An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of…An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of…

Thirdly. The absolute necessity of baptism to salvation; so that, ¹not only those of years, that refuse or contemn it, are damned, but even infants also perish eternally, through the want of it, is an error which these Churches have destroyed, when they profess it to be of the same use to Christians, whereof circumcision was to the Jews, who being borne in the covenant, by their relation to their believing parents, by virtue of the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, were accounted in the number of Abraham's children, before circumcision, without which, circumcision did not appertain to them. According to the Scriptures, which declare Davids confidence about the salvation of his infant that died before the eighth day,² in which it should have been circumcised, and annexeth damnation to not believing, not, to not being baptised, as Luther acutely noted out of those words. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, ³but he that believeth not, shall be damned. But this practise seemeth to build this up again, For, if the necessity of it be such, as Gods order must be violated rather then the infant not baptised, who will not suspect that they account it simply necessary to salvation? And, if the plea, which is ordinarily used by them,⁴ that Baptism is not of such necessity, as that Gods order should be broken for, it, be good against baptism by private persons, and by midwives and nurses &c. Why may it not serve in this case also?

Thirdly. The absolute necessity of baptisme to salvation; so that, ¹not only those of yeares, that refuse or contemne it, are damned, but even infants also perish aeternally, through the want of it, is an errour which these Churches have destroyed, when they professe it to be of the same use to Christians, whereof circumcision was to the Iewes, who being borne in the covenant, by their relation to their beleiving parents, by vertue of the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, were accounted in the number of Abrahams children, before circumcision, without which, circumcision did not appertaine to them. According to the Scriptures, which declare Davids confidence about the salvation of his infant that died before the eighth day,² in which it should have bene circumcised, and annexeth damnation to not beleiving, not, to not being baptised, as Luther accutely noated out of those words. He that beleiveth and is baptised, shall be saved, ³but he that beleiveth not, shall be damned. But this practise seemeth to build this up againe, For, if the necessity of it be such, as Gods order must be violated rather then the infant not baptised, who will not suspect that they account it simply necessary to salvation? And, if the plea, which is ordinarily used by them,⁴ that Baptisme is not of such necessity, as that Gods order should be broken for, it, be good against baptisme by private persons, and by midwives and nurses &c. Why may it not serve in this case also?

1. 13. Concil: Trid: Sess. 7. cap. 2. Confess. belg. art. 34. Gen. 17.
2. 22. Sam. 12 23.
3. 3Mark. 16 16.
4. 4Call. instit. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 20. 21. 22Cal. instit. lib. 4. cap. 15. Sect. 20. 21. 22

Fourthly. The efficacy of Baptism,¹ when it is made a natural cause or instrument sanctifying those that partake of it, by the work done, is an error, which these Churches have destroyed, when they ascribe the working of grace to God, as the sole efficient cause, and author of it, and account the Sacraments, signs and seals, and moral instruments signifying and sealing and so exhibiting it instrumentally, in the right use of them, which I will explain in the words of that learned Dr, ⟨p. 148⟩Whittaker,² because his exposition seemeth to be more clear then many, in reference to the true state of the question between the Pontificians and the Orthodox. We say, they are instruments (taking the name largely) because God useth them in bestowing grace upon us: ye we do not mean that they are instruments, as our Adversaries do, as if God were so tied to them as not to confer grace without them, as an artificer cannot make a bed, or bench, without a saw, or hatchet, nor that they are able to work any thing of themselves by any hidden virtue proper to them and inherent in them, as is in a medicine for procuring bodily health, but because, in the right use of them, God worketh a nourishing and increasing of grace. Therefore the Sacraments work nothing by the thing done, no not in infants. For infants are not therefore partakers of grace only because they are baptised yet neither are they baptised in vain, because they are baptised, unto future faith & repentance, & because they are members of the Church, and holy by the Covenant, and therefore the sign of the Covenant is not to be denied them. Thus he witnesseth against that efficacy that papalls ascribe to the Sacrament, & joineth with these Churches in destroying it, according to the^(a) Scripture. But this practise seemeth to build it up again. For, whereas our Divines say that baptism is profaned, when it is administered to the unclean the popish writers tell us, that baptism is not thereby profaned, but that it doeth sanctify them. And, upon this ground, Bellarmine saith, that baptism may be given to those that pertain not to Christ. To whom Dr. Whittaker answereth. This were true, if Baptism were a physical cause of grace: For grace is not profaned when it is given to the unclean, but it sanctifieth them, to whom it is given:

else (he demandeth of Bellarmine) why may not infidels of years be baptised, if they will suffer themselves to be baptised; yea though they should profess that they do not believe in Christ, if baptism will sanctify them? But all men deny that. And why so? Because they belong not to Christ: Therefore (saith he) Baptism aught not to be given to any that are not in Christ. I will not enlarge this point, by speaking of the ignorant conceit of some, that ⟨p. 149⟩baptism is their Christendom, and that they are made Christians by baptism, whereas we have shown that they must be Christians before baptism, else they may not be baptised.

else (he demandeth of Bellermine) why may not infidells of yeares be baptised, if they will suffer themselves to be baptised; yea though they should professe that they doe not beleive in Christ, if baptisme will sanctifye them? But all men deny that. And why so? Because they belong not to Christ: Therefore (sayth he) Baptisme aught not to be given to any that are not in Christ. I will not enlarge this point, by speaking of the ignorant conceit of some, that ⟨p. 149⟩baptisme is their Christendom, and that they are made Christians by baptisme, whereas we have shewen that they must be Christians before baptisme, else they may not be baptised.

Sixthly.¹ The opinion of Erastus against Ecclesiastical excommunication, is an error which the doctrine of these Churches hath destroyed, by affirming that the power of excommunication belongeth to the Church, according^(c) to the Scriptures.

Sixthly.¹ The opinion of Erastus against Ecclesiasticall excommunicatiō, is an errour which the doctrine of these Churches hath destroyed, by affirming that the power of excommunication belongeth to the Church, according^(c) to the Scriptures.

1. 16. Catech. quest: 85.
2. (c)Numb. 19.13.20 Mat. 18.15. Mat. 7.6. 1. Cor. 5.5.6.11. 2. Thes. 3.6. &. 11.

But this practise doth build it up again, when they, not only administer this Sacrament promiscuously to all that are brought, but also plead for it by some of the Arguments which Erastus produced against that.

But this practise doth build it up againe, when they, not only administer this Sacrament promiscuously to all that are brought, but also plead for it by some of the Arguments which Erastus produced against that.

For, First Erastus allegeth Johns admitting the very worst men to his baptism, viz, the Pharisees and Sadducees: whereunto both Beza and Mr. Cartwright answer, to the same purpose, as I did some with whom I argued against this custom, that John admitted none to his baptism, but those that professed repentance and amendment of life. Therefore they are said to be baptised of John in Jordan, confessing their sins, which,¹ after the manner of the Hebrews, signifieth more then a bare acknowledgement that they were sinners, even a profession of their embracing the doctrine of remission of sins by Christ, ⟨p. 150⟩and a promise of amendment.² Such confessions were Davids, Daniels, the Publicans, Prodigals. As for the Pharisees and Sadducees (saith Mr, Cartwright) which came in Hypocrisy to be baptised, deriding the grace of God, I utterly deny that John baptised them: yea, that he rejected them, it is evident by his sharp reprehension and terrible threatening of them with death and cutting off. Those that pretended repentance in words he admonished, that, if they would be baptised, they must bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, else they should be cut off.

For, First Erastus alleadgeth Iohns admitting the very worst men to his baptisme, viz, the Pharises and Sadduces: whereunto both Beza and Mr. Cartwright answer, to the same purpose, as I did some with whom I argued against this custom, that Iohn admitted none to his baptisme, but those that professed repentance and amendment of life. Therefore they are said to be baptised of Iohn in Iordan, confessing their sinnes, which,¹ after the manner of the Hebrewes, signifyeth more then a bare acknowledgment that they were sinners, even a profession of their imbracing the doctrine of remission of sinnes by Christ, ⟨p. 150⟩and a promise of amendment.² Such confessions were Davids, Daniels, the Publicans, Prodigalls. As for the Pharises and Sadduces (sayth Mr, Cartwright) which came in Hypocrisy to be baptised, deriding the grace of God, I utterly deny that Iohn baptised them: yea, that he rejected them, it is evident by his sharpe reprehension and terrible threatning of them with death and cutting off. Those that pretended repentance in words he admonished, that, if they would be baptised, they must bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, else they should be cut off.

Secondly. He allegeth that all the Israelites (as well rebellions as others) did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. 1. Cor. 10.4.¹ And, in effect, the same thing is objected by some, for the defence of this custom, when they plead, that they were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea. Therefore all infants that are presented, must be baptised. Bezaes answer to him, in that case, may serve these in this case, out of whom (and a learned Commentator upon that place joined together with him) 2 things may be answered.

Secondly. He alleadgeth that all the Israelites (as well rebellions as others) did eate the same sprirituall meate, and drinck the same spirituall drinck. 1. Cor. 10.4.¹ And, in effect, the same thing is objected by some, for the defence of this custom, when they plead, that they were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea. Therefore all infants that are presented, must be baptised. Bezaes answer to him, in that case, may serve these in this case, out of whom (and a learned Commentatour upon that place joyned together with him) 2 things may be answered.

1. 11. Cor. 10.4. Beza de presb. & excom: ad arg. 13. p. 28. 29 Morton on 1. Cor. 10.

1. That the things, there spoken of, were not to be numbered amongst those things which are only Sacraments: however they were Sacraments, in a sense, yet they were not Sacraments in that signification of the the word [Sacraments] which is usually amongst Divines, when they call circumcision, and the passover, Baptism, and the Lords supper, Sacraments: for they were not by any solemn promulgation, expressed in the word, instituted & sanctified by God to be seals of the covenant to believers (as circumcision &c.) which is necessary to the constitution of a Sacrament. But as they were miraculous and admirable types of Christ, so they were common, and temporal benefits serving for the bodily refreshing and safety of the people of Israel in general, and therefore that all, even the most unworthy of them, partook of those, it was for a peculiar reason, which hath not place in the Sacraments. For the shadow of the cloud covering the whole army, as a shield, or buckler, received, and kept from them the beams of the sun, which else in, that dry and hot region, might have consumed them ⟨p. 151⟩with burning heat, especially they being wearied, and faint with journeying, therefore it was necessary, that it should be common to them all. The same reason might be given for their passing through the sea, to escape the rage of the tyrant that pursued them. But what is this to Baptism?

1. That the things, there spoken of, were not to be numbred amongst those things which are onely Sacraments: however they were Sacraments, in a sense, yet they were not Sacraments in that signification of the the word [Sacraments] which is usually amongst Divines, when they call circumcision, and the passover, Baptisme, and the Lords supper, Sacraments: for they were not by any solemne promulgation, expressed in the word, instituted & sanctified by God to be seales of the covenant to beleivers (as circumcision &c.) which is necessary to the constitution of a Sacrament. But as they were miraculous and admirable types of Christ, so they were common, and temporall benefites serving for the bodily refreshing and safety of the people of Israel in generall, and therefore that all, even the most unworthy of them, partaked of those, it was for a peculiar reason, which hath not place in the Sacraments. For the shadow of the cloud covering the wholl army, as a sheild, or buckler, received, and kept from them the beames of the sun, which else in, that dry and hot region, might have consumed them ⟨p. 151⟩

2. That the persons there spoken of were the Church of Israel, whom he calleth our fathers, because from them the Jews sprang which were the visible Church of God, whose children also the Corinthians and all the visible Churches of believers are amongst the Gentiles, who have received from them the privileges of the word, Sacraments, Covenant, and other spiritual good things, as their inheritance. But what are these to those Libertines and others, who cast off all communion with the Churches of Christ? To conclude this Argument in one Syllogism,

2. That the persons there spoken of were the Church of Israel, whom he calleth our fathers, because from them the Jewes sprang which were the visible Church of God, whose children also the Corinthians and all the visible Churches of beleivers are amongst the Gentiles, who have received from them the priviledges of the word, Sacraments, Covenant, and other spirituall good things, as their inheritance. But what are these to those Libertines and others, who cast off all communion whith the Churches of Christ? To conclude this Argument in one Syllogisme,

To build again those errors which the doctrine and profession of these Churches, according to the Scripture, have destroyed, is a sin.

To build againe those errours which the doctrine and profession of these Churches, according to the Scripture, have destroyed, is a sinne.

But this practise of promiscuous baptising all that are brought, with out difference, buildeth again those errors, which the Doctrine and profession of these Churches, according to the Scriptures, have destroyed, as appeareth in those six particulars.

But this practise of promiscuous baptising all that are brought, with out difference, buildeth againe those errours, which the Doctrine and profession of these Churches, according to the Scriptures, have destroyed, as appeareth in those six particulars.

Therefore to baptise all that are brought promiscuously, as that writing requireth, is a sin.

Therefore to baptise all that are brought promiscuously, as that wrighting requireth, is a sinne.

Reason. 4 The fourth Reason, to prove it to be a sin, is because it is contrary to the good custom and practise of many Churches of Christ. Here J am to show two things.

Reason. 4 The fourth Reason, to prove it to be a sinne, is because it is contrary to the good custom and practise of many Churches of Christ. Here J am to shew two things.

First. That good customs, taken up by Churches upon good grounds should not lightly be broken & laid down. Wherein I do fully agree with the author of that elaborate commentary upon the fourth chapter of John, my reverend Countryman,¹ who now resteth from his labours, who, to prove this, produceth Paul alleging the custom of the Churches, to stop the mouths of contentious men, & commending sundry truths to the people of God, by this Argument, they had received them, and making that a further bond unto their conscience, for which end also he propoundeth that general rule given unto us, walk in the ⟨p. 152⟩ways of good men, ²and keep the ways of the righteous, and a promise which God hath made to them that will learn the ways of his people, ³and conform themselves unto them, then shall they be built in the middest of my people. To make this point more clear, I will add thereunto, from a manuscript,⁴ the judgment of the worthy author of the preface to that commentary concerning the binding force of good examples, who thus expresseth himself.

First. That good customs, taken up by Churches upon good grounds should not lightly be broken & layd downe. Wherein I doe fully agree whith the authour of that elaborate cōmentary upon the fourth chapter of Iohn, my reverend Countryman,¹ who now resteth from his labours, who, to prove this, produceth Paul alleadging the custom of the Churches, to stopp the mouthes of contentious men, & commending sundry truthes to the people of God, by this Argument, they had received them, and making that a further bond unto their conscience, for which end also he propoundeth that general rule given unto us, walke in the ⟨p. 152⟩wayes of good men, ²

Some good actions of holy men in Scripture are examples of Christian liberty, others are patterns of Christian duty: examples of this latter sort be, 1. such as are backed with some Divine precept. So Sarahs obedience to Abraham is set forth as a pattern unto her daughters,¹ 2. such as are held forth in the first institution of an ordinance. Thus our Saviour argueth the sinfulness of Polygamy, as an aberration from the example or pattern of the first institution,² from the beginning it was not so. Hitherto belong sundry precedents set before us, in the Acts of the Apostles, for guiding Church matters &c. Yet here also this caution would be observed, that, in the first institution or celebration of an ordinance, some actions were accidental, and taken up upon special occasions, & such actions are not precedents, unless it be upon the like occasion: other actions are part of the institution (whether essential or circumstantial parts) and belong, either to the completeness, or to the comeliness of it, and these may not be neglected without sin, 3. of the lawful actions of holy men, in Scripture, some were civill, and of those there is more latitude (as not needing an exact rule from Scripture, but admitting the light of civill prudence for a guide) others are sacred as belonging to spiritual things, and serving to spiritual ends. And of these, some of them are varying, not always observed in one constant tenor, in Scripture (as the gestures in prayer, preaching, and the places thereof, any of which are alike imitable) others of them are constant, always the same, and therefore stand as a cloud of witnesses requiring our imitation. The issue of all which is, that those examples which are backed with some divine precept, or which are held ⟨p. 153⟩forth in the first institution of an ordinance, being part of the institution, or which were the constant lawful actions of holy men in Scriptures, not, civill but sacred, so bind us to imitation, as that, not to conform thereunto is a sin.

Some good actions of holy men in Scripture are examples of Christian liberty, others are patternes of Christian duety: examples of this latter sort be, 1. such as are backed with some Divine praecept. So Sarahs obedience to Abraham is set forth as a patterne unto her daughters,