heb. 9. 4, 5.— 10. of which we cannot now speak particularly; and God made those the instances of his Justice, that made the least derogation therefrom, as may be abundantly shewed. Likewise, the Sacraments of the New-Testament, are expressly Recorded and enjoined.— Baptism; the Subjects penitent-Believers, Men and Women; Acts 8. 12.— 37. Acts 10. 48. Acts 16. 30. Acts 18. 8. Such that had not the prerequisite Qualifications, are repulsed, Mat. 3. though the Natural Seed of believing Abram.— And how expressly is the Lords-Supper laid down in Scripture, 1 Cor. 11. 20. with the antecedent Duty of Self-examination: What can be more express? But the Dr. saith, It is unreasonable for us to expect express Command in Scriture for Infant-baptism. Reply. It is so: First, because Infant-baptism is a more human Tradition. And Secondly, because it is contradictory to common Sense and Reason, that Rantism should be Baptism: and that a Babe should be Regenerated and Born again, at a Day Old, by acting of such a Tragedy. Dr. p. 8. And, first it may a little abate your Confidence, to tell you, ( saith he) that what you so warmly insist upon, hath ever been the practise of the greatest heretics in all Ages of the Church. Were I to Discourse with Scholars, who are capable to examine ancient Writings, I could then show you that this Appeal to the express words of Scripture, was the very Artifice of the first Four grand Heresies, condemned by the first Four general Councils. Reply. If we may not appeal to express Commands in Scripture for Gospel-Ordinances, I wonder for what we may expect express Commands? I am sorry to red such Expressions from so worthy a Protestant Doctor. He talks of our Symbolizing with heretics,— It is pity he should so symbolise with Father Simon the French Priest, Author of the Critical History of the Old-Testament; who makes it his Business to show the Insufficiency of the Scriptures to decide Controversies in Religion without Tradition. In his Preface he hath these Words, There is, without doubt, Ignorance, or Prepossession in the minds of Protestants, who pretend that the Scripture is clear of itself, without the help of Tradition. Then let me inquire into matter of Fact: And it's pity the Dr. would not be so kind as to have favoured us with a Citation of those ancient Writings,— But either he was sensible that none of us could examine them, tho' several of our Authors he mentions in his Book, were no way inferior to himself in Learning. Or else, 2dly, His Reason why he did not mention them, was because they would do his Cause no kindness: For I am satisfied, that the ancient and most approved Authors are directly against him. St. Augustine is of another mind in his 2d Book of Christian doctrine, cap. 9. In iis quae Apertae Scriptura posita, sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent sidem moresque vivendi,— In those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture, are found all those things which appertain to Faith, and the Rules of Living. This ancient Dr. was not of our Pastors mind: For to be plainly laid down, and expressed, are Synonimous Terms; but Infant-baptism is neither expressed, nor plainly laid down in Scripture; so that it doth not appertain either to Faith or Manners. St. Epiphanius, who lived about the end of Century 4. who Wrote a Catalogue of all the Heresies down to his Day, saith thus in that Catalogue: The Cause of their Heresies arises from these heretics not applying themselves to Scripture, with a Spirit of Piety: For it is a constant Principle, saith he, that all the saving Truths are found clearly in the Scripture. Now I conceive, to be found clearly, is expressly; and what can be more express against our Doctor's disingenious Suggestion, than this ancient Author? Again, Tertullian before him, in his Dispute against Hermogenes, cap. 22. Adoro Scripturae, &c. I adore the fullness of Scriptures; let Hermogenes demonstrate that it is Written; if it be not Written, let him fear that Woe which is pronounced against those that add, or lessen it. And in his Book of the Flesh of Christ, disputing with that heretic Apelles,— Non recipio quod extra Scripturam, &c. I do not allow of what thou sayest or urgest, that is not in Scripture. I wonder what kindess any ancient Authors would do our Doctor's Cause, for behold, they are generally express against him? How doth our Lord declare, that those ancient heretics, the saducees, did Err, in denying the Resurrection? They did not know the Scriptures: not for appealing to' um. Luke 10. 26. Christ asks the Lawyer, How readest thou?— Again, the Dr. saith, It was the practise of the greatest heretics in all Ages of the Church, to appeal to express Scripture.— I desire to know, what Church he means? But at present I am under a temptation to believe he means the Church of Rome; First, Because the heresy of the Nestorians was, in their Denying the Blessed Virgin to have been the Mother of God. p. 9. And the Macedonians said, It was no where Written, that the Holy-Ghost was God.— What our Doctor's Conceptions are in the case, I cannot divine; but I suppose he doth not believe the Virgin Mary to have been the Mother of the Holy-Ghost: I cannot find, that in his late Discourse on the Trinity, he hath such a Conception: Nor do I see how it should be believed, that a Creature should be the Mother of the great CREATOR, though She was the Mother of our Lord JESUS, according to the Flesh. And it's most evident, in the Clouds of apostasy, General Councils did Confirm more Heresies than they did Condemn; as Learned Panermitanus saith, Magis credendom laico si Scripturas adferat, quam Papae,& tota Consilia, si absque scriptures agant. i. e. We have more reason, to believe a Lay-man, if he brings Scripture, than the Pope, and the whole Council, if they talk without Scripture.— As indeed they did, when they gave Infants-baptism it's Sanction in the Milenetan Council, 402. It is our Will, that all who affirm young Children have everlasting Life, which are not baptized to the taking away of Original Sin, shall be anathematized. So in the 5th Council of Carthage, 416. We Will, that whosoever denieth, that little Children by Baptism, are not freed from Perdition, and eternally Saved, that they be accursed. This was first Confirmed by Pope Innocent, with Seventy Bishops. Our Will, and We Will, was the Original of Infants-Baptism; not GOD's Will. And if our Dr. be a Protestant then in the judgement of such a Church, and General Councils, he is a heretic also. And as to what the Doctor is pleased to say about the London-Conference, Apr. 3d. 1676. I have not perused that, as I can remember, tho' I have red one Dispute betwixt a now Bishop of the Church of Engl. and a Roman Gentleman, which I shall have occasion to mention hereafter. But how consistent the Account the Dr. gives of the Conference he mentions, the Reader may judge, p. 9. 10. of his Book, the Papists demanded, Where the Twenty-Eighth Article of our Church was to be red in Scripture, concerning the Lord's-Supper,— For as these Papists required express Scriptures to prove the Tweny-Eighth Article of our Church, concerning the Lord's-Supper, so you, in like manner, demand express Scripture for the Twenty-Seventh Article, concerning Baptism. And then he thinks, That the practise of these ancient heretics, and modern Papists, should abate our Confidence. Reply. What, Sir, will you make us believe that your Doctors could not assign an express Text of Scripture to prove the Lord's-Supper, because you cannot find one to prove Infant-Sprinkling? Surely you are mistaken: It must be the Subjects you admit to it, as Carnal, Unregenerate, Unbaptised Persons; or your Mode of taking it Kneeling, and so idolising that you know and believe is but Bread and Wine, &c. For any Boy would have told them the Lord's-Supper is expressly mentioned in 1 Cor. 11. 20. and elsewhere. Now Sir, if this tends no more to abate your Confidence in so bad a Cause, then ours in so Good a one, you may expect more in order to do it hereafter: but let this suffice at present; and know it's not Heretical to appeal to express Scripture for Confirmation of Gospel-Ordinances. Dr. p. 12. saith, We do something in the Worship of God without an express Command. Then he tells us, That we are accused to reject the Lord's Day: Is that so? Reply. Surely our affectionate Pastor should know that without taking the place of an Inquisitor; doth he not Feed us on that Day?— Well, we do as duly observe that Day as himself, from the Apostles Example. The Dr. tells us, p. 13. That there is no Command to keep it in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. But he asks, Why we do not keep the Seventh Day Sabbath. Reply. Because the great Law-giver to the Gospel Church hath not commanded us to keep it: They that were bound to keep the Seventh day Sabbath, were by the the same Law-giver bound to reverence the Sanctuary, and keep the Seventh Year Sabbath. Dr. p. 14. Asks, If the Apostles Example is a Rule to us? Reply. Yes; we are obliged to walk as we have them for an Example. What then? Then the Dr. casts a Scoff on the Primitive Christians, and saith; We must turn Levellers, and have all things common. Acts 2. 44, 45. Acts 4. 32. See here, saith he, a most plain and clear example for Community of Goods. But can you think yourselves obliged from this Example of the apostles, and primitive Believers, to Sell your Estates, and distribute them to others, as every Man hath need, doubtless your poor Neighbours would be very well contented to Share with you; but your rich Landlords, that expect the payment of your Rents, would not like such Proceedings. Reply. Lest the Doctor should be too fond of this Instance, and magnify his Mole-hill, to use his own Phrase, I shall, if possible, put a Check upon his conceited Confidence: I say, it would be exceeding commendable in the Churches of Christ on the like occasion, to follow this Primitive Example. First, The Con-Text shows that they were baptized Believers, and entire Lovers of one another; for they were of one Heart, and one Soul, Acts, 2. 41. Acts, 4. 32. And, Secondly; Ecclesiastical History declares, and so saith many of the Learned, That these Christians at Jerusalem, were very apprehensive of the near approach of a sore Persecution; so that they could not say what they Possessed was their own; and therefore they choose to Sell their Possessions, and make a Common Stock, rather than to be spoiled of their Substance by cruel Persecutors: So that now the Poor, that had owned the same Lord, Faith, and Baptism, may be partakers with them in their Creature-Comforts, not as Levellers, but as every one had need.— And truly it is not long since the baptized Churches of Christ were in the like State by cruel Persecutors here in England, that they could not say what they possessed was their own, but their Bodies and Goods were hawled away; to the Renown of our National Church be it spoken! But Thanks be to God,& His Majesty K. WILLIAM, 'tis otherwise now. But were our insulting Monitor so well acquainted with ancient Writings as he pretends, he might have found in Tertul. Apol. cap. 29. The Christians did so on the like occasion in his Days. And those that have red the Histories of the United Provinces, will find that the baptized Christians did so on the like occasion; that they dwelled in Colleges, and had a Stock, that the Poor might partake of, not as Levellers, but as every Man had need. But, alas! our Non-Resident Doctors, with their plurality of Benefits, cannot endure to hear of such a doctrine; for then they would for shane part with one to a poor Curate: O but this is far from them! for they had rather engross, and monopolise more; for they have a peculiar Faculty to be more affencted with Sheering than Feeding their Flock.— But I had not thus retorted, but fearing my Antagonist should be Wise in his own Conceit, in producing this Instance to baffle an Example for Gospel-Worship.— p. 15. the Dr. doth Reason Learnedly thus; If all Scripture-Examples do not oblige, as most plainly appears from this Instance, then 'tis impertinent to urge the apostles Example, as having the force of an express Command.— As if the Dr. should have said, If all Scripture-Examples do not oblige, then none do: And tho' an Example may not be looked upon with that force as an express Command; yet we will accept of Gospel-Example for Infants-baptism, would the Dr. be so kind as give it us: But we must not urge him, lest he counts us unreasonable. But after the Dr. hath spent two Pages, in tossing about the business of the Sabbath, or First-day being Commanded, with many the matter of Fact is justly Questionable; those Reports are supposed by the most Impartial, to be raised by malicious Papists; who spake as bad things of Calvin and Luther, and the Waldenses before them, which Slanders were received by some inveterate Protestants, as Mr. Ross and his Brother Edwards in his Gangrena, in their abominable Forgeries, two fresh to be forgotten. But were this true, I would fain know how this affects the Doctors dissenting parishioners, or any in his Parish. Now observe how disingeniously the Dr. insinuates; he frames a Parishoner to Answer We are now better enlightened, as appears from our Confession of Faith, &c. O then he appears in a Rapture of Joy, as tho' he had gained some olympic prise! I am glad ( saith he) you are so much reformed, as to Renounce those Munster-Delusions. Reply. And when the Doctor's passion of Joy is a little over, I shall ask him a Question or two: First, Sir, Do you not know that the Church of Christ, at Corinth, had embraced some wild Doctrines, as dispensing with Incest, and denying the Resurrection of the Dead? Would it, I Pray, have been proper, and ingenious, for the Pastor of the Ch. at Jerusalem, to acquaint his Flock, that he is glad they have laid aside or renounced the Corinth-delusions? Which indeed they had never owned or embraced. Secondly, But Sir, if I may be so bold, I would attempt a little to check your great Confidence: I have been informed, that many of the Ch. of Engl. have lately not only been Accused, but justly Condemned and Executed as Traitors against His Sacred Majesty and the Government: Is it so, or not? It's too Notorious to be denied. But ought this to be Returned, or Charged upon the Paedo-Baptists in the Parish of Beckenham? Surely, No; that is not fair. And besides, they were taught in the late Reign of K. J. that Loyalty was the best Religion; tho' I cannot find this amongst the Dr's Catalogue of Books:— But every thing( saith Wise Solomon) is beautiful in it's time.— But I suppose, it might have been as much Wisdom in the Dr. to have spared his Munster-Story; for he may know we can give them Argumentum Adhominum, Twenty for One, it need be: and these Arguments of our Dr. will hardly be Convincing. To proceed, the Dr. spends several Pages to balance Accounts with us: and to show that there is no need of Gospel-proof for Infant-baptism, because there is none for taking an Oath, and putting the Hand on the Book; which is a Legal or politic practise amongst Men, for ending of Strife, but is no part of Gospel-worship. So that it seems if there be no Gospel Law, or Command for Swearing, and handling the Book, there needs none for the great Ordinances of the Gospel: Strange Divinity! p. 23. But, saith the Dr. if you could prove this Civil and Legal Swearing; yet, pray, where are you Commanded to lay your Hand on the Book, and kiss the Book: Now he tells us we may well be Silent. Reply. I could Wish there were no occasion for Testimonial, or for Promiscary Oaths; which were men more faithful to each other, there would not, but I would fain know what all this tends to the Proof of Infants-Baptism; which is the Dr's Business. What! because we may promise Fidelity to each other, and may witness to Truth, in matters of controversy, if barely from human Authority in Civil matters, not Gospel-worship, then we may baptize our Infants, or rather Rantize them from that Authority. I take this to be our Dr's way of Reasoning: and if in our civil Customs we put our Hands on the Book and Kiss it, then we may Christen Infants with Gossips, and the Sign of the across. Then if a Lord-Mayor may be impowred by Civil Authority, ergo, So may a Lord-Bishop: Then Sir, I will grant your Infant-baptism is a human Custom, and that is, I think, as much as you contend for. Next, the Dr. requires an express Command for giving the Communion to Women, p. 26. when he knows 1 Cor. 11. 28. the Greek expresseth it not Consequentially, but let, or I require; and not I, but the Lord also, that a Man or a Woman do examine themselves, and so eat, &c. it being in the common Gender. Let the Dr. give us a Greek Text that saith, Let a Minister baptize an Infant, and we'll be satisfied, and baptize our Infants: But there is none. But p. 29. The Dr. tells us, there is no Command for it; and I shall here mention what the Learned Dr. own a Paedobaptist saith, in his Answer to Parker, in p. 345. he calls such trifling stuff, as our Dr. urgeth, a Capticious, Sophistical Tale, by which ten thousand things may be made lawful. And a little further he saith, That everything esteemed as part of Divine Worship, that is not Commanded, is Forbidden. So that I fairly conclude, That if Infant-baptism be esteemed part of Divine Worship, it is Forbidden; because the Dr. p. 29. and Paedo-baptists do frequently grant there is no Command in Scripture for it: And then, let Paedo-baptists consider, Jer. 32. 25. Deut. 18. 20. And yet, p. 33. The Dr. doubts not our Conviction, if we will lay aside our Ignorance and Prejudice,— and he earnestly begs us to lay them aside by all means, and then he promises to endeavour to Convince us, not by unwarrantable Suppositions, but by natural and necessary Consequences from the Scriptures, that it is not only Lawful, but also our Duty to baptize our Infants.— And because he designs to be as Brief as possible, he will only insist on this one Argument. Well Sir, we assure you we have no Prejudice against your Person, or Gospel-Truths. You are pleased to grant in your Preface, p. 7. that we have been kind and loving parishioners,— and whereas you fear our Ignorance, I assure you, if we are so, it is not voluntary; and I do hereby Promise you, to recede from either Prejudices or Ignorance, when discovered, and shall be thankful to you for such Convictions;— for I grant The Priest's lips should keep Knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his Mouth. Mal. 2. 7. 8. But if it appears they are departed out of the way, we shall choose rather to take St. Chrysostom's Counsel;— Not to regard what this or that Man saith, but inquire all things of the Scripture. Hom. 13. 2 Cor:— The Dr. lays down his Argument thus framed, All those who ought to be admitted visible Church-Members, ordinarily ought to be baptized. But some Infants ought to be admitted visible Church-Members; therefore some Infants ordinarily ought to be baptized. And the Dr. that he may remove our Ignorance, declares, That this Argument doth consist of two Premises, and a Conclusion; and the reason is, because all Hypothetical Sylogisms, have just so many parts,— except they be Lame. So that is all one as if he had declared to the World, That his Horse had got four Legs, however it came about. Well Sir, the mayor is freely granted: for we all agree, that Baptism is the initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church: and it was undoubtedly the Door of Admission, and entrance into the Visible Church; and that the right of Member-ship comes in by Baptism. But, p. 35. The Dr. saith, He shall conclude this Particular with an Argument of Mr. Baxter's, thus framed; If there be neither Precept, nor Example of admitting Church-Members in all the New-Testament but by Baptism, then all that are now admitted, ought to come in by Baptism: But there is neither Precept nor Example of admitting Church-members in all the New-Testament but by Baptism, therefore they ought to come in the same way now. Reply. I do not a little wonder the Dr. should spend two or three Pages to prove a mayor, which no body denies except a Quaker; and when all is done, it doth his Cause no Kindness at all, the minor being positively denied, if he means visible Church members of a Church of Christ. p. 36. I shall confute his minor by this Argument: If there be neither Precept, nor Example in all the New-Testament, for admitting Infants to Church-member-ship by Baptism, then they ought not to be so admitted now; but there is neither Precept nor Example in all the New-Testament, for admitting Infants to Church-member-ship by Baptism; therefore they ought not to be so admitted now. None can deny the mayor, except a Papist, as a popish Priest confessed to a Minister of the baptized Way: Saith he, There is indeed no Scripture for baptizing of Infants, but yet it ought to be done, because the Church hath Commanded it. This was a true, and ingenious confession. And my minor, That there is no such Precept nor Example for Infant's admission by Baptism, as the Dr. hath not assigned either: So it is the ingenious, and almost general Confession of Paedo-baptists, that there is neither Precept nor Example to be assigned in Scripture for it; but that the Scripture is totally Silent as to any such a practise. And since the Dr. hath given us One of Mr. Baxter's Arguments to prove his mayor, I shall return him Two of them to Confute his minor: 1. Mr. Baxter saith, If there can be no Example given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of Saving Faith, nor any Precept for so doing, then must not we baptize any without it: But the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the Consequence. I ask the Dr. whether he can challenge this Argument of Mr. Baxter's to be inconcludent of Truth? And if not, it expressly Confutes his Cause. 2. Again: If it be the appointed use of all Christian-Baptism, to solemnize our Marriage with Christ; or to seal and confirm our Union with him, then must we baptize none that profess not Justifying Faith: But the Antecedent and Consequent are both evident: Gal. 3. 26, 27, 28, 29. Thus Mr. Baxter. To which the Testimony of Dr. Hamond agrees, That all Men were instructed in the Fundamentals of Faith anciently before they were permitted to be baptized. So that Paedo-baptists are evidently Self-condemned in this their practise. But to proceed: Pag. 37. We being such an ignorant People, the Dr. Questions whether we understand the Terms of his Proposition, and do rightly apprehended what it is to be admitted a visible Church-member. And to Answer his Demand, he sets up a nameless Parishoner, which he makes to speak as he would have him, thus; He that knows what it is to be a Member of a Family, a Corporation, or any other Society; he who enjoys the privileges and Franchises of any Corporation, such a Person is properly a Member, &c. And then the Dr. supposeth we will grant, that he who hath a right and title to the Blessings and Promises of the Gospel, such a Person ought to be acknowledged as a Member of that Spiritual Society we call a Church. Then he mentions Mr. Oliff's Defence of Infants-baptism, who jumps in a judgement with him, and his strange Fit of Dictating. And in p. 39. He saith, I hope you Competently understand it: it's answered by his Parishoner; I think I do. Though for my part, as wise and understanding a Person as our Dr. is, I question whether he doth so understand it as to reconcile what he hath said with itself, so as to consist with his practise: For, First, The Members of a Family have right to the Provision of the House, as Meat and Drink, &c. can freely go to the Table, and partake thereof: But Infants, when they are made Members of that the Dr. calls a Church, they must neither Eat nor Drink at the Table. So that from hence here is a fair Inference against his practise he contends for. Secondly, He that is admitted a Member of a Corporation, takes his freedom by virtue of a Legal Charter, Ratified and Confirmed by the Sovereign's Power: But there is no Legal Charter by a Divine Law to admit Infants Members of a Gospel-Society, as hath been already shewed; there is no Clause for it in the great Charter of the Gospel. But to proceed, p. 39, 40. The D. saith, If no Infants ought to be admitted visible Church-members, then the reason must be either, First, Because Infants are not capable of being admitted visible Church-members; Or else, Secondly, Because it is no Benefit or Advantage to Infants so to be admitted, Or else, Thirdly, Because Christ the great Law-giver to the Gospel-Church hath declared he will not admit them. This is the mayor of his Argument: His affirmative is, That none of these Particulars can be affirmed. His conclusion is, Therefore some Infants ought to be admitted visible Church-members. Reply. And first I deny your mayor, or the consequence of your mayor, whether you please to call it: For I say there is another great Reason why Infants are not to be admitted Church-members by Baptism, and that because there is no Command nor Example for it, as hath been fully shewed before: There is no Precept nor President for it in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. 1. I Deny that Infants are capable of being admitted visible Church-members of a Gospel-Church of Christ. 2. I Deny that it's any Benefit or Advantage to Infants, as such, to be admitted Church-members. 3. I say, That Christ the great Law-giver to the Gospel-Church hath not declared he will not admit of the Infants of Jews, Turks, or Pagans.— I demand whether our Dr. would therefore baptize them? I suppose he would not: Yet our Lord hath not said, Ye shall not. Dr. p. 41. Demands, Whether we can pretend that Infants are not capable to be admitted visible Church-members. Reply. They are not capable in their Infant state. Dr. I pray answer me this short Question, Were not Infants Members of the Jewish Church? Reply. That Children were Members of the Jewish Church is granted: And what then? Dr. Why, Then are they not likewise capable to be admitted Members of the Christian Church? Reply. No by no means: Because by reason of the tenderness of Age, they cannot Repent nor Believe; which are the antecedent Qualifications: Not as the Dr. would persuade us, p. 45. That Service and Obedience vowed and promised on man's part, will serve turn; but there must be visible& actual Faith, and Repentance, or there is no admission to Gospel-Church-membership: And moreover, it is evident, that without Faith, it's impossible to please God, in any Gospel-Service. But behold! none of these Qualifications of Repentance, Faith, Self-Examination, Self-denial, &c. was required of persons, to qualify them for that Fleshly Rite of Circumcision: And this in short may sufficiently confute his Consequence, That because Infants were Members of the Jewish Church, and were capable of having Carnal-Ordinances imposed on them, therefore they are capable of Gospel-Church-membership, and to partake of Spiritual Ordinance without the least degree of Spiritual Understanding. But p. 44. 45, 46. The Dr. is pleased to enter into a strange Fit of Dictating, he saith, Did we either consider the nature of Church-membership, or the different Capacities of Church-members, we would not talk at this confident rate. p. 45. He saith, he must remind us, that there are two sorts of Church-members under the Gospel, as well as under the Law. And in the same page. he saith, It must be granted by him, that there are several conditions of Church-membership, wholly inconsistent with this Infant state. Reply. Sir, I thought I had discussed this point before, and had made it appear that we are not so Ignorant of the true notion of Church-membership as you suppose; for according to your 19th Article, We believe the visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of faithful Men; in the common Gender, Men and Women; in the which the pure Word of GOD is Preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's Ordinance in all those things that are requisite, and necessary to Salvation. So that, Sir, I believe a Gospel-Church-member to be a Faithful Man or Woman, that hath put on Christ by Baptism, and walks according to that Sacred Profession, in Holiness and Newness of Life. Pag. 46. 47. The Dr. saith, There are Primarily, and Principal Church-members, adult Persons, Men and Women, that are capable to receive the Word gladly, Acts, 2. Such as the Samaritans, and the Eunuch, Acts, 8. and the Jaylor, Acts, 16. That they did first Believe, Repent, and then by Baptism, were admitted Church-members. Such Passages as these are only to be applied to the Adult Persons, Men and Women, of Capacity and Understanding, but cannot in the least concern Infants. Thus far the Doctor. Reply. And these are all that either your 19th Article mentions, or the New-Testament; a Church is a Congregation of Faithful Men, &c. and I am sure there are no other degrees of Church-members spoken of in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus: Now how he makes up his two Sorts, p. 45. or two Species, p. 50. of Church-members I know no other Sorts, or species, but Believing Men, and believing Women: Here is two Sects. But p. 46. the Dr. saith, There are a more imperfect sort of Church-members; such are Infants, as also Adult persons, that are born Deaf, and Dumb, and are uncapable of Instructions; all these are only passive Church-members. Reply. The Dr. might have multiplied his Sorts and Sizes of Church-members; as the illegitimate Bastards, and natural Idiots, born Fools, voided of Reason; which are all Baptised-members on their accounts: For all is Fish as comes to the Net: But I would fain know, What way the Dr. will take to make us believe what he saith is true? Hath he no demonstrations but his bare Ipsedixits? or only our Ignorance, or Prejudice that obstructs our receiving it on his bare Word? But Sine Authoritate Scripturarum Garrulitias non habet fidem.— Without the Authority of the Scripture pratleing gains no Credit. We deny that Infants are in any sense capable of Gospel-church-member-ship. p. 47. The Dr. saith, Those Texts, that speak of Repentance and Faith, to qualify for Baptism, are to be applied to the Adult, not to Infants, that are not capable of them: But, saith he, such mis-application is a grand Fundamental mistake of your Party, and for Conviction, he must desire us to consider, that the meaning of such indifinite Expressions is to be judged of from the Nature and Capacity of those Persons, to whom they are spoken: It's an Apostolical Command, saith the Dr. that if any Man would not Work, Neither should he Eat. 2. Thes. 3. 10. Reply. Here the Dr. saith well, That all those Texts that speak of Faith and Repentance, to qualify for Baptism, are only applicable to the Adult: It's very true, Sir, and so are all the Texts that speak of Baptism and Church-member-ship; So that there is neither Repentance, Faith, nor Baptism, required of Infants, Fools Bastards, Deaf &c. in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. But to return what the Dr. charges, on himself, I fear it's not a mistake, but a wilful Error in the Pedobaptists; in supporting their more human Tradition by the mis-application of those Sacred Oracles. And Alas! when Men have strained their Wits, and Racked their Brains to draw Consequences from Scriptures for Infants Baptism; they are no more Natural than for a Papist to argue thus, Mat. 16. 19. Christ gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; therefore the Pope may sell as many Pardons for Money, and Damn and Save as many Souls as he pleases, being Peter's Successor. But, to proceed, p. 48. the Dr. supposes that some Brain-sick Enthusiast should thus argue from 2. Thes. 3. 10. Infants cannot Work, therefore they must not Eat, Old, Impotent, and Bed-rid Persons cannot Work, therefore they must Starve. This doth only forbid the relief of Idle Lubburs and Lazy Drones, who can Work, but will not; but it doth not prohibit relief of Children, or such Weak and Aged as cannot Work.— Now, saith the Dr. you have answered yourself, and saith he, in like manner it is apparent that Faith, Repentance, and Obedience, are only required of Adult Persons who are able to perform them: Not Infants, who are not capable of them. Reply. I think that the Dr. hath in a few words answered all his own Pretences, and given away his Cause; for, Behold there is nothing more evident than that Baptism is a work of Obedience; an active Subjecting to the Command. I shall by this one Argument, return upon the Dr. the proper Conclusion from his Concession. If Infants are not capable of Obedience, then Infants ought not to be baptized; but the Dr. saith, Infants are not capable of Obedience; therefore Infants ought not to be baptized. For as it's great Weakness to suppose that Text, He that would not work, shall not Eat, to intend or include infants: So it is as great weakness to suppose any other Gospel-Text that mentions Church-member-ship or Baptism, should intend or include Infants: Thus have I shewed that Infants are not capable of Church-member-ship or Baptism. 2. I proceed to examine what the privileges are the Dr. talks of, that will redown to Infants, by their Church-member-ship. 1. I have already shewed they have no Fellowship or right of Communion at the Lord's-Table; they enjoy no more privileges in the Church, while Infants, after, than before: So that here is no Advantage to them; upon this account. The Dr. p. 60, 61. As to what he mentions of being taken into God's house, and Family, I have briefly answered before. 1. I deny that Infants have Pardon of Sin by their pretended Baptism: Not of Actual Sin, for they have committed none, and such as have pardon of Sin have it upon their Repentance, which Children cannot do. And sure he doth not mean Original Sin; for they are under that, equally after, as before their Baptism; tho' this was assigned as the use of it, when it was first decreed in the Councils aforesaid; yet of late most Pedobaptists have learned to be wiser than so. And as for Infants eternal inheritance in the Next Life, it's not on that Score, no conditions being required for Infants Salvation; they having never Acted Sin, are by our Saviour pronounced Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven; as the Dr. grants p. 71. And Our Gracious God hath not put the eternal State of Infants into the Hands of Vain Man. The Dr. spends no less than the Substance of many Pages about the order of Words, in Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark, 16. 16. One had need be as Grave as a Judge, that can forbear smiling; to observe the Dr's. frivolous Evasions: Because the Order of Words is not to be looked upon in some Texts, therefore in none; Ezek. 14. 14. Daniel is name before Job; Mark, 1. 4. John preached the Baptism of Repentance, &c. Observe, 1. baptized, and then preached the Baptism of Repentance. Gal. 5. 22. Joy and Peace are mentioned before Faith, &c. Mark, 4. 5. Take notice, first you have his baptizing, and then their Confession.— Reply. Doth the Dr. suppose they were Infants that went out to him? Or, doth he suppose he baptized those that went out before his Preaching, or their Confession? He dare not say it: But I shall briefly Dispatch this: the Dr. knows the Pronoun[ them] that is put after the[ Participle] baptize; can possibly have no other Substantive, than those persons that were first capable of teaching; In the Parralel Text, Mark, 16. 16. Now, If Infants are not excluded in matthew, they being part of the Nations, then there is no Creature excluded from Baptism in Mark 16. 16 because, the Gospel is to be preached to every Creature: Then by this kind of logic; Birds and Beasts, as well as Babes may be baptized; for they are Creatures, if he saith they are not Subjectum Capis, I say neither are Infants: And would it not be improper to say an Infant may be Christened before it's Born naturally; so it is to imagine that Christ, or his Apostles, did admit any to Gospel-baptism before they were spiritually born by Faith and Repentance. P. 86. The Dr. supposes, That if this Commission were given to several Divines of the Church of England, to go and Disciple the Indians, would they not first Preach the Gospel? And when the Adult had embraced it, would they not have baptized them? And when this were done, can any imagine that these Missioners would refuse their Infants?— And the Argument the Dr. useth to persuade us to Believe they would then baptize their Infants, is; Seeing it is in use amongst us here in England, from whence the Commission came, &c. Reply. Sir, what they would do, I know not; but I have some reason to believe the Divines of your Church would be too like the Veins of your Steeples; and would before all things prefer their own Interest and Safety; as hath been too evident in former Revolutions. 2. I do not suppose they would refuse to baptize their Infants; for why may they not serve for Members of a Carnal National Church in India, as well as England: But were the apostles of Christ, or their Successors in the same Faith, to go, they would refuse to baptize their Infants; and say, We have no such Custom, nor the Churches of Christ. And then in p. 81. He saith, That if the Commission had run, Go, proselyte all Nations circunctsing them? he appeals to us whether the Infants of such Gentiles proselytes, should be excluded Circumcision. Reply. Take this short Answer; We do believe all Females, Women and Infants, would not be Included, and so Excluded, because they had not those Natural Parts to qualify them for it. So I also Believe all Infants are excluded Baptism, because they have not those Spiritual parts to qualify them for it— And let this serve for an Answer; for the Women, and Female Infants, are a part of the Nations also. And as for the Dr's Arguing, that because some Infants were capable of Circumcision, is Frivolous; for doth it follow that because it was the Will of the great Legislator to give a positive Command that the Male-Infants should be Circumcised on the eighth day precisely, upon a severe Penalty, that vain Man without any Command, must baptize Male and Female Infants, on the 1st, 3d, or 7th day; when it's evident, Abrams Natural Seed had no right to Baptism: Nor have any, but such as do the works of Ab'ram. Because the Fruit-trees were holy Lev. 19. 23. 24. Circumcised, and in Covenant, therefore we must baptize ours in England take them into Churchmembership. And now tho' the Dr. hath endeavoured to rub the Rust of this Old and Forlorn Argument, that hath been as oft Confuted as Started, as he cannot be Ignorant of, even by Learned pens. Now there is not a word in the Gospel to institute Infant-baptism, as hath been asserted, neither Precept nor Example, as hath been both expressly and Tacitly granted. And then it is safe to be Sober, and not to advance above Gospel-Rule for Gospel-Worship: as tho' we must be sent to School to the Old Ceremonial Law, that is vanished, Hebr. 8. to learn Gospel-Ordinances, as tho' Christ our great Prophet, who is come, had not by Positive, or( to use our Doctor's Phrase) Express Commands and Example, established his Ordinances, without the Retrogression to Moses; and assimilating them to the Paedigogy and Similitude of lordships, &c. And to end the Dr's Plea-from hence, and Confute this Consequence I shall give the Reader one Instance or two out of some Eminent Paedobaptists Writings. First, The Lord Brooks, in his Treatise of Episcopacy, p. 100. saith thus; That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision, in the Old Law, is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a Point well Proved before. But I somewhat doubt, saith he, whether it be Proof enough for that which some would prove by it; since besides, the vast Difference in the Ordinances, the Persons to be Circumcised, are stated by a positive Law, so express that it leaves no place for Scruple; but it is far otherwise in Baptism, where all the Designations, for ought I know of Persons fit to be Partatakers, is only such as Believe; for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scriptures mentions Persons to be baptized; and this it seems to require in all such Persons: Now, how Infants can properly be said to Believe I am not yet fully Resolved. Thus far this Learned Gentleman Learnedly and Truly Argues against our Dr. Tho' he was a Paedobaptist, sure he had not found out our Dr's Distinction about two Species, or Kinds of Church-members? He was more ingenious than to impose frivolous Non-sequiters upon the belief of his Reader. Again, Dr. tailor, lib. Proph. p. 228. Who saith, The Argument from Circumcision is invaled upon Infinite Considerations, Figures and Types prove nothing except a Command to go along with it: Or some Example to signify such to be their Purposes, &c. So that I conclude safely, and take no more than is given me from these two Paedobaptist Gentlemen, That Infant-baptism cannot be concluded from Circumcision, without a Gospel-Command; and our Dr. hath granted that there is none: For it is unreasonable to expect it. And because as hath been said, there were no Qualifications required to fit male Infants for Circumcision, the Dr. spends three or four Pages in quoting Texts, that spoken of the adult Israelites, to wash them, make them clean; and David's praying for a clean Heart, &c. and the Jews were admonished to take away the fore-skin of their Hearts, &c.— A thin Shrub for the Dr. to shrowded under. Then p. 35. The Dr. asks, Whether an Infant of eight days old, could Circumcise the Heart. Reply. No, it could not, neither was it required; nor could it have a broken Spirit. It was never made the antecedent to Circumcision, preparatory for it; tho it's absolutely necessary to be found in all that are to be baptized, p. 56. Tho' Circumcision were good, and valed even to Babes and Fruit-trees, yea, Fools, deaf and dumb Babes of eight days old: Yet to Sprinkle an Infant, and call it Baptism, is a mock Baptism, and sets the Infant on Crying, when the right Subject goes away rejoicing. For there is this difference, That Law was a Yoke that we nor our Fathers were able to bear, so tedious was the Yoke of Circumcision: but shall we Jewdise the Gospel, and make that so too, and make their Hearts sad whom God hath not made sad: But I pass this having already spoken of his pretended privileges that Infants enjoy by their Church-membership, p. 60. and shewed that after all his stir, they are just none at all. The Dr. p. 63. 67. Here is a strange Consequence he would fain should help him out: He asks, Whether Infants are not capable of Civil Adoption, and to be admitted into a College, or Hospital, &c. Reply. Yes; they are: And what if they are capable of it? Doth it follow that then they may be Batised? What weak Trifles are these from such a person! In p. 67. The Dr. saith, He will explain it by considering civil affairs in the act of naturalisation of foreign Protestants; the Parents only do take the Oaths, and Test; for Infants know nothing of the matter, yet this Act of the Parents is imputed to the Children, for their Benefit, &c. Reply. Well then, the Parents may Believe and be baptized, and their Infants may enjoy all the privileges they are capable of; and yet know nothing of Baptism; because as the Infant hath not Wisdom, nor cannot understand the Oaths and Test, so he is altogether as uncapable of Baptism, which is a solemn Covenanting with God. And so let that pass. P. 62. The Dr. saith If our Infants are not Christians, Jews, nor Turks, then they are Heathens; and then the Apostles will admonish you that they are without Christ, without Hope, without God in the World, &c. Ephes. 2. 12. And p. 63. He tells us, That out of the Church there is no Salvation; and what will you leave them to the general Mercy of God, like a Company of Heathens? Reply. Our Dr. was but now, in p. 48. Condemning us for mis-application of Scriptures, tho without the least just cause: But behold, he is grossly mis-applying two Texts; doth Ephes. 2. 12. speak of Infants? No, sure: did they walk according to the Course of this World? Had they their Conversations in the Lusts of the Flesh, verse 2, 3, Again, p. 63. He saith, Out of the Church there is no Salvation: and Cites Acts 2. 47. And the Lord added to the Church, daily such as should be Saved Are Infants intended here? Surely the Dr dare not say it for shane: Did Peter Preach to them, and Convert and baptize them? surely no: verse 46. did Infants continue steadfast in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship in breaking Bread and Prayer, and it was such as these that were added to the Church. And, Sir, is there no Salvation out of your Church? I never heard a Protestant say so before: I know the Papal Church so concludes; then it's time for silly Women, that believe it, to be frighted if their Infants should die before they are Sprinkled: and then it seems the general Mercy of God, without the particular Mercy of the Priest, Infants cannot be Saved. But I leave this to the Reader, and the Dr's second thoughts; and say, Infants are saved without Faith or Baptism, by the Merits of Christ. p. 64. He is offering strange dictates, and would have us to believe, That Infants are Believers before they Believe, &c p. 65. He saith, God doth estimate them as Believers: Well Sir, and he estimates them as baptized, without Baptism: And what then? Again he tells us, that Infants are esteemed as Rational Creatures, and treated as such, not as Brutes. Reply, I grant it; I shall frame an Argument from it to his hand thus; Those Infants that may be treated as Rational Creatures, not as Brutes, may be baptized; But, Infants of Turks and Jews may be treated as Rational Creatures, not as Brutes; ergo, Infants of Turks and Jews may be baptized: I suppose the Dr. on a second view, will not like the looks of his Assertion, or Inference. What he cites out of the Book of Martyrs as Mr. Filpot's Words, does him no kindness; but makes against him as to the case in hand: If Infants cannot profess him, they cannot put him on by Baptism,— And after a great deal of Circumlocution, and vain Reitterations,( 3ly in p. 73.) he puts us to prove where Christ, the great Law giver to the Gospel-Church hath said he will not admit them: And this he calls the very hinge of the controversy. And here I shall mention the account the Reverend Doctor Stillingfleet gives of the plea of his Popish Adversary, in his discourse concerning the Idolatry of Rome. p. 177. The Jesuit saith the Charge of Idolatry brought by the Dr. is groundless; because it's not declared in divine Truth; that honour is not to be given to Images of Christ, and his Saints, that what appears to be bread in the Eucharist, is not the Body of Christ; that it is not lawful to invoke Saints to Pray for us. These are the Jesuit's words requiring the Dr. to prove these negatives, on which single point he puts the stress of his argument. Just so doth our Dr: But, saith the Dr. now Bishop of Worcester, the point is so easy it will not require much time to dispatch it; for I assert it to be an Article of my Faith, that God alone is to be worshipped with Divine and Religious Worship; and he that cannot infer that no created being is to be Worshipped, hath the name of a reasonable Creature given him to no purpose: What need we make Negative Articles of Faith; that the Pope is not Tradition is not; Councils are not; a private Spirit is not: For all these things are necessary implyed therein. We do therefore Refuse the Belief of them, because not contained in the only Rule of Faith the Bible. Now, Sir, take the same Answer; Believer's Baptism is contained plainly in the Scriptures, the only Rule of our Faith; therefore lest we should have the Name of Rational Creatures given us to no purpose, we can infer, that neither Bells, nor Babes, are Subjects of Baptism; and thus Sir, your main hinge as you call it p. 73. is by your own Dr. quiter thrown off the Hook; and all your pressing us to assign a Prohibition as you do to p. 77. doth but symbolise you with the Jesuit, your now Bishops Antagonis●: But to conclude, the Dr grants p. 99. that the Doctrine of the Gospel was not Calculated for Infants: Then I am sure, the Doctrine of Baptism was not, which is one great Doctrine of the Gospel. I shall conclude with these two Arguments. Argum. The New Testament doth plainly and sufficiently declare unto us, who are the proper and capable Subjects of Baptism. But the New Testament doth not plainly and sufficiently declare that Infants are the proper and capable subjects of Baptism: Therefore Infants are not the proper and capable Subjects of Baptism. Argum. If Infant-baptism were an Ordinance of Christ, then the Scriptures would somewhere declare, how, when, or where Christ ordained it: but the Scriptures no were declare how, when or where Christ ordained it; ergo, Infants-baptism is no Ordinance of Christ: FINIS.