Baby-baptism meer babism, or, An answer to nobody in five words to every-body who finds himself concern'd in't by Samuel Fisher.

Baptist,

This was M Kents way of arguing the lawfulness of infants baptism in pub∣like one day at Crambroke, and at Staplehurst also, the same evening follow∣ing, with my self in the prese•…•…ce of some others; it is not forbidden (saies he) therefore it is commanded: to which it was answeted to this effect, viz. that it is not commanded therefore it is forbidden: for we being forbidden to add to the words of Christ, and to preach any other than what was delivered to the Churches by the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. 9. Revel. 22. 18. what ordinance, dispensation and peece of worship, and service soever is not appointed by him, must consequently and clearly be prohibited, and be but meer Will Worship, if per∣formed: in fuller proof of which, viz. that it is suffic•…•…ently forbidden, that of Philip to the Eunuch was made use of, whose words [if thou believest with all thy heart 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, li•…•…et, thou maiest] being made in answer to the question quid ni? what hinders why I may not be baptized? as they express it to be lawfull for such as believe with all their hearts, so they must plainly imply to any under∣standing, that is not resolved to be impudent in withstanding truth, that non li∣cet,

it is not lawful for such to be baptized as do not, even as (your selves being judges) theres not more permission for self examinants to eat the supper, in that ex∣pression of Paul [let a man axamine himself, and so let him eat] then there is pro∣hibition of all such to approach in that service, that are neglective of self examina∣tion: but all this would not then be accepted for an answer, without an express Sillabicall, formal forbidding it in such words viz. ye shall not baptize infants: (by the way I wonder where the express prohibition was for circumcising females, if it lye not vertually in this viz. that theres no command nor example for circum∣cising them) whereupon in our after, and occasionall discourse that night, I cal∣ling for an express prohibition of that popish practise of baptizing bells, it was returned (in sense I am sure, as I remember in words) to this purpose viz. that if it were not forbidden then it might be done, but it was forbidden in this respect, forasmuch as bells were not capable of baptism, to which I said nor infants nei∣ther; and so we parted, since when I never saw him, nor now shall (since he is departed this life) till we meet before the Tribunall seat of Christ in that life, which is to come,

And least all this should be of as little weight with others, as it was with him, I shall adde a little by way of proof, that theres prohibition enough of infants bap∣tism, in case it be not clearly commanded, For

First, what is not commanded of God is but tradition of man, for which men shall have no thank for their labour Mat. 15. 9.

Secondly, neither are we altogether without such positive prohibition, as may be sufficient to satisfie you at least, who hold the command for circumcision of infants to be a command for the baptizing of them: in order to your understand∣ing of which, I shall refer you to Act. 21. 21. where its said of Paul, that he taught all the Iews, which were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, say∣ing, that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the cu∣stomes. In which Scripture I beseech you in the fear of God to observe how tis rehearsed that three things were most expressely forbdiden, as unlawful for the Iews themselves, much more to any believing Gentiles under the dayes of the Gos∣pel, by Pauls preaching.

First, they were forbidden (in general) to follow Moses, i. e. to live after his law and testament any longer, they are charg'd to forsake Moses.

Secondly (in particular) they were forbidden to circumcise their children, that being indeed a business the Jews still so doted on, that of all things they were unwilling to let it go, which by the way, shews us plainly, that there was nothing injoyned to be done to infants in the room of it, as some (but simply) conceive baptism was by Peter Act. 2. in order to their comfort, under the losse of the o∣ther; for if there had, then surely it would have been specified, and Paul would have preached thus to the Jews, the more easily to weane them from that antient custome of circumcising their children (specially considering how loath they were to part with it) viz. you ought not to circumcise your children now, but instead thereof to baptize them, and this may well serve in liew of, and satisfie you un∣der losse of the other, as being not so painful a service, but an easier sign, and that of better things then those promised in the Covenant of circumcision: but he saies no such matter, if he had there would have been doubtlesse less ado, then it should seem there was, to bring the Iews off from that practise of circumcising their infants, of which even after they believed they were so zealous, as not to hear of the abro∣gation of it without offence, for this would surely easily have contented and satis∣fied them, if they might have had their children baptized, as of old they were cir∣cumcised, but this doubtlesse made them so difficult to be perswaded to a forbea∣rance of circumcising there infants, because they saw the gospel had no answerable dispensation belonging to their infants in the place of it.

Thirdly, in general again, they were forbidden to walk so much as after the man∣ner

of Moses, for the word here rendred customs is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the same that is u∣sed in the singular number. Act. 15. 1. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which is there rendred after the manner of Moses, which word [after the customes] or [after the manner of Moses, prohibits not onely all observation of those ordinances of the law it self, but also all walking after the same fashion, way and manner as the ordinances of the law were administred in, heres not only an injunction of non-conformity to the law it self, but prohibition of all conformity to the manner of it: they are not onely taught not to do the same things that were done under Moses, but also not to do under the Gospel in the same way and fashion as of old: they are not onely bid not to circumcise children, but also not to walk after the manner of circumcision or after the customes of the law; and therefore consequently not to baptize children now, which practise you of the Priesthood not onely confesse to be agreeable, and conformable to that custom of circum∣cising children under the law, but also contend with all your might to •…•…ave them baptized now, upon no other account mainly then this, upon which Paul plain ly seems to forbid it: for you say twas the custom and manner of old to circumcise children, therefore though circumcision it self be ceased, and baptism come in the room of it, yet thus far at least we must follow the fashion of the Church of the Jews, that as they then circumcised infants, so we in like manner must bap∣tize them, but Paul saies plainly, that we must forsake Moses, and neither circumcise children now (as of old they did) nor yet walk after the manner of cir∣cumcision, nor conform to such Jewish customes, therefore we may not now baptize them, which to do your selves, as you contend so to have it, so confesse it to be after the manner of circumcision.

Whether therefore we shall believe him or you in this case judge ye.

This, as it is of weight in it self, so it must needs be an argument ad hominem however, of force enough to stop the mouthes of all such as though they yield the law it self and circumcision to be ceased, yet will needs in point of Priesthood, na∣tionall Churches, Tythes, Temples, outward administration, infants admission have all things at least after such a manner as the Jews had, and specially to Mr Marshall and Dr. Holms, and all such as assert, that the very command that was gi∣ven to circumcise infants of old, is vertually the command to us to baptize them: for thus saies not onely Mr. Marshall but Dr Holmes also out of A•…•…nsworth, p. 9. and 7. of his animadversions, fetching his argument for infant baptism as far as from the first book of Moses called Genesis thus.

Where there is a command for a thing never remanded, or contramanded, there the thing is still in force.

But there is a command for signing the infants of a believer, with the sign of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17. 7. 9. never yet remanded or contramanded.

Ergo signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of Grace (name∣ly baptism now) is still in force.

The Minor of which argument hath no lesse then three false assertions in it. For First, circumcision was not a sign of the Covenant of Grace (as baptism now is) nor did any further relate to the Covenant of Grace, then all other things under the law did viz. as types and shadows of the things to come; but that Covenant of which circmcision was giyen to be immediately a sign and token, was of that earth∣ly Canaan, made with Abrahams fleshly seed onely: nor Secondly, were they believers infants only, who were there commanded to be circumcised, but all the male infants and male servants also of every houshold of Abrahams posterity by Isaac onely, through their several generations, though the parents and masters were unbelievers, as the Iews were (for the most part of them) in all ages, and both they and theirs neverthelesse to be circumcised, while that Covenant of cir∣cumcision lasted.

Thirdly, whereas he saies that circumcision of infants (for thats it he falsely

signs there with that name, viz. the sign of the Covenant of Grace) was never yet remanded, or contramanded, it is as false as all the rest for we see plainly that it was remanded by that text I am yet in hand with, viz. Act. 21. 22.