| |
AN APPENDIX
Whosoever reads, and impartially considers what we have in our forgoing
confession declared, may readily perceive, That we do not only concenter
with all other true Christians on the Word of God (revealed in the Scriptures
of truth) as the foundation and rule of our faith and worship. But that
we have also industriously endeavoured to manifest, That in the fundamental
Articles of Christianity we mind the same things, and have therefore expressed
our belief in the same words, that have on the like occasion been spoken
by other societies of Christians before us.
This we have done, That those who are desirous to know the principles
of Religion which we hold and practise, may take an estimate from our selves
(who jointly concur in this work) and may not be misguided, either by undue
reports; or by the ignorance or errors of particular persons, who going
under the same name with our selves, may give an occasion of scandalizing
the truth we profess.
And although we do differ from our brethren who are Paedobaptists; in
the subject and administration of Baptisme, and such other circumstances
as have a necessary dependence on our observance of that Ordinance, and
do frequent our own assemblies for our mutual edification, and discharge
of those duties, and services which we owe unto God, and in his fear to
each other: yet we would not be from hence misconstrued, as if the discharge
of our own consciences herein, did any wayes disoblige or alienate our
affections, or conversation from any others that fear the Lord; but that
we may and do as we have opportunity participate of the labors of those,
whom God hath indued with abilities above our selves, and qualified, and
called to the Ministry of the Word, earnestly desiring to approve
our selves to be such, as follow after peace with holyness, and therefore
we alwaies keep that blessed Irenicum, or healing Word of
the Apostle before our eyes; if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God
shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless whereto we have already attained;
let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, Phil 3.
v. 15, 16.
Let it not therefore be judged of us (because much hath been written
on this subject, and yet we continue this our practise different from others)
that it is out of obstinacy, but rather as the truth is, that we do herein
according to the best of our understandings worship God, out of a pure
mind yielding obedience to his precept, in that method which we take to
be most agreeable to the Scriptures of truth, and primitive practise.
It would not become us to give any such intimation, as should carry
a semblance that what we do in the service of God is with a doubting conscience,
or with any such temper of mind that we do thus for the present, with a
reservation that we will do otherwise hereafter upon more mature deliberation;
nor have we any cause so to do, being fully perswaded, that what we do
is agreeable to the will of God. Yet we do heartily propose this, that
if any of the Servants of our Lord Jesus shall, in the Spirit of meekness,
attempt to convince us of any mistake either in judgement or practise,
we shall diligently ponder his arguments; and accompt him our chiefest
friend that shall be an instrument to convert us from any error that is
in our ways, for we cannot wittingly do any thing against the truth, but
all things for the truth.
And therefore we have indeavoured seriously to consider, what hath been
already offered for our satisfaction in this point; and are loth to say
any more lest we should be esteemed desirous of renewed contests thereabout:
yet forasmuch as it may justly be expected that we shew some reason, why
we cannot acquiesce in what hath been urged against us; we shall with as
much brevity as may consist with plainness, endeavour to satisfie the expectation
of those that shall peruse what we now publish in this matter also.
1. As to those Christians who consent with us, That Repentance from
dead works, and Faith towards God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, is required
in persons to be Baptized; and do therefore supply the defect of the
(infant being uncapable of making confession of either) by others who do
undertake these things for it. Although we do find by Church history that
this hath been a very antient practise; yet considering, that the same
Scripture which does caution us against censuring our brother, with whom
we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, does also instruct
us, That every one of us shall give an accompt of himself to God, and
whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin. Rom. 14:4, 10, 12, 23. Therefore
we cannot for our own parts be perswaded in our own minds, to build such
a practise as this, upon an unwritten tradition: But do rather choose in
all points of Faith and Worship, to have recourse to the holy Scriptures,
for the information of our judgment, and regulation of our practise; being
well assured that a conscientious attending thereto, is the best way to
prevent, and rectifie our defects and errors. 2 Tim. 3. 16,17. And
if any such case happen to be debated between Christians, which is not
plainly determinable by the Scriptures, we think it safest to leave such
things undecided until the second coming of our Lord Jesus; as they did
in the Church of old, until there should arise a Priest with Urim
and Thummim, that might certainly inform them of the mind of God
thereabout, Ezra 2. 62, 63.
2. As for those our Christian brethren who do ground their arguments
for Infants baptism, upon a presumed faederal Holiness, or Church-Membership,
we conceive they are deficient in this, that albeit this Covenant-Holiness
and Membership should be as is supposed, in reference unto the Infants
of Believers; yet no command for Infant baptism does immediately and directly
result from such a quality, or relation.
All instituted Worship receives its sanction from the precept, and is
to be thereby governed in all the necessary circumstances thereof.
So it was in the Covenant that God made with Abraham and his
Seed. The sign whereof was appropriated only to the Male, notwithstanding
that the female seed as well as the Male were comprehended in the Covenant
and part of the Church of God; neither was this sign to be affixed to any
Male Infant till he was eight dayes old, albeit he was within the Covenant
from the first moment of his life; nor could the danger of death, or any
other supposed necessity, warrant the circumcising of him before the set
time, nor was there any cause for it; the commination of being cut off
from his people, being only upon the neglect, or contempt of the precept.
Righteous Lot was nearly related to Abraham in the flesh,
and contemporary with him, when this Covenant was made; yet inasmuch as
he did not descend from his loynes, nor was of his houshold family (although
he was of the same houshold of faith with Abraham) yet neither Lot
himself nor any of his posterity (because of their descent from him) were
signed with the signature of this Covenant that was made with Abraham
and his seed.
This may suffice to shew, that where there was both an expresse Covenant,
and a sign thereof (such a Covenant as did separate the persons with whom
it was made, and all their off-spring from all the rest of the world, as
a people holy unto the Lord, and did constitute them the visible Church
of God, (though not comprehensive of all the faithful in the world) yet
the sign of this Covenant was not affixed to all the persons that were
within this Covenant, nor to any of them till the prefixt season; nor to
other faithful servants of God, that were not of descent from Abraham.
And consequently that it depends purely upon the will of the Law-giver,
to determine what shall be the sign of his Covenant, unto whom, at what
season, and upon what terms, it shall be affixed.
If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which
God makes with every beleiver (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent)
it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the
seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the
particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else,
neither do they or we suppose that baptism is in any such manner substituted
in the place of circumcision, as to have the same (and no other) latitude,
extent, or terms, then circumcision had; for that was suited only for the
Male children, baptism is an ordinance suited for every beleiver, whether
male, or femal. That extended to all the males that were born in Abrahams
house, or bought with his money, equally with the males that proceeded
from his own loynes; but baptisme is not so far extended in any true Christian
Church that we know of, as to be administred to all the poor infidel servants,
that the members thereof purchase for their service, and introduce into
their families; nor to the children born of them in their house.
But we conceive the same parity of reasoning may hold for the ordinance
of baptism as for that of circumcision; Exodus 12.49. viz.
one law for the stranger, as for the home born: If any desire to be admitted
to all the ordinances, and priviledges of Gods house, the door is open;
upon the same terms that any one person was ever admitted to all, or any
of those priviledges, that belong to the Christian Church; may all persons
of right challenge the like admission.
As for that text of Scripture, Rom. 4. 11. He received circumcision
a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised;
we conceive if the Apostles scope in that place be duly attended to, it
will appear that no argument can be taken from thence to inforce Infant
baptism; and forasmuch as we find a full and fair account of those words
given by the learned Dr. Lighfoot (a man not to be suspected of
partiality in this controversie) in his Hor. Hebrai, on the
I Cor. 7. 19. p.42, 43. we shall transcribe his words at
large, without any comment of our own upon them.
Circumcision is nothing, if we respect the time, for now it was without
use, that end of it being especially fulfilled; for which it had been instituted:
this end the Apostle declares in these words, Rom. 4.11  .
But I fear that by most translations they are not sufficiently suited to
the end of circumcision, and the scope of the Apostle whilst something
of their own is by them inserted.
And after the Doctor hath represented diverse versions of the words
agreeing for the most part in sense with that which we have in our Bibles
he thus proceeds.
Other versions are to the same purpose; as if circumcision was given
to Abraham for a Seal of that Righteousness which he had being yet
uncircumcised, which we will not deny to be in some sense true, but we
believe that circumcision had chiefly a far different respect.
Give me leave thus to render the words; And he received the sign
of circumcision, a seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which was to be
in the uncircumcision, Which was to be (I say) not which had been,
not that which Abraham had whilst he was yet uncircumcised; but
that which his uncircumcised seed should have, that is the Gentiles, who
in time to come should imitate the faith of Abraham.
Now consider well on what occasion circumcision was instituted unto
Abraham, setting before thine eyes the history thereof, Gen.
17.
This promise is first made unto him, Thou shalt be the Father of
many Nations (in what sense the Apostle explaineth in that chapter)
and then there is subjoined a double seal for the confirmation of the thing,
to wit, the change of the name Abram into Abraham, and the
institution of circumcision. v4. Behold as for me, my Covenant is with
thee, and thou shalt be the Father of many Nations. Wherefore was his
name called Abraham? for the sealing of this promise. Thou shalt
be the Father of many Nations. And wherefore was circumcision instituted
to him? For the sealing of the same promise. Thou shalt be the Father
of many Nations. So that this is the sense of the Apostle; most agreeable
to the institution of circumcision; he received the sign of circumcision,
a seal of the Righteousness of Faith which in time to come the uncircumcision
(or the Gentiles) should have and obtain.
Abraham had a twofold seed, natural, of the Jews; and
faithful, of the believing Gentiles: his natural seed was signed
with the sign of circumcision, first indeed for the distinguishing of them
from all other Nations whilst they as yet were not the seed of Abraham,
but especially for the memorial of the justification of the Gentiles by
faith, when at length they should become his seed. Therefore circumcision
was of right to cease, when the Gentiles were brought in to the faith,
forasmuch as then it had obtained its last and chief end, & thenceforth
circumcision is nothing.
Thus far he, which we earnestly desire may be seriously weighed, for
we plead not his authority, but the evidence of truth in his words.
3. Of whatsoever nature the holiness of the children mentioned, 1 Cor.
7. 12. be, yet they who do conclude that all such children (whether Infants
or of riper years) have from hence an immediate right to baptism, do as
we conceive put more into the conclusion, then will be found in the premisses.
For although we do not determine positively concerning the Apostles
scope in the holiness here mentioned, so as to say it is this, or that,
and no other thing; Yet it is evident that the Apostle does by it determine
not only the lawfulness but the expedience also of a beleivers cohabitation
with an unbeliever, in the state of marriage.
And we do think that although the Apostles asserting of the unbelieving
yokefellow to be sanctified by the believer, should carry in it somewhat
more then is in the bare marriage of two infidels, because although the
marriage covenant have a divine sanction so as to make the wedlock of two
unbelievers a lawful action, and their conjunction and cohabitation in
that respect undefiled, yet there might be no ground to suppose from thence,
that both or either of their persons are thereby sanctified; and the Apostle
urges the cohabitation of a believer with an infidel in the state of wedlock
from this ground that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the
believing wife; nevertheless here you have the influence of a believers
faith ascending from an inferior to a superior relation; from the
wife to the husband who is her head, before it can descend to their
off-spring. And therefore we say, whatever be the nature or extent
of the holiness here intended, we conceive it cannot convey to the children
an immediate right to baptism; because it would then be of another nature,
and of a larger extent, then the root, and original from whence it is derived,
for it is clear by the Apostles argument that holiness cannot be derived
to the child from the sanctity of one parent only, if either father or
mother be (in the sense intended by the Apostle) unholy or unclean, so
will the child be also, therefore for the production of an holy seed it
is necessary that both the Parents be sanctified; and this the Apostle
positively asserts in the first place to be done by the beleiving parent,
although the other be an unbeliever; and then consequentially from thence
argues, the holiness of their children. Hence it follows, that as the children
have no other holiness then what they derive from both their Parents; so
neither can they have any right by this holiness to any spiritual priviledge
but such as both their Parents did also partake of: and therefore if the
unbelieving Parent (though sanctified by the believing Parent) have not
thereby a right to baptism, neither can we concieve, that there is any
such priviledge, derived to the children by their birth-holiness.
Besides if it had been the usual practice in the Apostles dayes for
the father or mother that did beleive, to bring all their children with
them to be baptised; then the holiness of the beleiving Corinthians
children, would not at all have been in question when this Epistle was
written; but might have been argued from their passing under that ordinance,
which represented their new birth, although they had derived no holiness
from their Parents, by their first birth; and would have layen as an exception
against the Apostles inference, else were your Children unclean,
&c. But of the sanctification of all the children of every beleiver
by this ordinance, or any other way, then what is beforementioned, the
Scripture is altogether silent.
This may also be added; that if this birth holiness do qualifie all
the children of every believer, for the ordinance of baptism; why not for
all other ordinances? for the Lords Supper as was practiced for a long
time together? for if recourse be had to what the Scriptures speak generally
of this subject; it will be found, that the same qualities which do intitle
any person to baptism, do so also for the participation of all the Ordinances,
and priviledges of the house of God, that are common to all believers.
Whosoever can and does interrogate his good Conscience towards God when
he is baptised (as every one must do that makes it to himself a sign of
Salvation) is capable of doing the same thing, in every other act of worship
that he performs.
4. The arguments and inferences that are usually brought for, or against
Infant baptism from those few instances which the Scriptures afford us
of whole families being baptised; are only conjectural; and therefore cannot
of themselves, be conclusive on either hand: yet in regard most that treat
on this subject for Infant baptism, do (as they conceive) improve these
instances to the advantage of their argument: we think it meet (in like
manner as in the cases before mentioned so in this) to shew the invalidity
of such inferences.
Cornelius worshipped God with all his house, the Jaylor,
and Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue, believed God with
each of their houses. The houshold of Stephanus addicted
themselves to the Ministry of the Saints: so that thus far Worshipping,
and Believing runs parallel with Baptism. And if Lydia,
had been a married person, when she believed, it is probable her husband
would also have been named by the Apostle, as in like cases, inasmuch as
he would have been not only a part, but the head of that baptised houshold.
Who can assign any probable reason, why the Apostle should make mention
of four or five housholds being baptised and no more? or why he does so
often vary in the method of his salutations, Rom. 1. 6. sometimes
mentioning only particular persons of great note, other times such, and
the Church in their house? the Saints that were with them; and them belonging
to Narcissus, who were in the Lord; thus saluting either whole families,
or part of families, or only particular persons in families, considered
as they were in the Lord, for if it had been an usual practise to baptize
all children, with their parents; there were then many thousands of the
Jews which believed, and a great number of the Gentiles, in most of the
principle Cities in the World, and among so many thousands, it is more
then probable there would have been some thousands of housholds baptised;
why then should the Apostle in this respect signalize one family of the
Jews and three or four of the Gentiles, as particular instances in a case
that was common? whoever supposes that we do willfully debar our children,
from the benefit of any promise, or priviledge, that of right belongs to
the children of believing parents; they do entertain over severe thoughts
of us: to be without natural affections is one of the characters of the
worst of persons; in the worst of times. Wee do freely confesse our selves
guilty before the Lord, in that we have not with more circumspection and
diligence train'd up those that relate to us in the fear of the Lord; and
do humbly and earnestly pray, that our omissions herein may be remitted,
and that they may not redound to the prejudice of our selves, or any of
ours: but with respect to that duty that is incumbent on us, we acknowledge
our selves obliged by the precepts of God, to bring up our children in
the nurture and admonition of the Lord, to teach them his fear, both by
instruction and example; and should we set light by this precept, it would
demonstrate that we are more vile then the unnatural Heathen, that like
not to retain God in their knowledge, our baptism might then be justly
accompted, as no baptism to us.
There are many special promises that do incourage us as well as precepts,
that do oblige us to the close pursuit of our duty herein: that God whom
we serve, being jealous of his Worship, threatens the visiting of the Fathers
transgression upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them
that hate him: yet does more abundantly extend his mercy, even to thousands
(respecting the offspring and succeding generations) of them that love
him, and keep his commands.
When our Lord rebuked his disciples for prohibiting the access of little
children that were brought to him, that he might pray over them, lay his
hands upon them, and blesse them, does declare, that of such is the
Kingdom of God. And the Apostle Peter in answer to their enquiry,
that desired to know what they must do to be saved, does not only instruct
them in the necessary duty of repentance and baptism; but does also thereto
encourage them, by that promise which had reference both to them, and their
children; if our Lord Jesus in the forementioned place, do not respect
the qualities of children (as elsewhere) as to their meekness, humility,
and sincerity, and the like; but intend also that those very persons and
such like, appertain to the Kingdom of God, and if the Apostle Peter
in mentioning the aforesaid promise, do respect not only the present and
succeeding generations of those Jews, that heard him, (in which sense the
same phrase doth occurre in Scripture) but also the immediate off-spring
of his auditors; whether the promise relate to the gift of the Holy Spirit,
or of eternal life, or any grace, or priviledge tending to the obtaining
thereof; it is neither our concerne nor our interest to confine the mercies,
and promises of God, to a more narrow, or lesse compasse then he is pleased
gratiously to offer and intend them; nor to have a light esteem of them;
but are obliged in duty to God, and affection to our children; to plead
earnestly with God and use our utmost endeavours that both our selves,
and our off-spring may be partakers of his Mercies and gracious Promises:
yet we cannot from either of these texts collect a sufficient warrant for
us to baptize our children before they are instructed in the principles
of the Christian Religion.
For as to the instance in little children, it seems by the disciples
forbidding them, that they were brought upon some other account, not so
frequent as Baptism must be supposed to have been, if from the beginning
believers children had been admitted thereto: and no account is given whether
their parents were baptised believers or not; and as to the instance of
the Apostle; if the following words and practice, may be taken as an interpretation
of the scope of that promise we cannot conceive it does refer to infant
baptism, because the text does presently subjoyn; Then they that gladly
received the word were baptised.
That there were some believing children of believing parents in the
Apostles dayes is evident from the Scriptures, even such as were then in
ther fathers family, and under their parents tuition, and education; to
whom the Apostle in several of his Epistles to the Churches, giveth commands
to obey their parents in the Lord; and does allure their tender years to
hearken to this precept, by reminding them that it is the first command
with promise.
And it is recorded by him for the praise of Timothy, and encouragement
of parents betimes to instaruct, and children early to attend to godly
instruction, that 
from a child, he had known the holy Scriptures.
The Apostle John rejoyced greatly when he found of the children
of the Elect Lady walking in the truth; and the children of her Elect Sister
joyn with the Apostle in his salutation.
But that this was not generally so, that all the children of believers
were accounted for believers (as they would have been if they had been
all baptised) may be collected from the character which the Apostle gives
of persons fit to be chosen to Eldership in the Church which was not common
to all believers; among others this is expressely one, viz. If
there be any having believing, or faithful children, not accused of
Riot or unruly; and we may from the Apostles writings on the same subject
collect the reason of this qualification, viz. That in case the
person designed for this office to teach and rule in the house of God,
had children capable of it; there might be first a proof of his ability,
industry, and successe in this work in his own family; and private capacity,
before he was ordained to the exercise of this authority in the Church,
in a publick capacity, as a Bishop in the house of God.
These things we have mentioned as having a direct reference unto the
controversie between our brethren and us; other things that are more abstruse
and prolix, which are frequently introduced into this controversie, but
do not necessarily concern it, we have purposely avoided; that the distance
between us and our brethren may not be by us made more wide; for it is
our duty, and concern so far as is possible for us (retaining a good conscience
towards God) to seek a more entire agreement and reconciliation with them.
We are not insenible that as to the order of Gods house, and entire
communion therein there are some things wherein we (as well as others)
are not at a full accord among our selves, as for instance; the known principle,
and state of the consciences of diverse of us, that have agreed in this
Confession is such; that we cannot hold Church-communion, with any other
then Baptized-believers, and Churches constituted of such; yet some others
of us have a greater liberty and freedom in our spirits that way; and therefore
we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature, that we
might concurre, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among our
selves, and with other good Christians, in those important articles of
the Christian Religion, mainly insisted on by us: and this notwithstanding
we all esteem it our chief concern, both among our selves, and all others
that in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord,
both theirs and ours, and love him in sincerity, to endeavour to keep the
unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace; and in order thereunto, to exercise
all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another
in love.
And we are perswaded if the same method were introduced into frequent
practice between us and our Christian friends who agree with us in all
the fundamental articles of the Christian faith (though they do not so
in the subject and administration of baptism) it would soon beget a better
understanding, and brotherly affection between us.
In the beginning of the Christian Church, when the doctrine of the baptism
of Christ was not universally understood, yet those that knew only
the baptism of John, were the Disciples of the Lord Jesus; and Apollos
an eminent Minister of the Gospel of Jesus.
In the beginning of the reformation of the Christian Church, and recovery
from that Egyptian darkness wherein our forefathers for many generations
were held in bondage; upon recourse had to the Scriptures of truth, different
apprehensions were conceived, which are to this time continued, concerning
the practise of this Ordinance.
Let not our zeal herein be misinterpreted: that God whom we serve is
jealous of his worship. By his gracious providence the Law thereof, is
continued amongst us; and we are forewarned by what hapned in the Church
of the Jews, that it is necessary for every generation, and that frequently
in every generation to consult the divine oracle, compare our worship with
the rule, and take heed to what doctrines we receive and practise.
If the ten commands exhibited in the popish Idolatrous service books
had been received as the entire law of God, because they agree in number
with his ten commands, and also in the substance of nine of them; the second
Commandment forbidding Idolatry had been utterly lost.
If Ezra and Nehemiah had not made a diligent search into
the particular parts of Gods law, and his worship; the Feast of Tabernacles
(which for many centuries of years, had not been duly observed, according
to the institution, though it was retained in the general notion) would
not have been kept in due order.
So may it be now as to many things relating to the service of God, which
do retain the names proper to them in their first institution, but yet
through inadvertency (where there is no sinister design) may vary in their
circumstances, from their first institution. And if by means of any antient
defection, or of that general corruption of the service of God, and interruption
of his true worship, and persecution of his servants by the Antichristian
Bishop of Rome, for many generations; those who do consult the Word
of God, cannot yet arrive at a full and mutual satisfaction among themselves,
what was the practise of the primitive Christian Church, in some points
relating to the Worship of God: yet inasmuch as these things are
not of the essence of Christianity, but that we agree in the fundamental
doctrines thereof, we do apprehend, there is sufficient ground to lay aside
all bitterness and prejudice, and in the spirit of love and meekness to
imbrace and own each other therein; leaving each other at liberty to perform
such other services, (wherein we cannot concur) apart unto God, according
to the best of our understanding.
FINIS
|
