him Let this be the more carefully marked because Inferences and deductions from Scripture concerning Infants-Baptism are denyed So for Examples some are more expresly and explicitly laid down others more implicitly and covertly You have given instances of the former and I have given instances of the latter Lydia and her House The Houshold of Stephanas Baptized Again Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them Here is an express-command to Baptize such as are Discipled but what this Discipling is and who are these Disciples is not expresly laid down here but we must look what may be gathered from other Scriptures to give us light therein which I have spoken to before This distinction thus cleared I must deny your Assertion and positively affirm the contrary That there is a precept implied in the New-Testament for the Baptizing of Inchurched-Parents-Infants and as clear if not more clear than that you produce for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper You own the one though the Command and Example you produce be very implicite and entangled with many things that occasion doubting and yet you own not the other I suppose you may easily discern that the Testimonies you bring out of Luther Calvin and some others have respect only to an express Command and Example and not to an implicit one And therefore if you had dealt like a candid and punctual Antagonist you would either have owned what they held and thought as they did concerning an Implicit Command or else you would have contravened and opposed that only As for Calvins judgment see his Institutions lib. 4. Chap. 16. Artic. 5 6 7. He gives divers arguments to prove that the Baptism of Infants was instituted by God 1. saith he We have the same Promise that Israel had heretofore in Circumcision for Infants Therefore they are not to be driven away from the sign of Baptism when they are partakers of the thing-signified And then in the Article he tells you the Covenant is the thing-signified to them Diserte namque pronunciat Deus Circumcisionem infantuli loco sigilli futuram ad obsignandain foederis promissionem That is God expresly saith that the Circumcision of a little Infant should be instead of a Seal to confirm the Promise of the Covenant 2. His second Argument to prove it to be instituted of God is taken from the Covenant of Abraham which is common to us Christians 3. His third Argument is taken from the Act of Christ so courteously embracing the Infants that were brought unto him See there more at large By all which it appear's that though Calvin might deny that there was any express Command for Baptizing of Infants yet he held an Implicite Command which is the thing I was to evidence CHAP. II. To your Chapter second of Infants-Baptism disproved AS for your humane Authorities against Infant-Baptism they are of little force to overthrow it when we have so much reason out of the Holy-Scripture as hath been shewn to establish it But whereas you assert that there was no authentick practice of it for 300. years to wit next after Christ and his Apostles I shall in opposition thereunto give you what Mr. Philpot that honoured Martyr of Christ hath left us in the Book of Martyrs vol. 3. pag. 607. 608. in a Letter to a friend of his Prisoner in Newgate at the same time concerning Infant-Baptism who out of divers ancient Authors produceth the contrary to what you affirm The Baptism of Infants saith he was not denyed till above 300 years after Christ And you say that the Baptism of Infants came not into the Church till above 300 or 400 years after Christ His words are these Auxentius one of the Arrian-Sect was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some others there were in St. Bernards time as appear by his writings And in our days saith he the Anabaptists an inordinate kind of Men stirred up by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel see pag. 607. They are his words and not mine for I Believe and hope better things of many in our days what-ever they might be then And afterwards pag. 608. finally saith he I can declare out of Ancient-Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles times unto ours Neither that it was instituted by any Councils neither of the Pope nor of other Men but Commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen saith he who lived 200 years after Christ upon the declaration of the Epistle to the Romans expounding the sixth Chapter 8. v. That the Church of Christ received the Baptism of Infants from the very Apostles Hierom about 400 years after Christ maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the third Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta Augustine about 400. years after Christ reciteth for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his first Book against Julian Chap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For this cause we Baptize Children c. And he again to Hierom Epist 28.8 That Cyprian who lived about 250 years after Christ not making any new decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow-Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully-Baptized The place of Cyprian saith he is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Augustine in writing against the Donatists lib. 4. Chap. 23 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the Authority of Man neither of Councils but from the * By Tradition he means not an unwritten Tradition but a Scriptural one such as the Apostle mentions 2 Thes 3.6 2 Thes 2.15 Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril who lived in Julian's time upon Levitic cap. 8. approves the Baptism of Children and condemns the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men saith he I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children to the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Men's Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them and new imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Popes Commandment Thus far Mr. Philpot. To which let me add out of Calvin's Institutions Lib. 4. Chap. 16. Art 8. In English thus Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant longam annorum seriem post Christi resurrectionem praeteriisse quibus incognitus erat Paed obaptismus in eo faedissime mentiuntur Siquidem nullus est scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certo referat That which they scatter among the simple Common-people saith Calvin that a long tract of years passed after the Resurrection of Christ wherein Paedo-Baptism was unknown in that saith he they most shamefully lye for there is no Writer so Ancient which doth not refer it 's Original to the age
AN ESSAY Tending to Issue the Controversie ABOUT Infant Baptism From the Parity at least of Scripture-Light concerning Infant-Baptim With that of Womens being admitted to the Lords Supper SHEWING That there is as good Grounds out of Scripture for the one as for the other Occasioned by a Tender made by H. D. in his late Book against Infant-Baptism Who is willing to put the whole Controversie concerning it upon this Issue TOGETHER With an Answer to the most material things in that Book By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for Rich. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in Pauls Church-Yard 1674. TO HIS Unacquainted-Friend H. D. Author of a late Treatise against Infants-Baptism SIR HEaring of some things in the Preface of your Book relating to a noted-Person who not long before had printed some passages the noise of which by the coming abroad of your Book and as represented by you filled the minds of many with admiration astonishment One of which and a gross one was from your leaving out the word no◠mentioned in the Printers Errata with an Asterisk prefixed to it I could not rest till I had gotten a sight of them This occasioned me at first to read your Preface and afterwards your Treatise And not being satisfied with your Arguments having had some serious thoughts of that Point some Months before I resolved to attempt a friendly Answer And if I be not much mistaken to the praise of God be it spoken I found his presence going along with me in that work And because you were willing to be satisfied if as good proof were brought for Infants-Baptism as for Womens receiving the Lords Supper I thought good to begin with that and therefore could not follow you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same method you use in your Book I much wondered when I saw in your Preface and afterwards in your Book more at large the Ancient Waldenses produced as faithful impugners of Infant-Baptism as a humane and Anti-Christian Tradition and Invention which in the space of an hour or two I found plainly and expresly in four or five places contradicted out of the History of the Waldenses and Albigenses written by John Paul Perin and translated out of French by Sampson Leonard Printed Anno 1624. A particular account of which you will afterwards see which gives just cause to suspect that you may have failed in some others of your humane Authorities aswell as in that And a learned and judicious friend of mine who hath examined your other Quotations assured me that he finds the Testimonies much abused He having the opportunity of a Library which I wanted and having already taken-pains therein unknown to me even as mine was to him I suppose you will have it from himself But as you well say it is the Holy Scripture must be our Rule and that alone can satisfie Conscience and to that I stick He that knowes my Heart knowes that I desire only that the Truth may appear and be received Let the Truth stand though we should fall I hope you will find no unbrotherly Language or Bitterness though sometimes a little sharpness in what I have written I have done my Preface to you and commend the whole I have done to him alone who is able to accept it in Christ and to make it accepted by your self and any others that shall reade it Your Friend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Author TO THE READER Courteous Reader THough many Judicious and Godly men have done worthily in vindicating the Interest of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents in the External and Church-Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations and consequently their Title to Baptism which is now under the Gospel the Initiatory-Seal of that Covenant So that it may be thought needless to write any more to clear that point yet because our Brethren of the adverse party do continue to set forth something in opposition thereunto and in particular a Book lately set forth by H. D. much admired by some and cryed-up as un-answerable unto which no particular Answer that I know hath as yet been returned I have taken some pains to compose a brief and plain Answer to the most material things in it which I hope will be understood by mean capacities A thing if I mis-judg not rather to be desired than found in the writings of some able men of profound learning and judgment which renders their labours therein not so useful as otherwise they might be to the weaker sort who are most easily drawn into the contrary perswasion I must confess I have been forced to use divers Greek words and Phrases especially near the beginning because the force of my Argument lies in the Gender and proper signification of them But I hope they are so plainly interpreted that the meanest Reader whose information and good I aim at will not be at a loss as to the sence of them Many mischiefs Absurdities and Contradictions are charged by H. D. upon Infant-Baptism and those that hold it but with what Absurdity they are so charged will appear to those that impartially read the ensuing Essay Those mischiefs and Absurdities will not at all follow from the nature of the thing it self as I have stated it but are indeed fathered upon it by the ignorance or corruption of Men who are prepossest and prejudiced against it and pre-ingaged in the contrary-perswasion Sure we are that the Contrary-Opinion hath had many mischiefs attending it and many gross-Absurdities do still attend it naturally flowing out of the bowels of it It lays a foundation of denying Women's partaking in the Lords Supper and of the Christian-Sabbath and I wonder that such as deny Infant-Baptism which hath as clear a foundation in the Holy Scripture do not also deny the others And whereas Infant-Baptism is also charged to be a bone of Contention even among those that hold it whose grounds and opinions concerning it are different and therefore should be utterly relinquish't This is an Argument fitter to prevail with envassalled-Papists than with those that love the Truth and make Conscience of Contending for the least grain of that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints If this Argument were valid it might easily be shewn That our opposite Brethren are not all of one mind in all things pertaining to the case under debate But it is not my design to stir the persons of Men but to make the Truth of God and the riches of his Grace appear that the God of Truth and Grace may have the glory and the Reader may have some real benefit Farewel These ensuing Positions you will find asserted and cleared in this Essay dispersed here and there as opportunity served to treat of them 1. THat the Covenant which God made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace 2. That this Covenant comprehended not only Temporal Blessings but Spiritual also 3. That it was
when to meet with a right Subject for you do not hold an Hypocrite to be in the Covenant of Grace at all Spiritually and Savingly he is not in the Covenant of Grace for he is an Hypocrite Externally and Ecclesiastically he is not as you hold for you will not own an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace now in the days of the Gospel Yet Baptize him you do upon this conjecture that he is a true-Believer but afterwards he appears to be otherwise Now I beseech you deal ingenuously and see who is at an utter uncertainty when to have a right Subject of Baptism if you be not But as for our Subject we know where to find him We can know whether he be Externally and Ecclesiastically within the Covenant or no but cannot say infallibly he is a a true Believer or Elect unto Salvation which is out of our reach to understand and shall leave it to those that are resolved to go upon such uncertain Grounds So much to your second Reason 3. You say neither can the Child when grown up have any certain knowledg that such a Ceremony viz. as Baptism hath past upon him in Infancy he having no Infallible mark thereof as the Circumcised-Infant had This hath been punctually answered to before I shall therefore conclude against all your Demonstrations as you call them that Inchurched-Parents would lose a great and inestimable Priviledge under the Gospel if their Infants were not Externally and Ecclesiastically interessed in the Covenant and in Baptism the Seal of it and so would the Infants too and in this respect their Priviledges under the Gospel would be less than theirs under the Law I shall add further to what hath been objected 1. That our Ministry is not successive as theirs of old was to the first-born and afterwards in the Family of Levi and more particularly of Aaron We own no such thing in owning the Birth-Priviledge of Infants 2. A Gospel-Church-Estate in reference to Adult and Immediate Members is not successive For 1. It 's requisit that such persons should make a personal credible profession of Faith and Repentance and lay hold of the Covenant themselves Isa 56.4 5 6. as the Eunuch which might be the Child of a Jew must do now in these Gospel-times 2. It 's apparent that many Children of Inchurched-Parents who in their Infancy were Mediate-Members do never when grown make such a profession and lay hold of the Covenant themselves and so do never become regularly Immediate Members but some do draw back and of such God hath said His Soul shall have no pleasure in them Heb. 10.38 And thus in respect of Adult-Children of Inchurched-Parents the Church now is not successive But 3. A Gospel-Church-Estate in reference to the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is successive as it was in the Church in Abrahams Family and afterwards among the Jews as to the substance of it The Infants of Inchurched-Parents were then Mediate Members I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 And so they are now in these Gospel-days The Promise is to you and your Children Acts 2.39 4. Hence it will clearly follow that the Church under the Gospel would be less priviledged and blssed than that in the Family of Abraham and afterwards among the Jews if it were not thus successive in reference to the Children of Inchurched-Parents For both Parents in reference to their Children and Children in respect of themselves would be deprived of a Church-priviledge and Blessing which both Parents and Children of old did enjoy Which is most unsuitable and contrary to the Grace of the Gospel which is enlarged and not straitned and contrary to the whole current of Gospel-Prophecies to Inchurched-Parents and their Children For Inchurched-Believers could not in the due latitude and extent of it be Heirs according to the Promise as Gal. 3.29 If their Children should be Externally excluded from the Promise For the Childrens-right to the Promise in it's External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation is a part of the Fathers Inheritance I will be first thy God and then the God of thy Seed And it is worth our notice that those very Gospel-Promises concerning the Seed and Children do run first to the Parents and are made Immediately to them in reference to their Children Their Children shall be as afore-time and their Congregation shall be established before me Jer. 30.20 They are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them Isa 65.23 All thy Children shall be taught of God Isa 54.13 eminently to be fulfilled when Gods time shall come that all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 more Psal 102. last Ezek. 37.25 26. And hence it must needs stick with us and be a Cordolium and heart-breaking to us to lose so great a part of our inheritance from our selves and our Children If Inchurched-Parents should not be a means to convey unto their Infants an External Interest in the Covenant of Grace and a Right to Baptism now the Initiatory Seal of it then surely there must be a breach and a Rupture in the Covenant of Grace to God's people and their Seed which we can by no means admit of For we and our Gospel-Church-Estate and our Children would exceedingly suffer by it we having lost a priviledge which they of old enjoyed and nothing in the stead of it CHAP. V. The Ceremony of Baptism whether it be by dipping or Sprinkling THe Ceremony of Baptism say you is by Dipping p. 232. not by sprinkling You would prove it first by the proper and genuine signification of the Word c. For which End you produce divers Learned Authors that Baptizo properly signifies to Dip Plunge Overwhelm put Under Cover-over to die Colour which is done by plunging Yet p. 248. you grant it signifies washing Acts 22.16 Tit. 3. and Heb. 10. But say you it is such washing as is by Diping To which I Answer That the Use of the Word in Scripture which is the authentick expositour of it self gives us ground to interpret it washing by way of Sprinkling or pouring on of Water and not by Dipping What the Apostle terms divers Washings or Baptisms so the Greek Heb. 9.10 he afterwards calls sprinkling sprinkling the unclean v. 13. and v. 19. He sprinkled both the Book and the People and v. 21. He sprinkled both the Tabernacle and the Vessels of the Ministry And this is more than all humane Authorities Add to this 1 Cor. 10.1 2. Our Fathers were all Baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea I wonder you should bring this place to prove Dipping How were they Baptized in the Cloud but by the bedewings of it They were aspersed with the Atoms of the moisture that was in it And how were they Baptized in the Sea Were they plunged in it as Pharach and his Egyptians were I cannot think you will say so But they were sprinkled by the Waters as they passed by Where by the way observe